Jackson Jambalaya

Love it KF. And because you don't have enough to do, keep updating this as the records are disclosed 'publicly' in the lawyer mag.

i don't understand this comment at 10:24. they are disclosed publicly.

Hey, I heard the last FIVE issues are available on the site. I say "highlight" them here for easy access!

For 11:20, what I meant was disclosing this information publicly would mean (at least from a common sense standpoint) for the Bar to publish this information on their website, not some obscure trade publication. It would be real easy. You could have a section devoted to sanctions, as well as being able to view any/all sanctions under an atty's name. That's disclosure to the general public. Bet the average Joe out there has never heard of this mag, nor would he know that's where he needs to look to view any sanction info.

I'm a physician, having practiced in four states, and I have never heard of an anonymous, "private reprimand" for physician wronddoing. Then again, we don't write the laws ;-)

Oops - that's "wrongdoing"

Sorry Doc, lawyers deliver your reprimand in the form of a letter demanding settlement for their grieved client, meritorious or not, most likely you settle. Lawyers win again! And they are the oversight on our medical system??? No wonder medical costs are OUT OF CONTROL. Attorneys cannot back away from their actions have had a direct impact on the practice of "defensive medicine" and the correlated increase in medical expenses.

Nothing prohibits physicians from writing laws. Run for office.

1) My point was that ALL physican reprimands for any reason (trivial or gravely serious) are PUBLIC in all states where I have practiced. Why should lawyers' transgressions be shielded from public scutiny?

2) I'm the only physician in the state (also AL, TN & LA) who practices what I do. If I stop who will take care of my patients? Why would I a) put my family through the public scrutiny and character assassination that accompanies apparently all political campaigns; b) give up doing something that I enjoy doing, is essential for society, and that I've spent decades learning to do; and c) all to trade horses with the worm farmer and his ilk? Thanks but no thanks.

Doc, I was completely agreeing with you.

I too believe that lawyers' transgressions should be made public, completely public. This scolding behind the cloak of anonymity does nothing for self-policing of their profession. How can it be that the legal profession can make punishable mistakes and it not be made public. Shame on the profession's self-governance. Its a protected industry and one that rewards mistakes by never making an example of "poor" practice. Judges do sure feel OK with handing out high sentences for petty drug offenses, I wonder how the profession deals with situations like this internally? We all know that substance abuse runs high in professional practices.

@2:17-since you are obviously a specialist in a small field, creating the straw man that I asserted that YOU have to run is not a reasonable response given the context of the exchange and that I had no means of possessing that critical information prior to your own disclosure. What you do is obviously not the same as areas of medicine that are more populated with physicians.

You, yourself, do not have to run; however, the mantra repeated endlessly by physicians is something to the effect of "we don't hold office" and/or "we don't write the laws". If physicians' livelihoods are threatened by lawyers (as all my doc friends swear to me they are), I find it astonishing that so few decide to try change the system. That is why someone might give up what they love doing.

As for physician's transgressions-are you telling me that every doc who gets caught playing with their own script pad get a public punishment? (That is not a loaded question, I really want to know.)

You complain about public scrutiny? I thought transparency was the issue that you were complaining about regarding lawyers. Moreover, you don't want elected officials put through a public ringer to determine if they are qualified or have skeletons in their closets that may be things voters should be aware of (and no, I am not saying that it completely protects society against bad public officials)?

Anyway, and despite all the above bloviating, I don't understand the doc v. lawyer thing and probably never will.

Lawyers are scum. Bottom line.

Ahh, a layer, ahem, lawyer responds. Such prose, what did you charge for that flowery, pretentious, frankly boring response 7:07pm? Sure you can't charge that to a client some way? Maybe we will see you on the list someday, or hidden in a PDF long lost on a site that the general public has no knowledge of, or maybe we will se you here. I've been thinking a great deal about consolidating all lawyer disbars, punishments, admonishments, etc. for public scrutiny. I've been talking to doctors.

@8:02, that was my point in my earlier post today. TheBar should post ALL sanction actions on their website...it shouldn't be up to the public to keep a 'public' record.

Miss Bar is a joke.

8:02

My name is Jarrod Taylor, and I don't hide behind anything. The documents I file bear my name and signature, for good or ill. So, be my guest and search all you want. Nothing is "hidden".

And, seeing whereas I wrote my response holding a 3 month old, I will take you sardonic remarks as high praise.

Now, would you introduce yourself to the crowd?

Good try.

Neither profession polices itself very well. Both professions are well aware of the those within their ranks in this community who ought not be practicing. Neither publishes punishment in such a way as for the general public to have easy access...there's no full page ads or billboards out there.

Doctor, you know that over 100000 Americans die every year from mistakes in hospitals, right? You know or should know of monetarily successful groups and doctors here that are better at marketing than medicine. Did a one of you lawyers think the above mentioned colleagues weren't sleazy? I've heard about Peters and Pittman for decades.
I'm neither a doctor or a lawyer but someone who has socialized with both. I've heard y'all talk about your colleagues so give me a break and stop sniping at each other and tend to your own houses first.
But, the good news lawyers, is when you screw up or someone in your profession screws up, the client doesn't DIE.

By the way, none of you have to run for office to change laws. You have professional associations with people you employ to lobby for you. More than a few of you likely give money to some PAC or party.
If you didn't golf, hunt, fish or have family social connections with the incompetent in your professions, you'd have run the incompetent off long ago.
You don't rock the boat because you are afraid of the professional and social consequences. Well, the guys you love to hate have the same fears.
To both groups, I say, put up or shut up. All you've succeeded in doing by attacking each other is to lower the respect for both professions. Way to go.

I wasn't "trying" anything. People were posting without using their names while complaining about transparency.

In law school our dean gave a lecture to our whole class after he received an bitching letter sent anonymously. To quote his truthful statement, "If you are going to be sending anonymous letter, you won't be much of a lawyer." I would modify that from "lawyer" to "anything".

Unless you are trying for regime change against the mullahs. Then anonymity is the only responsible policy.

Jarrod Taylor

I'm posting anonymous...na-na-na-na boo-boo...

;-)

And another thing, the subject at hand is professional transparency. This site is about jackassery. As such I retain the ability, no the right, to publish anonymously. However, with regards to professional transparency, if you hold the responsibility to represent someone and profit, you are held to a higher standard. You cannot impose your responsibility on others, especially others who are not LICENSED to practice law and PROFIT from it.

9:26, publish however you feel like it. I am simply stating that it is rather odd to complain about transparency and then write from an opaque corner (when we are not talking about security issues-that is different).

However, 8:02 made a personal remark to me insinuating that I may have something to "hide". I list my name so 8:02 can satisfy themselves.

JWT

8:02 here...Nothing personal, my comment was meant to be a general condemnation typical of the legal profession in MS. I am aware there are many great attorneys in MS, but there are plenty who are not so "great". I do commend you for speaking up and self identifying. You got cred with me. Peace.

8:02, kudos to you for you.

Peace to you as well and happy holidays.

JWT

8:02, sorry that supposed to be "Kudos to you for your honesty."

JWT

May EVERYONE (lawyer, physician, salesman, painter, etc.) have happy holidays. It is sad we have gotten to this point.

Aw, heck, JT we're just havin' fun!

Doc @ 2:17pm: "My point was that ALL physican reprimands for any reason (trivial or gravely serious) are PUBLIC in all states where I have practiced."

Doc, it seems blatantly unfair to me there is no such thing as a private reprimand or censure for physicians. Not all misconduct rises to such a level that it should warrant a public record. For example, where a doc develops a substance abuse problem, but no patient is ever harmed, why is a public record necessary? It seems a more appropriate sanction would be private censure, probation, treatment, monitoring, etc.

That result would serve the interest of the public and the ends of justice.


Anon @7:50 p.m.: "Lawyers are scum. Bottom line."

After 10 years of practicing law, I'm inclined to concur.

4:17 A public record of physician substance abuse " when no patient has been harmed" is necessary because a patient not only COULD be harmed in the future... including fatally, but it's impossible to know that patients haven't already been harmed by missed diagnoses.

Those who abuse substances don't stop abusing easily and doctors have access to both substances and the means to better hide their substance abuse.

As a patient, I should get to decide whether or not I want to take the risk that sobriety " took" and be aware that the lack of sobriety may have affected the quality of the care I had received.

7:42, I respectfully disagree.

Could does not equal will.

Further, think about it-a person goes to a doc for treatment and does not disclose past abuse issues. The doc works with the best knowledge they have, and complications can occur (think people on the edge of AFLD-and doc prescribes something say that is not be used by people with any liver complications-and this stuff happens all the time). Doc then gets sued. Doc's fault? NO. Will doc get sued? I bet there is a good chance as if the abuse problems have been hidden by the patient.

JWT

unless a doctor is writing prescriptions of oxycontin in exchange for sex or a specialty group tries to corner a market to the exclusion of others within the same specialty, the Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure doesn't give a rip. Good lawyers police the bad doctors. As for the bad lawyers...well, as someone said earlier, at least no one dies when they screw up.

Isn't there a new report here?

I understand that a Jackson realtor is being investigated for fradulent practices. Do you know if this is true or not?