Microsoft Word - Public Censure Hamblen 74334.docx (2024)

Note: This document was published in 2024. Information in older documents may not reflect current board procedures or policies.

Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.

Original PDF Document


Download Official Record (hamblen-74334-8--public-censure.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.

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT VIII
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: David L. Hamblen, #010234 FILE No. 74334-8-ES
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
____________________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC CENSURE
____________________________________________________________________________

The above complaint was filed against David Hamblen, an attorney licensed to practice

law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, the Board

of Professional Responsibility considered this matter at its meeting on March 8, 2024.

Respondent represents the mother of a child in contentious custody litigation in which an

order had been entered granting the mother supervised visitation. A few months later, opposing

counsel sent a draft revised parenting plan to Respondent which allowed for unsupervised

visitation. Prior to the entry of any agreed parenting plan, however, Respondent’s client called

him and said she was having a problem arranging for her visitation to be supervised on a particular

day. Respondent then instructed his client to go ahead with unsupervised visitation.

Opposing counsel filed a motion for contempt due to Respondent’s client’s exercise of

unsupervised visitation. Respondent sent a letter to opposing counsel and informed her that he

“took it upon [him]self” to instruct his client not to comply with the existing court order, and that

he knew no order had been entered relieving her of the supervised visitation.

By the aforementioned acts, David Hamblen is in violation of Rules of Professional

Conduct 3.4 (fairness to opposing party) and 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice) and

is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

_______________________________
Jennifer S. Hagerman, Chair

April 23, 2024
_______________________________
Date

2

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top