Board_Notes_Fall_2016.pdf (2016)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (Board_Notes_Fall_2016.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES published by the
Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2016

Inside: Greeting from Justice Roger Page
Supreme Court Liaison, Board of Professional Responsibility
Spotlight: Board of Professional
2
Responsibility Celebrates 40 Years
The Board of Professional Responsibility is pleased to
Additional Information for Attorneys celebrate its 40th Anniversary this year. Please read about the
4 regarding Mental Health and evolution of the Board as outlined in this newsletter. The
Substance Abuse
Board is a valuable asset to attorneys and the public alike,
providing pertinent information about the judicial process and
“You Realize that Your Colleague
5
Needs Help…Now What???
the disciplinary system to the public and assisting attorneys in
fulfilling their ethical obligations within the confines of the
Court’s disciplinary rules. In addition to presenting
“Enabling” the Alcoholic or continuing legal education seminars and updating the Board’s
10
Addict
website with recent developments in rule changes and
disciplinary decisions, the Board also publishes this semi-
Formal Ethics Opinion 2016-F-
12 161: Settlement Agreements
annual newsletter, Board Notes, for the benefit of all of the
and Lawyers’ Work Product judges and attorneys in Tennessee. We hope that the
information contained in this newsletter will be helpful to you
Disciplinary Actions as we seek to improve our justice system and the relationship
17
March 2016 - September 2016 between attorneys and clients.

1
Board of Professional Responsibility
Celebrates 40th Anniversary
By Sandy Garrett, Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

On December 18, 1975, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order effective
January 1, 1976, establishing the Board of Professional Responsibility. The Court created
the Board of Professional Responsibility in its inherent and exclusive power to supervise
attorneys and as part of the Court’s decision in Petition of Tennessee Bar Association, 532
S.W. 2d 224 (Tenn. 1975).

In its initial design, the Tennessee Supreme Court established the Rules of
Disciplinary Enforcement. These Rules created a nine-lawyer Board of Professional
Responsibility assisted by two Disciplinary Counsel and four support staff. Twenty-one
years later, the Court added three lay members to the nine-member attorneys on the Board.
Today, eleven attorneys and 22 support staff assist the Board with registration, consumer
assistance, investigations, litigation and ethics inquiries.

The annual fee first set by the Supreme Court was $15.00 (for attorneys practicing
less than five years) and $25.00 (for attorneys practicing five years or more). The Board’s
current annual fee is $170.00. This fee has remained constant since 2009 and is divided
among the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program, Lawyers Fund for Client Protection and
the Board of Professional Responsibility.

In 1977, Chief Counsel Robert Roberts reported, “It has not been an easy task to
complete the registration since no comprehensive list existed heretofore. Many lawyers are
engaged in the practice of law, as defined in the Rule, but are not full-time private
practitioners, and did not know Rule 42 existed…” As of September 1, 1977, 6,300
attorneys were registered with the Board. Today, the Board has 22,422 active attorneys and
4,473 inactive attorneys registered totaling 26,895.

From March 1, 1976 to August 31, 1977, the Board received 411 complaints resulting
in 3 private reprimands; 11 suspensions, and 3 disbarments. In 2015-2016, the Board
received 1,086 complaints resulting in 42 private informal admonitions; 14 private
reprimands; 43 public censures; 27 disciplinary suspensions and 19 disbarments. (Please
see the Board’s 2015-2016 Annual Report for more detailed information.)

2
Board of Professional Responsibility
Celebrates 40th Anniversary
(continued from the previous page)

Finally, in keeping with the adage, “some things never change,” neglect and failure
to communicate were the predominant types of complaints in 1977 and that is still true in
2016.

Nature of Complaints -- 1977 Nature of Complaints -- 2016

Through the years, the Board has developed and enhanced programs to assist lawyers,
judges and the public. Some of these improvements include written and telephonic ethics
opinions, a consumer assistance program, continuing legal education presentations, trust
account overdraft notifications, diversion, an Ethics Workshop, online registration, online
complaint submission, email notifications and Board Notes.

The Board strives to continually improve on assisting the Court in protecting the
public; assisting the public by providing information about the judicial system and
disciplinary process, and assisting lawyers in interpreting and applying the Rules of
Professional Conduct.

3
Additional Information for Tennessee Attorneys regarding
Mental Health and Substance Abuse

This past July, the Board of Professional Responsibility, in collaboration with the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program, the Board of Law Examiners, and the Continuing Legal Education Commission,
published a Special Edition of Board Notes containing information for Tennessee attorneys on mental health
and substance abuse. The response to this publication was very positive and resulted in requests for additional
information on these topics.

Because of this, we are including additional articles on this topic in the Fall 2016 issue of Board Notes.
The first article was contributed by Laura McClendon, Executive Director of the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program (TLAP) entitled, “You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…Now What???” The
second article, “Enabling the Alcoholic or Addict,” was authored by J.E. “Buddy” Stockwell, Executive
Director of the Louisiana Lawyers Assistance Program. Both articles provide helpful information and insight
regarding what to do (or what not to do) if you suspect a colleague may have a mental health or substance
abuse issue.

4
You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…
Now What???
By Laura McClendon, Executive Director
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP)

Are you concerned about a colleague, friend, or loved one who needs help and may not realize it? Do
you see signs of alcohol or drug use that impair work or family relationships? Do you think there may be
depression or mental health issues involved? Would you like to help but don’t know what to do?

As a member of the legal profession, you are a trained, competent problem solver. It’s uncomfortable
to find yourself in a position in which you may feel inept, so the first instinct is to ignore it. You can march
confidently into any legal arena, but somehow it’s petrifying to confront someone you know and/or love to
tell them that you’re concerned.

Let’s start by confirming your fears. The first reaction is always denial: Maybe I’m imagining it?
Maybe it’s not that bad. Maybe I’m over reacting. Besides, is it really any of my business? After all, he’s
been through a lot. I don’t want to make it worse! What if I say something and I’m totally off track? It
might make things awkward. It might make him hate me!

The truth is, we don’t sit around and worry about people indiscriminately. If you’ve had a nagging
feeling that something is off—it probably is. And most likely you’re not the only one who has noticed.

Here are some signs and symptoms when things aren’t “right”:

Identifying Attorney:
Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, Substance Abuse, Compulsive Gambling,
Depression, Anxiety and Stress

Relationship Problems

❑ Complaints from clients ❑ Inconsistencies/discrepancies in describing events
❑ Problems with supervisors ❑ Hostile attitude
❑ Disagreements or inability to work with colleagues ❑ Overreacts to criticism
❑ Avoidance of others ❑ Unpredictable, rapid mood swings
❑ Irritable; impatient ❑ Non-responsive communication
❑ Angry outbursts

Personal Problems

❑ Legal separation or divorce ❑ Decreased performance after lunches with alcohol
❑ Credit problems; judgments; tax liens; bankruptcy ❑ Isolating from friends, family and social activities
❑ Frequent illnesses or accidents ❑ Arrests/warnings while under the influence

5
You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…
Now What???
(continued from the previous page)

Attendance Problems

❑ Late ❑ Ill with vague ailments
❑ Leaving early ❑ Absent (especially Mondays/Fridays)
❑ Taking “long lunches” ❑ Frequent rest room breaks
❑ Not returning to work after lunch ❑ Improbable excuses for absences
❑ Missing appointments ❑ Last-minute cancellations
❑ Unable to be located

Trust Account

❑ Missing checks to be deposited ❑ Pay personal expenses from trust account
❑ Debit card withdrawals ❑ ”Borrowing” from trust account
❑ Incomplete or irregular records ❑ Failure to timely disburse funds
❑ Pay office expenses from trust account ❑ Incomplete accounting for receipts and
disbursements

Performance Problems

❑ Missed deadlines ❑ Inability to concentrate
❑ Decreased efficiency ❑ Difficulty remembering details or directions
❑ Decreased performance after lunches with alcohol ❑ General difficulty with recall
❑ Inadequate follow through ❑ Blaming or making excuses for poor performance
❑ Lack of attention ❑ Erratic work patterns
❑ Poor judgment

Miscellaneous

❑ Failure to renew law license ❑ Lapsed insurance policies
❑ Non-compliance with CLE ❑ Failure to file tax returns
❑ Non-responsive to Discipline ❑ Failure to pay taxes

6
You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…
Now What???
(continued from the previous page)

Now What?
You’ve read the above and your worries have intensified. The first thing you can do is contact TLAP
for confidential assistance. Even though you may want to be the one who handles the situation, TLAP can
give you the emotional support and coaching that you need.

Next Steps:

• Educate yourself.
• Don’t blame yourself.
• Don’t take responsibility for making your colleague, friend or loved one well.
• Approach the person to talk about getting help when you are calm.
• Don’t make it easier for your colleague, friend or loved one to continue self-destructive behavior.
• Don’t preach or lecture.
• Don’t use guilt.
• Realize that your colleague, friend or loved one’s illness can affect his or her thoughts and views.
• Do your best to give support and be patient throughout the recovery process.
• Allow your colleague, friend or loved one to spend the time he/she needs with support. groups and
treatment.
• Get support for yourself.
• Never give up hope.

Approaching the Colleague

• Concern: State your love and/or concern for the person.
• Incident: Describe in detail a specific incident that backs up your concern.
• Evidence: If you have evidence or additional details about other incidents, present them now.
• Feelings: Describe how being a helpless witness to the problem has made you feel.
• Concern: Close with another statement of concern.
• Action: Tell them what you’d like them to do get help. You can always tell them to call TLAP.

7
You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…
Now What???
(continued from the previous page)

Examples
(Provided by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program)

Mental Health

Joan, I’m present because I care about you. I can no longer sit idly by and watch you destroy yourself and
your career. I’m concerned about your clients and if you are adequately meeting their needs.

I have watched you withdraw from the partners and avoid office staff when they attempt to pin down your
appointments. You are irritable in your dealings with both staff and clients. You’ve shared that you are not
sleeping well. You look tired and worn out. I know you haven’t been at the athletic club.

It is obvious to me that something is wrong. You aren’t submitting time sheets. You’re late in the office,
working late hours in the evening, and spending more time in the office on weekends. To be honest, I don’t
know what you’re working on. I see little productivity. Your clients are calling me for updates on their files.
You have missed filing deadlines in court. You don’t seem to have the focus you once did. I don’t think you
are drinking, but I think you are depressed or burned out or both.

I’m worried about your neglect of yourself and for the clients. Please get the help suggested by TLAP.

Drug and/or Alcohol Dependence

Mike, I have known you for over 15 years. We have practiced law together for over 10 of them. For the first
_____ years you were competent and I was proud to be your partner. Not now. You come to work late. You
take extended lunches and you leave early. The morning after you’ve had a bender, I can smell the alcohol
coming from your pores. There is talk all over the courthouse about you appearing with alcohol on your
breath. You were a partier in law school. Heck, we all were known to have a few. Mike, I’ve never seen you
slow down. I even heard that you were seen at that strip bar on Cleveland Avenue, intoxicated, with a huge
wad of cash.

The firm is getting complaints. I’ve heard you lie to clients on the phone, avoid their calls and ask our staff
to lie about your being in court. You are losing your credibility with clients and colleagues. I thought the
DUI you got two years ago would have been a wake-up call. It doesn’t appear so. I can’t believe anything
you say to me anymore. Frankly, I’m tired of covering for you.

The fact of the matter is, Mike, you just plain don’t look good. You have tremors, I’ve seen sweat running
down your forehead in the middle of the morning. Your eyes are always red. You are really going downhill.
I have to keep telling you the same information regarding client matters and you then try to act like you are
quizzing me. It looks like you are having blackouts. You just aren’t retaining information. I’m worried that
you don’t have it under control. I think the tail is wagging the dog. This is not the path you want to be on.
Honestly, I miss you, Mike. You can’t lick this one on your own and you don’t have to. I want you to get
help and follow up on treatment if it is suggested. I need you to call TLAP today.

8
You Realize that Your Colleague Needs Help…
Now What???
(continued from the previous page)

TLAP
TLAP is a free, confidential assistance program providing consultation,
referral, intervention, and crisis counseling for lawyers, judges, bar
applicants and law students who are struggling with substance abuse,
stress or emotional health issues. TLAP’s work contributes to the
protection of the public and the improvement of the integrity and
reputation of the legal profession.

Call today (615) 741-3238 or (877) 424-8527.

Additional articles about helping your colleague:

• “Enabling” The Alcoholic or Addict, by Buddy Stockwell, Executive Director, Louisiana Lawyers
Assistance Program
• Coping Tips For Families Of Persons With A Mental Health Condition,
by the Oregon Lawyer Assistance Program
• When Helping Hurts: A Guide For Law Firms And Families, Part 1 and Part 2, by Robynn E.
Moraites, Executive Director, North Carolina Lawyers Assistance Program
• Identifying Suicidal Signs, by Dr. Darcy Haag Granello & Dr. Paul F. Granello
• Suicide Warning Signs, Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program: www.tlap.org

9
“Enabling” the Alcoholic or Addict
By J.E. (Buddy) Stockwell, Executive Director, Louisiana Lawyers Assistance Program*

Alcoholics and drug addicts often have “enablers” behind the scenes who, without even realizing it,
play a role in supporting, rather than arresting, the diseases of alcoholism and addiction.

Enabling emanates from a sense of duty to protect loved ones and to help friends. We assist in
getting the person out of immediate troubles with a DWI arrest, financial difficulty or failed responsibilities.
We assume that the person will have learned his/her lesson, be thankful for the help and will “fly right”
thereafter.

But when it comes to the alcoholic or addict, the bitter truth is that when family and friends protect a
person from the full consequences of his/her substance-use-related behavior, they also participate indirectly
in minimizing the true severity of the problem. With the severe consequences abated, the problem is no
longer seen as serious so clinical intervention is not sought.

Authors Jeff and Debra Jay, experts in the field of clinical intervention, write about “enabling” in
their book LOVE FIRST, a Family’s Guide to Intervention (2008, 2nd Edition, Hazelden Press) and delineate
two categories: 1) Innocent Enabling; and 2) Desperate Enabling.

Innocent Enabling occurs during the incubatory stages of substance-use disorders. It is rooted in
love for the person and in denial as to the true potential for an alcohol or drug problem. The Substance-
related problems of a loved one or friend or friend are written off as bad luck, youthful indiscretions, stress-
related or perhaps all deemed the result of a “wild phase” that will surely pass in the fullness of time.

As the person’s team of enablers continues to bail the person out of recurring scrapes, the enablers
likely find themselves going to greater and greater lengths to protect the person from consequences.
Enablers will do things such as concoct alibis for the person’s behavior, loan the person money, or use
influence to sway police, prosecutors or the court to “go easy” on repeat substance-related arrests, etc.

Despite all of the enablers’ help, eventually the person gets into more scrapes and more troubles due
to alcohol (or drugs). In their book LOVE FIRST, the Jays describe this first, innocent stage of enabling as
“fertilizer” that actually supports the growth of the disease of alcoholism or addition in the person.

To the enablers’ credit and recognizing that their intentions are good, it’s often very difficult to see
these situations for what they really are. When a son or daughter is arrested for driving drunk or for
possession of illegal substances, for example, the parents usually seek the aid of a lawyer to help their loved
one navigate the criminal justice system. Most of the time, no one even thinks about sending the son or
daughter to a high-quality treatment center or for an in-depth, substance-use-disorder assessment. The focus
is on avoiding prosecution, not on finding real answers as to why the loved one behaved in a way that
resulted in arrest.

*Reprinted with permission.

10
“Enabling” the Alcoholic or Addict
(continued from the previous page)

So, in many cases, the opportunity to address alcoholism and addiction in the early stages is missed.
While the enablers wait and hope that the person will outgrow the alcohol or drug problem, the disease does
not wait; it uses the time to strengthen its grip upon the person.

Desperate Enabling is the next phase. It is rooted in reality and fear. The alcohol (or drug) use is
out of control and family and friends know it. There is no longer any way to pretend with a straight face that
the person is not an alcoholic or addict. But, even then, enabling and covering up problems are still the
default settings. Families fear that the family’s reputation will be harmed if the truth gets out. There is also
fear of what might happen to the alcoholic or addict, including the possibility of being incarcerated in some
cases. Friends begin to stay clear and don’t know how to help anymore.

Extreme examples involve adult alcoholics or addicts moving back in with parents. The parents will
house, clothe, feed and supply the son or daughter with money (for drugs, if need be, even illegal drugs).
Parents will pay off gambling debts, continue to pay off drug dealers or give an allowance for drugs, and do
whatever it takes to try and reduce the alcoholic’s or addict’s pain.

The Jays report that, on average, it takes 11 years for a family to shift the efforts from enabling to
promoting clinical intervention and treatment. Unless the enablers change, there is little or no incentive for
the alcoholic or addict to change.

11
Formal Ethics Opinions
2016-F-161

On September 9, 2016, the Board of Professional Responsibility issued a
Formal Ethics Opinion regarding the ethical propriety of a settlement agreement
that requires the release of lawyer work product. To the extent settlement
provisions require attorneys to turn over documents protected by the lawyer work
product doctrine, the provisions may be prohibited by Tennessee Rule of
Professional Conduct 5.6(b). That is, a lawyer may not propose or agree to a
settlement agreement that requires a lawyer to turn over any work product
materials as part of the settlement if that action will restrict his representation of
other clients.

A copy of Formal Ethics Opinion 2016-F-161 is attached.

12
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2016-F-161

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion
on the ethical propriety of a settlement agreement that requires the release of lawyer work
product.

OPINION

To the extent settlement provisions require attorneys to turn over documents
protected by the lawyer work product doctrine, the provisions may be prohibited by Tennessee
Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(b). That is, a lawyer may not propose or agree to a settlement
agreement that requires a lawyer to turn over any work product materials as part of the settlement
if that action will restrict his representation of other clients.

DISCUSSION

The inquiring lawyer has encountered a condition to settlement in product liability cases
against a certain defendant that requires plaintiff’s counsel to release his work product.

Plaintiff’s counsel received from Defendant 541,927 pages in image form and had to
electronically convert every single page to a pdf document. Plaintiff’s counsel then processed
the 541, 927 pages with optical character recognition to make each document searchable. The
documents were then organized by relevant subtopics and incorporated into demonstrative
exhibits. Creating this work product was the only way to understand the complex issues in the
case, articulate the product defects, depose experts, present claims, and ultimately reach a
successful settlement for the client. Plaintiff’s counsel relied on the produced materials to cut a
full-size vehicle into parts for use in explaining complex engineering, vehicle dynamics, and
safety mechanisms to the jury. This demonstrative evidence is useless without the underlying
work product.

The parties agreed on a settlement amount, and as a condition precedent to signing the
settlement agreement Defendant demanded return of all documents produced which included
Plaintiff counsel’s work product.

13
Work product has been defined as “tangible material or its intangible equivalent”
that is collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation.1 The United States Supreme Court in a
unanimous decision recognized that the work-product doctrine includes information obtained or
produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation. 2
The work product doctrine acts as a shield to protect the client’s position for settlement or
at trial. Releasing work product papers as a condition for settlement may be distinguishable from
the protection afforded to an attorney and client during discovery. It is not uncommon for
attorneys to retain files and review portions of those files for use in later cases.3

Any type of restriction of a plaintiff’s attorney on representing future claimants
against the same defendant are ethically inappropriate and violates RPC 5.6(b) and pertains to
impermissible restrictions on a lawyer’s practice. 4 Other types of restrictions that are less
onerous than a complete prohibition against subsequent representation of clients against a
settling party defending a claim may similarly violate RPC 5.6(b) which says “A lawyer shall not
participate in offering or making:… (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right
to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.”

ABA Formal Opinion 93-371 articulates the three policy considerations underlying this
rule. First, there is a risk that the public’s access to the best attorney for a particular case will be
curtailed. Second, such a restraint could be motivated by an effort to “buy off” counsel rather
than to resolve the dispute. Third, a restriction on an attorney’s right to practice may place him
or her in a position where the interests of the current client are in conflict with those of potential
future clients.

Ethics committees in other jurisdictions have recognized the impropriety of practice
restrictions that fall short of an outright bar to future or ongoing representation.5

The test of the propriety of a settlement provision under Rule 5.6(b) is whether it would
restrain a lawyer’s exercise of independent judgment on behalf of other clients to an extent
greater than that of an independent attorney not subject to such a limitation. 6 The tests
formulated by other jurisdictions are useful. “While these tests are worded differently, they all
boil down to one essential question: how does a particular settlement provision affect an
attorney’s ability to represent another client in a matter involving the same or a related opposing
party?”7 If the provision has no effect, it will not violate Rule 5.6(b). On the other hand, if a
provision does affect a lawyer’s ability to represent another client and that effect is negative, the
provisions would be impermissible under Rule 5.6(b).8

1
Black’s Law Dictionary (Abridged 7th ed.) St. Paul, Minn : Westgroup p. 1298.
2
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).
3
State Bar of New Mexico Advisory Opinions Committee Advisory Opinion 1985-5 (Oct. 23, 1985).
4
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-141,(Feb. 4, 1998) citing ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 93-371.
5
State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee, Opinion No. 97-05 (June 30, 1997).
6
Colorado Ethics Opinion 92 (June 19, 1993).
7
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 04-2 (January 21, 2005)
8
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 04-2 (January 21, 2005)

14
Although some jurisdictions have found that the returning of documents obtained in
discovery as a condition for settlement is not unethical in proper circumstances9, attorney work
product materials raise a separate but related question.10

The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee addressed the return of
documents produced in discovery as a condition of settlement and concluded that Rule 5.6(b)
does not prohibit the agreement to return documents produced in discovery if the documents in
question do not constitute work product. “However, to the extent the provisions are interpreted
to require Attorney B to turn over documents protected by the attorney work product doctrine,
the provisions may be prohibited by Rule 5.6(b). That is Attorney B may not agree to turn over
any work product materials as part of the settlement if that action will restrict his representation
of other clients. Whether providing the opposing side access to or losing his or her own access
to work product materials would restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients is a factual
question the attorney must decide based on the documents involved and the facts and
circumstances of the case.”11

The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee concluded in their Ethics
Opinion 97-05 “Under Rule 5.6(b) an attorney may not agree—even at a client’s request: To
turn over to opposing party or counsel documents protected by the attorney work product
doctrine if that action would restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients…”.

If an attorney is required to disclose his/her entire work product, it may inhibit
representation of subsequent clients. If this were to occur, defense counsel would accomplish
indirectly what they cannot accomplish by directly precluding the attorney from representing
other plaintiffs with similar claims.12 Further, it appears to create a conflict between the lawyer
who has an interest in preserving work product to aid in the representation of future clients and
the lawyer’s current client who has an interest in obtaining the settlement funds.

9
Colorado Ethics Opinion 92 (June 19, 1993).
10
State Bar of New Mexico Advisory Opinions Committee Advisory Opinion 1985-5 (Oct. 23, 1985)
11
State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee, Opinion No. 97-05 (June 30, 1997).
12
State Bar of New Mexico Advisory Opinions Committee Advisory Opinion 1985-5 (Oct. 23, 1985).

15
CONCLUSION

It is improper for a lawyer to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement that
requires release of work product which would restrict the lawyer’s representation of other clients
as prohibited by Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.6(b).

This 9th day of September, 2016

ETHICS COMMITTEE

John Kitch

Dana Dye

Kenny Blackburn

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

16
Disciplinary Actions
• (March, 2016 – August, 2016)

DISBARMENTS

CHRISTOPHER LEE BROWN, BPR #15788
SHELBY COUNTY

On March 30, 2016, Christopher Lee Brown, of Memphis, Tennessee, was disbarred from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Brown must make restitution as
a condition of reinstatement. The order is effective March 30, 2016. Mr. Brown must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

Mr. Brown took a fee from a client and failed to perform the work for which he was retained. He
failed to refund the unearned fee. He failed to advise the client of his prior suspensions in violation of a
Tennessee Supreme Court order. He made misrepresentations to his client leading him to believe that he was
continuing to work on his matter when he was not. Mr. Brown abandoned the representation of his client
and also abandoned his law practice.

Mr. Brown’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence;
1.4, Communication; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; and 8.4(a), (c) and (g), Misconduct.

Mr. Brown was previously suspended for three (3) years by the Tennessee Supreme Court on October
7, 2013 and disbarred on July 20, 2015. He has not been reinstated from the suspension or disbarment.

Mr. Brown must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

CHRISTOPHER LEE BROWN, BPR #15788
SHELBY COUNTY

On July 12, 2016, Christopher Lee Brown, of Memphis, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice
of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Brown must make restitution as a
condition of reinstatement. The disbarment begins July 12, 2016. Mr. Brown must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

Mr. Brown took a fee from a client and failed to perform the work for which he was retained. He
failed to refund the unearned fee. He failed to advise the client of his prior suspensions in violation of a
Tennessee Supreme Court order. Mr. Brown abandoned the representation of his client and also abandoned
his law practice. He failed to respond to the Board’s request for information.

17
DISBARMENTS (continued)

Mr. Brown’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence;
1.4, Communication; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters; and 8.4(a) and (g), Misconduct.

Mr. Brown was previously suspended for three (3) years by the Tennessee Supreme Court on October
7, 2013, disbarred on July 20, 2015 and disbarred on March 30, 2016. He has not been reinstated from the
suspension or disbarments.

Mr. Brown must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

LEROY CAIN, JR., BPR #6510
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On July 27, 2016, Leroy Cain, Jr., of Nashville, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of law by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. He was also ordered to pay restitution to his client or the Tennessee
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. Mr. Cain must pay the Board’s costs and expenses.

A Petition for Discipline was filed on August 4, 2015, that included one (1) complaint of misconduct.
After settlement at mediation, Mr. Cain received the settlement check from the defendant in the amount of
$8,250.00. Thereafter, he remitted $1,200.00 to his client. Following a fee dispute arbitration, Mr. Cain was
ordered to remit the entire amount of the settlement to his client and he failed to do so. A Hearing Panel held
that Mr. Cain’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, Safekeeping Property and
Funds, and 8.4 (a) (b) and (c), Misconduct.

Mr. Cain must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys. The Court’s Order is effective
immediately.

KEITH LAMONTE DOBBS, BPR #26271
SHELBY COUNTY

On July 21, 2016, Keith Lamonte Dobbs, of Memphis, Tennessee, was disbarred by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The disbarment begins July 21, 2016. Mr. Dobbs must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

Mr. Dobbs consented to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself on charges
made against him with the Board of Professional Responsibility alleging that he violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23, requires that Mr. Dobbs’ consent to
disbarment be maintained under seal.

18
DISBARMENTS (continued)

Mr. Dobbs must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the procedures for reinstatement.

JOHN LYNDON LOWERY, BPR #16195
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On June 24, 2016, John Lyndon Lowery, of Nashville, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Lowery must make restitution to nine clients
as a condition of reinstatement. The disbarment begins June 24, 2016. Mr. Lowery must pay the Board’s
costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

Mr. Lowery settled nine cases without his clients’ knowledge or consent, signed their names to
settlement checks without their permission, misappropriated the settlement funds and made
misrepresentations to the clients to make them think their cases were progressing normally. In a tenth case,
he failed to take any action resulting in the case being dismissed and failed to inform his client. Mr. Lowery
pled guilty in Davidson County Criminal Court to seven counts of theft and eight counts of forgery, all
felonies.

Mr. Lowery’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1,
Competence; 1.2, Scope of Representation; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping
Property and Funds; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4,
Misconduct.

Mr. Lowery was previously suspended for failure to pay professional privilege tax on September 29,
2015. That suspension remains in effect. On May 28, 2015, Mr. Lowery was temporarily suspended by the
Tennessee Supreme Court for posing a threat of substantial harm to the public. As Mr. Lowery is now
disbarred, the temporary suspension is dissolved.

Mr. Lowery must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

STEVEN E. SAMS, BPR #22560
KNOX COUNTY

On August 5, 2016, Steven E. Sams of Knoxville, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Sams must pay the Board’s costs and expenses.

A Petition for Discipline was filed on November 18, 2015, that included one (1) complaint of
misconduct. On September 12, 2013, Mr. Sams was temporarily suspended from the practice of law for
failing to respond in an unrelated ethics complaint. Following his temporary suspension, Mr. Sams
contacted the surviving heirs of a deceased acquaintance, represented to them that he was an attorney
licensed to practice law in Tennessee, and offered to serve as the administrator of their mother’s estate.

19
DISBARMENTS (continued)

Mr. Sams sent the heirs a letter with “Sams Law Firm, PLLC” on the letterhead, and included
declinations for the heirs to sign, which stated: “I hereby nominate Attorney Steven E. Sams to serve as
Personal Representative.” Mr. Sams filed a petition to open the estate that included the declinations and
pleadings that represented that his employer was Sams Law Firm, PLLC.

Mr. Sams’ ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18.7 (2006), new
representation prohibited after suspension, and Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4, communication, 3.3,
candor toward the tribunal, 5.5 (b), unauthorized practice of law, 7.1, communication concerning legal
services, 7.5, firm letterheads, 8.1, failing to respond, and 8.4 (a) and (g), misconduct.

SUSPENSIONS

FRANK ALFRED BAKER, BPR #31931
FLORIDA

On July 25, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Frank Alfred Baker from the practice of
law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Baker
was suspended based upon his conviction of serious crimes; i.e., conspiracy to commit wire fraud, making a
false statement to the FDIC and making a false claim against the United States, four counts of wire fraud,
two counts of false statement to the FDIC, and false claim against the United States.

The Supreme Court ordered the Board to institute a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final
discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Baker’s guilty plea.

Mr. Baker must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations
and responsibilities suspended attorneys.

MICHAEL BARTON BROOKS, BPR #10916
SHELBY COUNTY

On April 8, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Michael Barton Brooks from the practice
of law for three years, retroactive to December 3, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 12.2. Mr. Brooks was summarily suspended on December 3, 2015, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 22.3, based upon his guilty plea to a serious crime; i.e., aggravated assault and
vehicular assault.

The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a final petition for discipline against Mr. Brooks and
he entered a guilty plea that acknowledged violation of Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and
(b) (misconduct).

20
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

The order was effective upon entry. Mr. Brooks must pay the Board’s costs and expenses within
ninety days of entry of the Order of Enforcement. Mr. Brooks must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

HOMER L. CODY, BPR #10755
SHELBY COUNTY

On July 7, 2016, Homer L. Cody, of Memphis, Tennessee, was suspended for one year by the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The suspension will begin on July 17, 2016. Further, Mr. Cody must pay the
Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.

Mr. Cody represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit wherein the judge found that Mr. Cody had a conflict
of interest. The court disqualified Mr. Cody from continuing to represent the plaintiffs. Mr. Cody was
ordered to refrain from filing any other pleadings on behalf of the plaintiffs. The judge dismissed the
plaintiffs’ case. When two of the plaintiffs appealed, Mr. Cody circumvented the court’s order by writing
two appellate briefs for those plaintiffs who then signed and filed the briefs as if they were not represented
by an attorney.

A Hearing Panel found Mr. Cody’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
3.4(c), Fairness to Opposing Party, and 8.4(a), (c) and (d), Misconduct. Mr. Cody appealed the decision to
the Circuit Court for Shelby County, which affirmed the Hearing Panel’s decision. Mr. Cody appealed the
decision of the Shelby County Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Supreme Court
dismissed Mr. Cody’s appeal because the brief he filed did not comply with the Tennessee Rules of
Appellate Procedure.

Mr. Cody must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
(2006) and 30 (2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

JOHN ARNOLD FITZGERALD, BPR #796
RHEA COUNTY

On March 28, 2016, John Arnold Fitzgerald, of Dayton, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice
of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for four (4) years. The suspension was made retroactive to
Mr. Fitzgerald’s Temporary Suspension entered September 10, 2014, and was effective immediately upon
entry. Mr. Fitzgerald must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the
entry of the Order of Enforcement.

The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline and a Supplemental Petition
for Discipline against Mr. Fitzgerald based upon three (3) complaints of misconduct alleging he improperly
used his trust account for personal and business purposes, failed to properly handle and protect client and
third-party funds provided to him, failed to account for client and third-party funds and failed to comply with
a final court order.

21
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

Mr. Fitzgerald’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property and
funds); 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct).

Mr. Fitzgerald must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

CARLA ANN KENT FORD BPR #14312
RUTHERFORD COUNTY

On May 20, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Carla Ann Kent Ford from the practice
of law pending further Orders of the Court, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Ms.
Ford was summarily suspended based upon her felony conviction for violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-
103; i.e., theft of property valued in excess of $1,000.00 but less than $10,000.00.

The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Board of Professional Responsibility for the institution
of formal proceedings to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Ms. Ford’s
guilty plea.

Ms. Ford must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the obligations
and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

LINDA KAYE KENDALL GARNER, BPR #13573
SHELBY COUNTY

Effective June 15, 2016, Linda Kaye Kendall Garner, of Memphis, Tennessee, was suspended from
the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year, with thirty (30) days to be
served as active suspension and the remainder on probation. Upon successful completion of her active
suspension period and the entry of an order of reinstatement by the Supreme Court, Ms. Garner may resume
the practice of law. Ms. Garner must pay the costs and expenses of the Board and court costs within ninety
days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

Ms. Garner was retained to prosecute a defamation case and during the representation, failed to file
an appropriate pleading in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. After the court granted summary
judgment to the defendant, Ms. Garner filed a timely motion to set aside and a proposed response to the
motion for summary judgment. However, Ms. Garner failed to set her motion to be timely heard and,
pursuant to Arkansas law, the motion was deemed denied, and the trial court lost jurisdiction to address the
dismissal. Ms. Garner filed a timely appeal which was denied. In an unrelated matter, Ms. Garner used her
trust account improperly to pay for personal and business expenses over a period of two years.

Ms. Garner’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.15
(safekeeping property and funds), and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

22
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

Ms. Garner must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

WILLIAM C. GOSNELL, BPR #4369
SHELBY COUNTY

Effective July 11, 2016, William C. Gosnell, of Memphis, Tennessee, is suspended from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 1, 2016. Mr.
Gosnell must pay restitution in the amount of $600.00 and the costs of the disciplinary matter to the Board
and to the Court.

On February 13, 2013, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against
Mr. Gosnell, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline on September 24, 2013, based upon two (2)
complaints of misconduct. In the first matter, Mr. Gosnell advised his client in a personal injury action she
could accept full settlement from the opposing party’s insurance company without releasing the opposing
party. Thereafter, without informing opposing counsel, Mr. Gosnell altered the settlement document to
remove the opposing party’s name from the release and delayed returning the release to opposing counsel
well after disbursing the settlement funds. Suit was filed against Mr. Gosnell and his client to enforce the
settlement. In the second matter, Mr. Gosnell filed a Petition for Bankruptcy without his client’s signature or
consent, in violation of the Bankruptcy Court’s rules. Although Mr. Gosnell took appropriate action to
dismiss the petition, the filing of the petition was reported to credit agencies and prevented the client from
completing the purchase of a house. Mr. Gosnell was sanctioned by the Bankruptcy Court and ordered to
disgorge his attorney fee.

Mr. Gosnell’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.4(a)
and (b) (communication); 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal); 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and
counsel); and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (misconduct).

Mr. Gosnell must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
(2006) and 30 (2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not
return to the active practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

WENDAL DOUGLAS JACKSON, BPR #1370
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On August 1, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Wendal Douglas Jackson from the
practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3.
Mr. Jackson was suspended based upon his conviction of a serious crime; i.e., attempted extortion.

On July 28, 2016, the law license of Mr. Jackson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to
Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. Mr. Jackson cannot practice law while on disability
inactive status. In its August 1, 2016 order, The Supreme Court ordered the Board to institute a formal

23
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

proceeding to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Jackson’s guilty plea at
such time as his disability inactive status is removed.

Mr. Jackson must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

On June 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Mr. Jackson from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Jackson poses a substantial threat of harm to the public, pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3. That suspension remains in effect.

EVERETT HOGE MECHEM, BPR #11854
SULLIVAN COUNTY

Effective July 11, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Everett Hoge Mechem from the
practice of law pending further Orders of the Court, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section
22.3. Mr. Mechem was suspended based upon a verdict of guilty entered June 13, 2016, in United States of
America v. Everett H. Mechem, Case No. 2:15-CR-71, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, for violating Title 18 United States Code Section 1343: Wire Fraud; Title 42 United States Code
Section 1383a(a)(3): Supplemental Security Income Fraud; Title 18 United States Code Section 1001: False
Statement; and Title 18 United States Code Section 641: Theft of Public Money.

The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Board of Professional Responsibility for the institution
of formal disciplinary proceedings to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr.
Mechem’s criminal conviction for serious crimes.

Mr. Mechem must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

JENNIFER ELIZABETH MEEHAN, BPR #22932
SOUTH CAROLINA

On August 10, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Tennessee licensed attorney, Jennifer
Elizabeth Meehan from the practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Ms. Meehan was suspended based upon her plea of guilty to a serious crime;
i.e., bank fraud.

The Supreme Court ordered the Board of Professional Responsibility to institute a formal
proceeding to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Ms. Meehan’s guilty plea.

Ms. Meehan must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

24
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

JOSEPH BRENT NOLAN, BPR #15237
KNOX COUNTY

On June 17, 2016, Joseph Brent Nolan, of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year. The suspension begins on June 17, 2016.
Mr. Nolan must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the
Order of Enforcement.

Mr. Nolan was previously suspended for one (1) year on December 6, 2014 and for six (6) months on
June 26, 2015. While both suspensions were still in effect, Mr. Nolan performed legal services for two
different clients. In one instance, he prepared a will, power of attorney and living will for a client. In
another instance, he provided contractual documents to be used by a client in a commercial transaction.

Mr. Nolan’s actions violated RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) and 8.4(a) and (g) (misconduct).

Mr. Nolan must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

KATHERINE EVETT SMITH, BPR #23028
SHELBY COUNTY

On June 24, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Katherine Evett Smith
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Smith failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of
misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an
attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a
complaint of misconduct.

Ms. Smith is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing
existing clients by July 24, 2016. After July 24, 2016, Ms. Smith shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Ms. Smith must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Smith is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Ms. Smith
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

25
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

THOMAS ALAN SNAPP, BPR #13962
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On July 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended the law license of Thomas Alan Snapp
of Sullivan County, Tennessee, for five (5) years and ordered Mr. Snapp to pay the Board’s costs and
expenses.

The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Thomas Alan Snapp
on April 7, 2015, based upon two (2) complaints of misconduct alleging misappropriation, unauthorized
practice of law and misconduct. After he was administratively suspended from the practice of law, Mr.
Snapp undertook representation in a personal injury/wrongful death lawsuit. He associated with another
lawyer to assist in the case; however, he did not tell his client or the other lawyer of his suspension. After
the case had settled, Mr. Snapp misappropriated $50,000.00 from his client and led co-counsel to believe that
his client had been paid in full. Several months later, his co-counsel discovered that Mr. Snapp was
suspended and had not paid their client the full amount owed. After he was confronted, Mr. Snapp re-paid
the funds and disgorged the fees he took for the representation.

A Hearing Panel held that Mr. Snapp’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct
1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) and 8.4 (c) (misconduct).

Mr. Snapp must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28
(2014) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4 (2014), regarding the obligations and
responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement. The Supreme Court’s Order is
effective immediately.

PAUL JAMES SPRINGER, SR., BPR #21267
SHELBY COUNTY

Effective July 3, 2016, Paul James Springer, Sr., of Memphis, Tennessee, is suspended from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for a period of two (2) years and sixty (60) days.
Mr. Springer must serve a minimum active suspension of sixty (60) days, and the suspension shall continue
indefinitely until Mr. Springer pays restitution in the amount of $10,000, engages a practice monitor for the
duration of his probation, completes six (6) additional hours of continuing education, and obtains
professional liability insurance in coverage amounts of $100,000/$200,000. Mr. Springer must pay costs of
the disciplinary matter to the Board and to the Court and must comply with the requirements of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 (2006) and 30 (2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of
suspended attorneys. Mr. Springer may not return to the active practice of law until an order of
reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

On November 2, 2012, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against
Mr. Springer based upon two (2) complaints of ethical misconduct. In the first matter, Mr. Springer used his
trust account over a period of approximately five (5) years to pay personal and business expenses. In the
second matter, Mr. Springer settled a personal injury action and retained $100,000 to pay medical and

26
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

judgment liens for his client, litigation expenses and his attorney fee. Mr. Springer was notified by the client
she continued to receive medical bills, but Mr. Springer took no action to pay the bills. After receiving more
bills, the client demanded an accounting to which Mr. Springer failed to comply. Thereafter, the client
demanded certain settlement funds and notified Mr. Springer she would assume responsibility for the
outstanding medical bills and judgment. Mr. Springer refused to release settlement funds to the client and
never satisfied the outstanding medical bills or judgment.

Mr. Springer’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.3 (diligence); 1.4
(communication); 1.5(c) (fees); 1.15(a), (b), (d) and (e) (safekeeping property and funds); 8.1(b)
(disciplinary matters) and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct).

JOANNA TEMPLE, BPR #26096
SAINT SIMONS ISLAND, GEORGIA

On April 28, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Joanna Temple from the practice of law
until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Ms. Temple
was suspended based upon her guilty plea to a serious crime involving improper conduct as an attorney; i.e.,
Attempted Criminal Usury (Second Degree).

The Supreme Court ordered the Board of Professional Responsibility to institute a formal proceeding
to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Ms. Temple’s guilty plea.

Ms. Temple must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

RE: JOANNA TEMPLE, BPR #26096
SAINT SIMONS ISLAND, GEORGIA

On June 27, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Joanna Temple from the practice of law
for four (4) years, retroactive to the date of her summary suspension on April 28, 2016. Ms. Temple is also
ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

Ms. Temple is licensed in Georgia and Tennessee. On December 17, 2015, Ms. Temple pleaded
guilty in New York to Attempted Criminal Usury, 2nd Degree, a misdemeanor. She was placed on
conditional discharge for one year. Ms. Temple served as lead counsel for several payday lending
companies. She has admitted that she, along with others, instructed and assisted the companies to violate
state lending laws, including the New York criminal usury statutes.

Ms. Temple must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

27
SUSPENSIONS (continued)

MICHAEL LEE WEST, BPR #1868
HAMILTON COUNTY

Effective August 17, 2016, Michael Lee West, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, was suspended for
one (1) year by the Tennessee Supreme Court, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2
and ordered to pay the Board’s costs.

On March 30, 2016, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. West based upon one (1)
complaint of misconduct. Mr. West, while suspended from the practice of law, failed to take appropriate
action to withdraw as attorney of record from a pending case in General Sessions Court and failed to notify
his client of the suspension from the practice of law. As a consequence, the notice of trial was sent to Mr.
West who failed to take appropriate action or inform his client of the trial date. A default judgment was
entered against the client. After learning of the final judgment, Mr. West accepted personal responsibility
and reached an agreement with opposing counsel to make monthly payments on the judgment. Eventually,
the client retained new counsel who successfully set aside the judgment.

Mr. West executed a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting his conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.4 (communication); 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); 5.5 (unauthorized practice of
law) and 8.4(g) (misconduct).

Mr. West must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4 (2014) regarding
the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement. Mr. West
must pay the Board’s costs and expenses prior to reinstatement to the practice of law.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS

CHARLES MICHAEL CLIFFORD, BPR #1544
BLOUNT COUNTY

On March 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Charles Michael Clifford
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Clifford failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint
of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate temporary suspension of
an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a
complaint of misconduct.

Mr. Clifford is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by April 8, 2016. After April 8, 2016, Mr. Clifford shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Mr. Clifford must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Clifford is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

28
TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Clifford may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

TERENCE JOSEPH FAIRFAX, BPR #20729
AKRON, OHIO

On August 26, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Tennessee licensed
attorney, Terence Joseph Fairfax from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Fairfax has misappropriated
funds and poses a substantial threat of harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides
for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases where it has been
demonstrated that the attorney has misappropriated funds and poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.

Effective August 26, 2016, Mr. Fairfax is precluded from accepting any new cases and he must cease
representing existing clients by September 25, 2016. After September 25, 2016, Mr. Fairfax shall not use
any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is
conducted.

Mr. Fairfax must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Section 28 of Supreme Court
Rule 9 requires Mr. Fairfax to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Fairfax may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

TERRY SHANE HENSLEY, BPR #24990
HAMILTON COUNTY

On August 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Terry Shane Hensley
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Hensley has failed to respond to the Board regarding a
complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary
suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board
regarding a complaint of misconduct.

Effective August 16, 2016, Mr. Hensley is precluded from accepting any new cases and he must
cease representing existing clients by September 15, 2016. After September 15, 2016, Mr. Hensley shall
not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of
law is conducted.

29
TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)

Mr. Hensley must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Section 28 of Supreme Court
Rule 9 requires Mr. Hensley to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Hensley may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.

WENDAL DOUGLAS JACKSON, BPR #1370
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On June 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Wendal Douglas Jackson
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Jackson poses a substantial threat of harm to the public,
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3.

Mr. Jackson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and from representing existing
clients upon entry of the Order dated June 17, 2016. After June 17, 2016, Mr. Jackson shall not use any
indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Mr. Jackson must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Jackson is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Jackson may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

PUBLIC CENSURES

JOEL ROBERT BELLIS, BPR #27750
MAURY COUNTY

On April 5, 2016, Joel Robert Bellis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Bellis failed to secure a written agreement with his client to establish a non-refundable fee, failed
to deposit the fee into his trust account, and failed to promptly refund unearned fees and costs to his client
after his representation was terminated.

By these acts, Joel Robert Bellis has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees), 1.15
(safekeeping property), and 1.16 (terminating representation) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these

30
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

violations. In addition, Mr. Bellis shall be required to refund $3,100.00 in fees to his former client within
one hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of this Public Censure.

THOMAS MARTIN BROWDER, JR., BPR #11424
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On July 12, 2016, Thomas Martin Browder, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Browder presented oral argument to the Tennessee Court of Appeals after his law license had
been administratively suspended. Mr. Browder’s conduct caused the Court to strike his oral argument from
the record. In another matter, Mr. Browder continued to represent a client in the same matter for which the
client had sued Mr. Browder for legal malpractice.

By these acts, Thomas Martin Browder, Jr. has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 (conflict
of interest), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(d) (misconduct) and he is hereby Publicly Censured
for these violations.

YVETTE YOLANDA CAIN, BPR #17282
NASHVILLE

On May 31, 2016, Yvette Yolanda Cain, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Ms. Cain acted beyond the scope of her authority in the representation of a client, failed to
communicate with the client, and took actions which had an adverse effect upon the client.

By these acts, Yvette Yolanda Cain has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of
authority), 1.4 (communication), and 8.4(d) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.

CLINTON CHADWELL CARTER, BPR #17719
ALABAMA

On April 15, 2016, Clinton Chadwell Carter, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Carter committed the unauthorized practice of law by representing a client in Tennessee after his
license to practice law had been administratively suspended. Mr. Carter failed to comply with the filing
requirements in a medical malpractice action he filed which was fatal to the case. Mr. Carter failed to inform
his client of the dismissal of the case for a period of over six months.

31
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

By these acts, Clinton Chadwell Carter has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.4 (communication), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(a) and (d)
(misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations

MARK E. CHAPMAN, BPR #15397
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On April 27, 2016, Mark E. Chapman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Chapman was hired by a client to file a slip-and-fall case. After some work on the matter, Mr.
Chapman failed to file a lawsuit within the applicable statutory period. Mr. Chapman realized his mistake a
few weeks after the statute had run, and he informed the client of the mistake. The client suffered harm as a
result of Mr. Chapman’s actions because the potential defendant indicated the matter would have been
compromised.

By these acts, Mr. Chapman has violated 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence) and is hereby Publicly
Censured for this violation.

CATHLEEN GRADY CONLEY, BPR #4567
COFFEE COUNTY

On April 20, 2016, Cathleen Grady Conley, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

To obtain business, Ms. Conley’s office staff reviewed bankruptcy court records and phoned creditors
who had not yet filed a proof of claim. If the creditor expressed interest over the telephone, Ms. Conley’s
staff sent an email with a claim form and an agreement providing that Ms. Conley would receive one third of
any money recovered from the debtor. The phone call and email did not explain that Ms. Conley would not
be acting as an attorney or provide notice that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship did not exist.
Ms. Conley was thereby subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct and violated the rules relating to the
solicitation of potential clients.

By these acts, Ms. Conley violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-
related services) and 7.3 (solicitation of potential clients) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.

32
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

RICHARD DALE DARBY, BPR #28787
HAMBLEN COUNTY

On June 17, 2016, Richard Dale Darby, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Darby modified an existing fee agreement from an hourly fee to a flat non-refundable fee without
obtaining a written agreement signed by his client. Mr. Darby failed to deposit the unearned fee into his trust
account and failed to promptly refund unearned fees after he terminated the representation. Mr. Darby also
created a conflict of interest by suing his client prior to formally withdrawing from the representation.

By these acts, Richard Dale Darby has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees), 1.7 (conflict
of interest), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 1.16(d) (terminating representation) and he is hereby Publicly
Censured for these violations. As a condition of the Public Censure, Mr. Darby is required to reimburse
$4,025.95 in fees to his former client within 180 days.

CARRIE WATSON GASAWAY, BPR #18746
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

On April 13, 2016, Carrie Watson Gasaway, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a public censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Within ninety (90) days, Ms. Gasaway shall pay restitution in the amount of $250 to the first client, and pay
restitution to the second client in the amount of $3,500, and provide proof of such payment to Disciplinary
Counsel.

Ms. Gasaway accepted a nonrefundable retainer from the first client with $250 designated to be held
in trust. At the conclusion of the representation, Ms. Gasaway provided no explanation for her use of the
funds held in trust and did not refund the $250. In the second matter, Ms. Gasaway accepted a $3,500 fee
from a client and did no work, and she failed to respond to requests for information from the client. Ms.
Gasaway failed to respond to these disciplinary complaints.

By these acts, Ms. Gasaway has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping funds), 1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and 8.4 (prejudice to the administration of justice). Two clients suffered
actual and potential harm as a result of Ms. Gasaway’s actions.

ANGELA JOY HOPSON, BPR #22500
MADISON COUNTY

On April 14, 2016, Angela Joy Hopson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

33
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

In September of 2015, Ms. Hopson’s license was suspended for failure to pay the Professional
Privilege Tax. On October 30, 2015, Ms. Hopson appeared in court representing a defendant in a criminal
case. Ms. Hopson continued practicing law for two more weeks until a colleague drew her attention to the
administrative suspension. Ms. Hopson’s license was returned to active status on November 17, 2015.

By these acts, Angela Joy Hopson has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

RICHARD KORSAKOV, BPR #994
HAMILTON COUNTY

On July 12, 2016, Richard Korsakov, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Korsakov failed to diligently represent a client in a divorce action and failed to adequately
communicate with his client during the representation. Mr. Korsakov failed to appear in court for a
scheduled hearing which resulted in an adverse ruling against his client.

By these acts, Richard Korsakov has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 8.4(d) (misconduct) and he is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

JOHN HOLLIS McELHENY, BPR #28657
ALABAMA

On July 18, 2016, John Hollis McElheny, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. McElheny provided financial assistance to his client on two occasions prior to the resolution of
the case and failed to safeguard a client settlement check by failing to deposit the check in his trust account.

By these acts, John Hollis McElheny has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) (conflict of
interest) and 1.15 (safekeeping property) and he is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

JACK COLIN MORRIS, BPR #15855
MADISON COUNTY

On July 7, 2016, Jack Colin Morris, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Morris based
upon one (1) complaint of misconduct involving a trust account. Mr. Morris improperly issued a trust

34
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

account check to opposing counsel prior to receiving good and sufficient funds from his client, thereby
causing an overdraft of his attorney trust account.

Jack Colin Morris entered a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his actions violated Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping of property and funds) and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

JEFFREY JAMES MUELLER, BPR #17127
MADISON COUNTY

On July 18, 2016, Jeffrey James Mueller, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In a civil proceeding, Mr. Mueller failed to lodge an order as directed by the Court. Mr. Mueller also
failed to file an answer within the time period prescribed by the Court, which led to the filing of a motion for
default. Mr. Mueller had a scheduling conflict when the motion for default was set to be heard, but failed to
take reasonable steps to have the motion continued. The motion for default was granted after Mr. Mueller
failed to appear or obtain a continuance. Mr. Mueller appealed the default judgment but the appeal was
dismissed as frivolous due to Mr. Mueller’s failure to cite to the administrative record in his briefs.

By these acts, Jeffrey James Mueller has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under rules of a tribunal), and 8.4(d)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

DANA L. NERO, BPR #25042
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On July 26, 2016, Dana L. Nero, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Ms. Nero represented a client in two separate criminal cases. The prosecution made a plea offer of
concurrent sentences of two years and six years. Ms. Nero erroneously believed that if her client pled guilty
to a sentence of six years, he would be automatically released upon serving 30 percent of the sentence. She
assured her client that because he had been incarcerated for 27 months, he would go home shortly after
entering his pleas. In fact, a person serving a sentence of six years must be released by the parole board.
Ms. Nero admits that she gave her client erroneous advice about when he would be released upon pleading
guilty.

By these acts, Dana L. Nero has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence) and 1.3
(diligence) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

35
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

HENRY ALLEN NOHSEY, BPR #8756
OBION COUNTY

On April 21, 2016, Henry Allen Nohsey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Nohsey represented a client who owned real property as a tenant in common with a relative and
wanted to purchase the relative’s interest in the property. At the request of the client, Mr. Nohsey engaged in
a strategy to convince the relative that Mr. Nohsey represented an unrelated third party who wanted to
purchase the property from both the client and the relative, which was false. Mr. Nohsey’s client assigned
the relative’s interest in the property, and then the client sold the property to a third party for $26,000 more
than the price to which Mr. Nohsey, on behalf of his client, agreed with the relative. The warranty deed
transferred the property from the client and relative to the third party at the higher price. Mr. Nohsey did not
inform the relative of the assignment.

By these acts, Henry Allen Nohsey, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.3 (dealing
with an unrepresented party) and Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving misrepresentation). Mr. Nohsey is hereby
Publicly Censured for these violations.

LANCE WILLIAM PARR, BPR #24651
ALABAMA

On July 22, 2016, Lance William Parr, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a
condition of the Public Censure, Mr. Parr is required to reimburse $600.00 in fees to his former client within
90 days.

Mr. Parr discontinued representation of a client due to his prior disbarment. Mr. Parr failed to
provide the client file or promptly refund unearned fees to the former client. Mr. Parr also failed to provide a
response to the disciplinary complaint against him.

By these acts, Lance William Parr has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(d) (terminating
representation) and 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters) and he is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

JOHNNY QUITMAN RASBERRY, JR., BPR #19160
SHELBY COUNTY

On July 18, 2016, Johnny Quitman Rasberry, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Rasberry was hired by a client in a divorce case and received an agreed marital dissolution
agreement signed by both parties in June 2014. Mr. Rasberry failed to file the complaint for divorce until

36
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

February 2015, at which point the signed MDA was stale. The client filed a disciplinary complaint,
and Mr. Rasberry failed to timely respond to the complaint. The client’s divorce was eventually completed
in February 2016.

By these acts, Mr. Rasberry is in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (prejudice to the
administration of justice) and is hereby publicly censured for this violation.

DONALD EDWIN SPURRELL, BPR #12810
WASHINGTON COUNTY

On July 12, 2016, Donald Edwin Spurrell, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Spurrell failed to obtain a written agreement signed by his client in a contingent fee matter,
collected an unreasonable fee, and failed to supervise a paralegal who commingled trust funds into Mr.
Spurrell’s operating account on several occasions.

By these acts, Donald Edwin Spurrell has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees), 1.15
(safekeeping property), and 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants) and he is hereby Publicly
Censured for these violations.

DANIEL WAYNE STARNES, BPR #26613
KNOX COUNTY

On July 26, 2016, Daniel Wayne Starnes, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In August of 2015, Mr. Starnes’ license to practice law was suspended for CLE noncompliance.
While his license to practice law was suspended, Mr. Starnes made various court appearances, and continued
to practice law by sending legal correspondence.

By these acts, Daniel Wayne Starnes, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

RONALD ANDRE STEWART, BPR #23042
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On July 18, 2016, Ronald Andre Stewart, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

37
PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

Mr. Stewart unreasonably delayed in taking action requested by clients in two cases. In one of the
two cases, Mr. Stewart also failed to respond to a motion to dismiss arising out of failure to comply with an
order compelling written discovery. Mr. Stewart did not appear at the motion hearing, which led to the
dismissal of two defendants with prejudice. Mr. Stewart filed a voluntary dismissal with regard to the
remaining two defendants while another motion to dismiss was pending, also arising out of failure to furnish
responses to written discovery. Mr. Stewart failed to notify his client of either dismissal.

By these acts, Ronald Andre Stewart has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), and 1.4 (communication), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

WILLIAM PRESTON SUTHERLAND, BPR #2437
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On April 13, 2016, William Preston Sutherland, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Within ninety (90) days, Mr. Sutherland shall pay restitution to the client for fees paid and funds borrowed in
an amount of $5,456.71, and provide proof of such payment to Disciplinary Counsel.

Mr. Sutherland’s law license was suspended in 1997 and has never been reinstated. After the
suspension of his license, Mr. Sutherland did investigative and legal work for one client and billed the client
$4,435.42 for the work, which the client paid. Mr. Sutherland also borrowed $1,021.29 from the client for
his personal expenses and failed to repay the loan.

By these acts, William Sutherland has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law) and 1.8 (conflict of interest, business transaction). Mr. Sutherland is hereby Publicly
Censured for these violations.

Jeffery Lamont Warfield, BPR #19886
GUAM

On January 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
publicly censuring Jeffery Lamont Warfield. Mr. Warfield, who is licensed to practice law in Tennessee but
has been living and practicing law in Guam, was publicly reprimanded by Order from the Supreme Court of
Guam entered September, 4, 2015, for diligence, competence and communication issues related to the
representation of two (2) clients in criminal cases.

38
DISABILITY INACTIVE

JOSEPH B. BROWN, JR., BPR #5211
SHELBY COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 24, 2016, the law license of Joseph P.
Brown, Jr., was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.

Mr. Brown cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

CHARLES PITTMAN COLE, JR., BPR #23243
WASHINGTON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 22, 2016, the law license of Charles
Pittman Cole, Jr., was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Cole cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence
that the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

MATTHEW JACK FITZHARRIS, BPR #32101
HAMILTON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 23, 2016, the law license of Matthew Jack
Fitzharris was transferred to disability inactive status for an indefinite period of time pursuant to Section 27.3
of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Fitzharris cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 28.1, the Order transferring Mr. Fitzharris to disability inactive status is effective upon
entry. Mr. Fitzharris may petition for removal of disability inactive status pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

TIMOTHY DARNELL FLOWERS, BPR #19382
SHELBY COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 16, 2016, the law license of Timothy
Darnell Flowers was transferred to disability inactive status for an indefinite period of time pursuant to
Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

39
DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)

On August 1, 2013, Mr. Flowers’ license to practice law was suspended by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee for three years after a hearing panel determined Mr. Flowers had violated Rules of Professional
Conduct. The Order transferring Mr. Flowers to disability inactive status does not affect his disciplinary
suspension.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28.1, the Order transferring Mr. Flowers to
disability inactive status is effective upon entry. Mr. Flowers may petition for removal of disability inactive
status pursuant to Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

ROBERT WESLEY FREEMON, BPR #5297
WAYNE COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 26, 2016, the law license of Robert
Wesley Freemon was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.

Mr. Freemon cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

ROSS BRENT GRAY, BPR #20759
SEVIER COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 11, 2016, the law license of Ross Brent Gray
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Ross cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

WENDAL DOUGLAS JACKSON, BPR #1370
SULLIVAN COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 28, 2016, the law license of Wendal
Douglas Jackson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Jackson cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice
of law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing
evidence that the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

40
DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)

On June 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Mr. Jackson from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Jackson poses a substantial threat of harm to the public, pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3. That suspension remains in effect.

DALE M. QUILLEN, BPR #2267
DAVIDSON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 27, 2016, the law license of Dale M. Quillen
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

TODD A. SHELTON, BPR #23884
GREENE COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 31, 2016, the law license of Todd A. Shelton
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Shelton cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

PHILLIPS MEREDITH SMALLING, BPR #12251
PICKETT COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 9, 2016, the law license of Phillips
Meredith Smalling was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Smalling cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice
of law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence
that the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

KATHERINE EVETT SMITH, BPR #23028
SHELBY COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 16, 2016, the law license of Katherine
Evett Smith was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.

41
DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)

Ms. Smith cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.

On June 24, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Katherine Evett Smith
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Smith failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of
misconduct. That suspension remains in effect.

NOEL F. STAHL, BPR #5695
DAVIDSON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 27, 2016, the law license of Noel F. Stahl
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Stahl cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

DOUGLAS EDWIN VICK, BPR #4159
DAVIDSON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 15, 2016, the law license of Douglas Edwin
Vick was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.

Mr. Vick cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

REINSTATEMENTS

ANDREWNETTA MELISSA BOYD, BPR #25894
SHELBY COUNTY

On April 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Andrewnetta Melissa Boyd to the
practice of law. Ms. Boyd had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on December 21, 2015,
for a period of thirty (30) days. Ms. Boyd filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) (2014). The Board found that the Petition was satisfactory
and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

42
REINSTATEMENTS (continued)

JOSEPH PAUL CALANDRIELLO, BPR #18349
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Joseph Paul Calandriello to the practice
of law. Mr. Calandriello had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 1, 2015, for a
period of three (3) years, consisting of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days served as active
suspension, and the remainder to be served on probation. Mr. Calandriello filed a Petition for Reinstatement
on April 1, 2016, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) (2014). The Board of
Professional Responsibility found that the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement
to the Court.

LINDA KAYE KENDALL GARNER, BPR #13573
SHELBY COUNTY

Effective August 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Linda Kaye Kendall Garner to
the active practice of law. Ms. Garner was suspended for one (1) year by the Supreme Court of Tennessee
on June 15, 2016, and required to serve an active suspension of thirty (30) days. Ms. Garner filed a Petition
for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The
Board found the Petition satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court. Ms. Garner will
serve the remainder of her suspension on probation.

WILLIAM E. GIBSON, BPR #12636
PUTNAM COUNTY

On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated William E. Gibson to the practice of
law effective immediately. Mr. Gibson had been disbarred by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on March 20,
2009. Mr. Gibson filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d) (2014).

A Hearing Panel found that Mr. Gibson complied with the terms and conditions of his disbarment,
and further found that he had demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law
required for the practice of law, and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
integrity or standing of the bar or administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. Based upon
the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Gibson’s license to practice law. As
conditions of his reinstatement, Mr. Gibson must have a practice monitor, continue counseling and attend the
Tennessee Law Institute Annual Review, all for five years.

Mr. Gibson must pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding.

43

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	jturner
Creator	PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2
ModifyDate	Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:44 AM +00:00
PageCount	43
PDFVersion	1.4
Title	Microsoft Word - Board Notes Fall 2016 - FINAL

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
CreateDate	Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:44 AM +00:00
FileName	Board_Notes_Fall_2016.pdf
FileSize	658 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Linearized	No
MIMEType	application/pdf
Producer	GPL Ghostscript 8.15
SourceFile	Board_Notes_Fall_2016.pdf

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top