morrow-32410-6-and-32538-6-public-censure.pdf (2009)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (morrow-32410-6-and-32538-6-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

FILED
QCM QHI Aaron
sesssbljpsoesslowstadsscsstalnw
Ustss
RsMseeus‘r FTENNESSEE
IN DIS CIPLINARY DISTRICT VI .A -_ .
OF THE ‘ Executive Secretary
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY '
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: CHARLES CRAIG MQRROW BPR NO. 3269 FILE NO. 32410—6—KB; 3253 8-6-KB
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Davidson County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Charles Craig Morrow, an attorney licensed) to

practice lawin Teimessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

~ 9, the Board oi‘ Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December

11, 2009.

Informant represented parties in a personal injury matter who settled the case with the

understanding that they would be responsible for any subi-cgation claims that may be brought

later. After settlement of the case, Infomiant’s former clients were brodght into a civil action by

an insurer seeking to subrogate a claim paid on their behalf. Informant was also brought into the

civil action. Informant retained Tom Smith to defend him in the civil action. OnIulyZI, 2009,

Mr. Smith sent correspondence to Informant’s former clients advising that he represented

Informant in the matter.’ On July 27, 2009, Informant’s former clients contacted Respondent

about representation in the matter, which was scheduled in court for July 29, 2009. Respondent '

advised that he was unavailable for court on that day, but did not think it would be a problem to

get a continuance.) The civil action was continued and 011 July 30, 2009, Respondent discussed

the matter further with Informant’s former client. Respondent called Tom Smith on July 30,
2009, to further discuss the case and a message was left for Informant, but no detail was made

regarding Respondent’s reason for the call. On July 31, .2009, Respondent sent a letter to

Informant aclmowledging Torn Smith’s representation of Informant. On July 31,. 2009,

Informant returned Respondent‘s call; When it was evident to vhiforrnant that Respondent

intended to discuss the civil action involving Informant’s former clients, Informant advised

Respondent that he was represented by Mr. Smith and did not wish to discuss the matter further.

infmmant alleges that Respondent refused to discontinue the conversation and. stated that he had

already contacted Informant’s attorney but had received lie—response. Informant also alleges that

Respondent made reference to the letter Mr. Smith sent. to Informant’s former clients which

indicated that Mr. Smith represented Informant. Informant further alleges that Respondent

‘ threatened to report him to the Board of Professional Responsibility if he refused to pay half of

I plaintiff’s settlement demand in the civil action: Respondent states in a letter to Disciplinary-

Counsel that “‘[t]he bottom line is that on July 315t when [Infonnant] was talking to me at first, I

didn’t know that Tom Smith had been retained as his attorney until we were over halfway

through the conversation.”

- Respondent represented the husband in a contentious divorce. The husband was under an

Order of Protection that prohibited contact with his wife. Informant represented the wife in the

divorce. Respondent and Informant worked out an agreement whereby the husband could come

to the marital residence to retrieve some of his personal property. Respondent. advised the

' husband to bring a witness with him in case problems arose. When the husband arrived at the

marital home, the wife refused to allow husband’s witness to retrieve the property. Husband

contacted Respondent and informed him of the problem. Respondent was unable to get. in.

contact with Informant, and contacted the wife directly to find out why she would not allow the
husband to retrieve the personal propeity. Respondent admitted to Disciplinary Counsel that he

had communieation with the Wife without consent of Infomant. Informant filed a Motion to

Reouse and Respondent voluntarily withdrew from the case.

- By the aforementioned facts, Charles Craig Morrow has violated Rules of Professional

Conduct RPC 4.2 (oomnmnioation with person represen y counsel) and is hereby Publioally

Censured for these violations.

l "‘

‘ @srflwmy
Date
WW? ,

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