Barry 27442 rel.PDF (2004)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (barry-27442-rel632424374594995096.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.
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
LANCE B. BRACY WILLIAM W. HUNT, III
CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730 CHARLES A. HIGH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217 SANDY GARRETT
LAURA L. CHASTAIN TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
FAX: (615) 367- 2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
BEVERLY P. SHARPE
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: HENRY CLAY BARRY, BPR # 6174
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
December 15, 2004
LEBANON LAWYER CENSURED
Henry Clay Barry, of Lebanon, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on November 29, 2004. The censure was issued by the Board pursuant to Rule 9,
Section 8 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Barry did not request a hearing on the
matter.
The Board opened its own disciplinary investigation in August of 2004 regarding Barryâs
advertising, wherein he advertised to the general public within a Wilson County newspaper a
âVERY QUICK DIVORCEâ¦usually in less than 24 hours if no children involved, both agree,
sign and stipulate grounds, with children it may require 2 – 3 daysâ¦â Barry informed the Board
that he has obtained such divorces within the advertised time frames in Wilson County and
indicates the parties to such advertised divorces both executed marital dissolution agreements
(MDAs).
Pursuant to RPC 1.7(a) and Board Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-16, the Board concluded
that in such advertised fault based stipulated grounds divorces authorized by T.C.A. §36-4-129,
Barry only represents one party to the divorce - - the plaintiff. However, potential clients and
opposing parties reading his ad would not understand Barry was representing only one party and
neither party to Barryâs advertised stipulated grounds divorce would understand the need to
stipulate to a fault-based divorce ground. Moreover, since it was clear Barry would only act as
attorney for the plaintiff in such divorces, the Board found that his actions in exhorting the
unrepresented defendant to conclude the matter in 24 hours, or in 2-3 days, violated RPC 4.3 - -
which requires a lawyer to give no legal advice to the unrepresented defendant other than the
advice to retain counsel. The Board also concluded that Barryâs utilization of MDAs in such
stipulated fault grounds divorces to be inappropriate and prejudicial to the administration of
justice since MDAs as specifically used by respondent are authorized only under irreconcilable
divorce procedure as set forth in TCA §36-4-103.
Finally, the Board found that Barryâs claims as contained within the advertisement were
false or misleading in violation of RPC 7.1(a)(b).
JDJ.mw Barry 27442 rel.doc