Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

smith-thomas-32355c.pdf (2011)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (smith-thomas-32355c.pdf)

Go to Top

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.

Siren
IN DTSCIPLlNARY DISTRICTI 2911135842 it”?! 8‘: m
osrns
BOARD or PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Emmi {it Wig???“
or THE serene
SUPREME COURT or TENNESSEE M 5&6. EEC“!

1N RE: THOMAS WOOD SMITH, BPR NO. 6340 FILE NO. 32355c-tmi'18
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Greene County)

PUBLIC GEN SURE

The above complaint was filed against Thomas Wood Smith, an attorney licensed to

practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

9, the Board ofProfessionai Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December

10, 2010.

The Respondent was retained by his client to represent her. in a property dispute. The

Respondent filed a complaint on his client’s behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent failed to

reasonabiy contmmiicate with his client or promptly pursue the matter, Over two years after the

complaint was filed, the Respondent represented his client during a mediation of the property

dispute and agreed to draft the resulting partnership agreement which would govern the sale of

the property. The Respondent failed to draft the agreement. Seven months after the mediation,

the client discharged the Respondent; the Respondent failed to promptly return the client’s deeds,

plats, and surveys.

In a minted matter, the Respondent agreed to tile an objection to the appointment of his

client’s sibling as the executrix of their mother’s estate. The Respondent failed topromptly

pursue this matter and failed to reasonably communicate with his client regarding this matter.
By the aforementioned facts, Thomas Wood Smith has violated Ruies of Professionai

Conduct 1.3 (diligence and promptness), 1.4 (communication), and 1.16(d) (returning property of

client) and is hereby Pubiicly Censuyed fer these violations.

FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

riawmw
feia’M. Hol'iabaugh, Cfiéfir

W «3’. .26”
2116 /

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top