In The Garden Of Jefferson Davis

The Mississippi Supreme Court has denied a disbarred attorney’s fourth petition for reinstatement

Stewart was disbarred after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. Stewart I, 890 So. 2d at 900. This Court found that Stewart’s crime was one that warranted disbarment under Rule 6(a) of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. Id.

Petitioner’s post-disbarment activities

Stewart previously served as the executive director of Beauvoir, the home and presidential library of Jefferson Davis. Stewart IV, 326 So. 3d at 394. In Stewart IV, this Court found that “documentation provided to the Bar from Beauvoir indicate[d] that Stewart, at times, conducted himself in an unprofessional manner” and that “[c]orrespondence from Beauvoir staff members show[ed] Stewart’s sarcastic, offensive, and demeaning management style.” Id. The Court included six examples, identified as “a” through “f,” in the opinion. Id. at 394-95.

 For example

May 22, 2016 email from Stewart to Beauvoir’s director of development and programs regarding Beauvoir’s garden in which Stewart refers to the garden as “an abomination” and “ugly and awful.” Id.

In response, Stewart asserts that “[c]onsidering . . . the recipient of his email was a chain smoking, former discount beer and cigarette store clerk, who openly bragged about shooting a man dead in California, before moving to Mississippi, [he] felt like plain language would be better understood.” He explains that his concern over the garden was based on Beauvoir’s receipt of a $480,000 grant that required the property to be properly maintained.

The court

Notably, on multiple occasions in his petition, Stewart defends his actions by stating that nothing about the above-referenced conduct adversely affects his moral character. But while one example, standing alone, might not reflect an adverse moral character, several instances of unprofessionalism does adversely reflect moral character.

Social media

In 2017, the director of development and programs at Beauvoir notified the board members that Beauvoir had received a message on its Facebook page regarding Stewart. Specifically, the Board was advised as follows:

Gentlemen:
There is a page on Face Book that is set up for people who don’t like President Trump. The creator of the page[,] Amy Schenkemeyer, sent us a message with screen shots of a conversation she had with Greg Stewart. From his post to her[,] she accessed his Face Book page. Which is the reason why we received her message. From his page[,] she noticed his affiliation with Beauvoir. If she decides to make [the conversation] public, Beauvoir will suffer. At this point[,] the conversation has not been made public.

The conversation between Stewart and Schenkemeyer was attached to the email. Throughout the conversation, Stewart uses profanity and offensive language, including racist and discriminatory language. Id. (footnote omitted). Footnote 5 noted that “Stewart repeatedly refers to Schenkemeyer as a ‘dumb c**t’ as well as a ‘b***h’ and a ‘whore’ and states that Schenkemeyer can ‘go suck that Mexican d**k.’” Id. n.5.

In response, Stewart denies having the conversation with Schenkemeyer on Facebook. He explains that someone must have hacked into his computer.

The court

While Stewart’s hacking allegation is possible, it seems that if someone wanted to sabotage Stewart via social media, there were much easier options, options that would have guaranteed to bring to light the offensive conduct to be used against Stewart. Moreover, although Stewart denies the offensive posts, the record reflects Stewart’s tendency to use derogatory and demeaning language.

Merits

Nowhere in his petition does Stewart assert that he should have exercised better judgment or handled a situation differently. Instead, he makes excuses, blames others, and asserts things such as “[i]f every attorney who used a common curse word was not allowed to become licensed or be reinstated then there would be very few attorneys in the State of Mississippi.” In fact, Stewart spends the majority of his petition explaining why this Court erroneously denied his third petition by relying on documents related to Beauvoir. And he even suggests that the federal investigation that led to his disbarment was motivated by Norman and the United States Attorney’s Office, not because of his misconduct in 1998 but because of something he did in 1983 that he “had gotten away with.”

Stewart’s deflection is incredible. Stewart was disbarred because he paid a witness, not once or twice, but six times, “to intentionally absent himself from the justice court proceedings on . . . DUI citations” resulting “in the dismissal of the cases against Stewart’s clients.” Stewart II, 5 So. 3d at 346. Regardless of Norman’s and/or the United States Attorney’s Office’s alleged motivation, Stewart’s actions and Stewart’s actions alone led to his disbarment. Likewise, Stewart’s actions and Stewart’s actions alone led to the denial of his prior petitions for reinstatement.

The court’s decision denying the third petition is linked here. (Mike Frisch)