Sneed 23509 rel.PDF (2002)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (011141-20021210.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
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE (800) 486-5714 THERESA M. COSTONIS
CONSUMER COUNSEL/DIRECTOR FAX: (615) 367- 2480 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: MICHAEL J. SNEED, BPR #11141
CONTACT: CHARLES A. HIGH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
December 10, 2002
NASHVILLE LAWYER CENSURED
Michael H. Sneed, a Nashville lawyer, was publicly censured by the Board of
Professional Responsibility on November 25, 2002. A public censure is a public rebuke
and warning to the offender, but, a censure does not affect the lawyerâs license to
practice law. The discipline was imposed by the Board and Sneed had a right to
request a hearing. A hearing was not requested and the discipline is final.
The complaint arose when Mr. Sneed filed a lawsuit against three defendants. One
of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case by summary judgment. Sneed
failed to file affidavits and a memorandum of law as required by court rules and the
defendant was dismissed from the lawsuit. Sneed did not attend court to argue the
motion until the judge sent for him.
The other defendants then filed motions for summary judgment and Mr. Sneed failed
to respond as required by court rules. The plaintiff was able to hire other counsel to
oppose the motions in compliance with court rules.
The Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Sneedâs conduct was
prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Board found that Sneed neglected and
failed to prepare the legal matter.
Sneed was found by the Board to have intentionally or habitually violated court rules.
His misconduct was aggravated by the fact that Sneed had received prior discipline
including three public censures and a six-month suspension.
CAH:mw
Sneed 23509 rel.doc