barnes-33173.pdf (2009)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (barnes-33173.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.
IN orscrrLrNARY DISTRICTVI iimi'Jilil 25 PM ï¬t It":
or THE P t ,
BOARD or PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITXEGAifi-fééi 'Dï¬ï¬igï¬tiiiihtt-
OF âFl-IE w,- .
IN RE: WILLIAM CLARK BARNES, JR., BPR NO. 11399 iF]LENO. 33173-6âRW
ReSpondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Maury County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was filed against William Clark Barnes, Jr., an attorney licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9,
the Board of Prâoibssional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December 10,
2010.
Respondent represented his client at a hearing on Juiy 10, 2009, in which the Court ruled on
terms of an amended permanent parenting plan (PPP) and child support worksheet. Adverse counsel
faxed a copy of a proposed Order reï¬ecting the courtâs ruling and attached PPP to Respondent. on
July 17 and July 23, 20095 for his review. When adverse counsel did not hear from Respondent, she
scheduled it for a he sting on August 7, 2009. Respondent and adverse counsel communicated before
the hearing, which he did not attend. The Order and attached PPP were submitted for entry at that
time by adverse counsel, who signed Respondentâs name'with permission. Respondent admits that
he failed to review the Order and attached PPP before they were entered. While Respondent does
not admit that the Order and PPP contained errors, in a subsequent letter to adverse counsel,
Respondent states that his client pointed out errors, which he was correcting in the enclosed modiï¬ed
parenting plan he intended to ï¬le with the court. Also, Respondent cited âclerical errorsâ as grounds
for the motion for modiï¬cation. Respondentâs contention that he did not give adverse counsel
permission to sign his name to the Order is tebutted by adverse counselâs account, which is
supported by documentation. Respondent failed to send the motion to modify the parenting, pian he
ï¬led to his client. Respondent has past disciplinary history for similar conduct.
By the aforementioned facts, William Clark Barnes, J12, has violatedRules of Professional
Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diiigence) and 1.4 (communication) and is hereliy Publicly Censuted
for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBKLITY
Gilliam
Leld M. I-Iollabaughï¬abhair
Wat;â