miller-32824-5-public-censure.pdf (2010)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference. The original PDF remains the official record for legal purposes.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (miller-32824-5-public-censure.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
' â-. FiL
t are
CARD 0 DFESSIONAL RE PONSlBlLlTY
- OFTI-iE
â swat Were
1N DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT V ' ». ' E: Mâ-
OF THE Executive Secretary
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: THOMAS HOWARD MILLER, BPR NO. 17124 FILE NO. 32824-5~KB
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee '
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against rThomas Hoisard hMiller, an attorney licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misobnduct. Pursuant to Stipreme Court Rule 9,
the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on June 11, 2010.
Respondent represented Complainant in a post-divorce custody modiï¬cationproceeding. A
hearing was held June 24, 2008, and the court ordered a change in primary custody ï¬romthe father to
Complainant. Respondent failed to submit a ï¬nal order to the court to memorialize the courtâs
decision. Complainant states that she contacted Respondent several times in an effort to get an order
entered, but that Respondent neyer accomplished her objective and stopped returning her calls. On
March 1, 2010, Respondent advised that he had entered an order with the court none pro tune to June
24, 2008. Complainant alleges that Respondent failed to act in a timely manner and failed to
reasonably corrmnmicate with her. Complainant states that Respondentâs conduct greatly delayed
her ability to. collect child supp on: from the father, who would have been obligated for support due to
{the change in custody. _
By the aforementioned facts, Thomas Howard Miller, has ~violatedâRules of Professional
Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 3.4 (c), and 8.4 (d) and is hereby 1511 'cly ânsured for these violations.
FQR THE BO 0]? .
PROFESS a âVALRESP91SIBEIT *