Attorney discipline in Tennessee is governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, whichwas revised effective January 1, 2014. Because the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Justice were instituted before the effective date of the revisions, this appeal is governed by the pre-2014 version of Rule 9. Garland v. Bd. of Prof’l Resp., 536 S.W.3d 811, 816 (Tenn. 2017); Bd. of Prof’l Resp. v. Reguli, 489 S.W.3d 408, 412 n.1 (Tenn. 2015). Pre-2014 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 24.3 provides in relevant part:
Full Answer
9.1. Any attorney practicing in this State under the authority of RPC 5.5 (c) or (d) or otherwise subject to the Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction under RPC 8.5 is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction prescribed in Section 8.1 of this Rule and the procedures for exercise of such jurisdiction prescribed in this Rule. 9.2.
Aug 16, 2021 · Attorney discipline in Tennessee is governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, which was revised effective January 1, 2014. Because the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Justice were instituted before the effective date of the revisions, this appeal is governed by the pre-2014 version of Rule 9. Garland v. Bd. of Prof’l Resp., 536 S.W.3d
Sep 09, 2013 · Rule 9 has been completely rewritten and in a nutshell the principal changes to the rule governing attorney discipline in Tennessee are as follows: Any reinstatement from attorney suspensions, administrative and disciplinary matters will now require an order from the Supreme Court, while a separate reinstatement fee would be required for reinstatement from an …
in this opinion to Rule 9 are therefore to the version in effect at the time of Mr. Hancock’s disciplinary hearing. 4 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 3.5(b) provides1 that “[a] lawyer shall not . . . communicate ex parte with [a judge] during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order.” 15 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 3.5(e) prohibits lawyers …
Parrish and ordered him to pay the costs within 45 days.
The chancery court affirmed the hearing panel’s findings as to rule violations and aggravating and mitigating factors, but it modified the sanction to two years active suspension.
The Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed a Petition for Discipline against James MacDonald (“Attorney”) based on a single complaint arising from his representation of Michael Huddleston. A hearing panel (“the Panel”) was appointed and, after an evidentiary hearing, the Panel dismissed the Petition for Discipline and concluded that the Board “failed to sustain its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Attorney violated” any Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Thereafter, the Board filed a petition for review of the Panel’s decision in the Knox County Chancery Court. The chancery court reversed the Panel’s dismissal of all six rule violations and determined that the Panel’s conclusions were arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by the evidence. In addition, the chancery court held that the Panel abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard. The chancery court found that Attorney violated all six rules alleged in the Board’s petition and imposed a public censure as punishment. Attorney sought review in this Court, arguing that the chancery court incorrectly substituted its own judgment for that of the Panel’s and abused its discretion. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the chancery court’s conclusion that Attorney violated RPC 3.3 (b) and (c), 3.4 (a) and (b), and 8.4 (a), and we reinstate the Panel’s dismissal of those allegations. Additionally, we hold that the chancery court was without authority to conclude that Attorney violated RPC 8.4 (c), and this Court must treat the Panel’s failure to make a conclusion as a dismissal of the allegation. Therefore, the Petition for Discipline against Attorney is dismissed in its entirety.
This is an attorney discipline proceeding concerning attorney George H. Thompson, III, and his representation of a client in her personal injury action. After filing a nonsuit on his client’s behalf, the attorney failed to refile the case in a timely manner, which resulted in the client’s claim being barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The attorney later admitted his error and paid the client a sum of money to settle her potential claim against him; however, the attorney failed to advise the client in writing that she should seek independent legal counsel in reaching a settlement. The Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) filed a petition for discipline against the attorney, and a hearing panel (“Panel”) imposed a sanction of a one-year suspension with thirty days to be served as an active suspension and the remainder to be served on probation with conditions. The attorney sought review of the Panel’s decision in chancery court, and upon its review, the chancery court affirmed the Panel’s decision. The attorney has now filed a direct appeal to this Court. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable legal authorities, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court.
Rule 9, Section 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee identifies the types of disciplinary action that may be imposed on lawyers licensed in the state. One of the options available to the Board of Professional Responsibility is public censure.
Rule 9, Section 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee identifies the types of disciplinary action that may be imposed on lawyers licensed in the state. One of the options available to the Board of Professional Responsibility is a reprimand.
Rule 9, Section 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee identifies the types of disciplinary action that may be imposed on lawyers licensed in the state. One of the options available to the Board of Professional Responsibility is private informal admonition.
Probation may be imposed on an attorney in place of suspension but should be used only in cases where there is little likelihood that the attorney will harm the public during the period of rehabilitation, and where conditions of probation -- which are to be stated in writing -- can be adequately supervised.
Orders imposing suspension are effective 10 days after issuance, except where the court finds that immediate suspension is necessary to protect the public. On the effective date of the suspension order, if not immediately, a lawyer may not undertake new legal matters and must cease representing current clients.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines disbarment as a special proceeding peculiar to itself that is neither a civil nor criminal action but a disciplinary proceeding resulting from the inherent power of the court over its officers.
Attorneys in Tennessee are placed on disability inactive status by the state Supreme Court for four primary reasons:
Brooks’ petition for reinstatement without prejudice to his ability to file a new petition in compliance with Rule 9 , is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Nathan E. Brooks, for which execution may issue if necessary.
In 1997, Mr. Brookswas served with a petition for disciplineby the Respondent/Appellee Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee (“Board”). “Faced with possible disbarment,”Mr. Brooks “entered into a negotiated settlement with the Board on February 13, 1998,”in which he admitted he was guilty of violating multiple disciplinary rules, agreed to a two-year suspension of his law license, “agreed to pay restitution on twelve complaints totaling $8,532.50, and [agreed]to pay costs and expenses of the proceeding, totaling $2,028.82.” Brooks v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 145 S.W.3d 519, 520–22 (Tenn. 2004). Thus, pursuantto an agreedorder of this Court, Mr. Brooks’ law licensewas suspended for two years . Payment of costs and expenses was required as a condition precedent to reinstatement. Id. at 522.
It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to: (1) violate or attempt to violate the [State Rules of Professional Conduct], or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers; (2) engage in conduct violating applicable rules of professional conduct of another jurisdiction;
Lesser Misconduct. Lesser misconduct is conduct that does not warrant a sanction restricting the respondent's license to practice law. Conduct shall not be considered lesser misconduct if any of the following considerations apply: (7) the misconduct is part of a pattern of similar misconduct.