Today, attorney Tony Farese announced that the Mississippi Bar has totally dismissed his former client Zach’s Scruggs’ much ballyhooed bar complaint against him. There are no options or means to appeal the decision. This was a major part of Zach Scruggs’ public narrative to seemingly dirty up his former lawyer and federal prosecutors in support of his attempt to now claim he is not guilty of the crimes he pleaded guilty to under oath.

From Farese’s statement . . .

I am pleased to announce that the bar complaint filed against me early last year by Zach
Scruggs has now been finally dismissed by the Mississippi State Bar. In response to that
Complaint, I filed a certified twenty seven page answer, with 35 exhibits, all totaling
approximately 288 pages. In my response, I denied the allegations made against me by Zach
Scruggs, and supported my position through pleadings, contracts, and affidavits. At that time, I
stated that I had “acted ethically at all times in my representation of Zach Scruggs and Joey
Langston.”
Ultimately, after termination of my representation of Zach Scruggs, and while being
represented by four other defense attorneys, including former Mississippi Attorney General Mike
Moore, Zach Scruggs decided not to exercise his right to a trial, but instead voluntarily pled
guilty to misprision of a felony by a bill of information in Scruggs I (Lackey). He has now filed a
petition in U.S. District Court seeking to have that plea and conviction set aside.
The Committee on Professional Responsibility has now dismissed the Complaint Zach
Scruggs filed against me, finding no clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the
Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. I am gratified by the Bar’s decision, and I thank the
Committee for its careful analysis of this matter.

Sincerely,
Anthony L. “Tony” Farese

Nowhere am I looking forward more to seeing this in print than in the Daily Journal (aka ZNN). They have certainly taken every opportunity to drag Farese through the mud over the last seven months and gleefully parrot the Scruggs defense point of view.

Of course I told you this the day it happened back in August of 2010.

Right now, there are lots of fingers pulling on lots of strings in the PR world on the Scruggs’s behalf and I promise you, more is coming.
I promise.

The dismissal of the bar complaint is a major blow to Zach Scruggs’ defense team’s credibility before he asks the “portrait of Judge Neal Biggers” for relief. It will be interesting to see how ZNN and other media outlets play this. Recently, the AP and ZNN parlayed Biggers denial of Zach Scruggs motion to drag witnesses through depositions (leaving him with in essence what he already had – the ability to call witnesses in his 2255 motion) into some sort of procedural victory. We will see about what sense of urgency that they report the exoneration.

From the order

The petitioner has pointed to no information to be gained through discovery that he will not have the opportunity to pursue at the evidentiary hearing in open court from live witnesses.Therefore the motions to take pre-hearing depositions and for reconsideration of other discoveryrequests, including requests for the government to make admissions and to turn over work files, etc.,are hereby DENIED.

My prediction . . . expect the Scruggs PR machine go to into overdrive from here till the 2255 motion hearing in late April. They’ll continue to get lots of help shading stories in their favor in the media. At the end of the day, though, it’s going to be Zach standing in front of a man that people in his immediate orbit have impugned and that he pleaded guilty to under oath. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to end well for the younger Scruggs.