BoardNotesFall2017.pdf (2017)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (BoardNotesFall2017.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2017

Inside:
2

Spotlight: Update on National
Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being

3

Tennessee Supreme Court Revises
Rule 9 § 32.1

4

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

5

Formal Ethics Opinion 2017-F164: Proposed Interstate Law
Firm SETCO Law

10

Board’s 36th Annual Report

19

Disciplinary Actions
April 2017 - September 2017

Greeting from Michael King
Chair, Board of Professional Responsibility

It has been a tremendous honor to serve as Chair of the Board of
Professional Responsibility for the past three years. As my term on
the board draws to a close, I want to thank the Supreme Court, my
fellow board members, Disciplinary Counsel and staff, hearing
committee members, Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program and
the Administrative Office of the Courts for all their hard work and
dedication. Additionally, I would like thank the bar associations and
other organizations, whose analysis and suggestions have played an
integral part in our deliberations on opinions and proposed rule
changes. The goal of the Board has always been to protect the
public through the enforcement of the Court’s disciplinary rules and
to assist the public, attorneys and judiciary by providing information
and resources about the disciplinary process, rules and the judicial

system in general. I want to thank everyone who sacrifices
their time and lends their legal expertise to make that goal
possible. The Board hopes that the information contained
within this edition of Board Notes will be of assistance to all
the groups we serve.

Update on National Task Force on
Lawyer Well-Being
On August 14, 2017, the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs released a
comprehensive report, “The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for
Positive Change,” aimed at addressing the problem of substance use and mental health disorders
of lawyers. (Click here for full report.)
The Task Force was conceptualized and initiated by the ABA Commission on Lawyer
Assistance Programs (CoLAP), the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), and the
Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) and was created in response to the
2016 landmark research that gathered national data regarding abuse, mental health issues and
help-seeking behaviors of lawyers. (Click here for research findings.) Its participating entities
currently include the following: ABA CoLAP; ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism;
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility; ABA Young Lawyers Division; ABA Law Practice
Division Attorney Wellbeing Committee; The National Organization of Bar Counsel;
Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers; National Conference of Chief Justices; and
National Conference of Bar Examiners.
Laura McClendon, Executive Director of the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP)
and current CoLAP Commissioner, was one of the peer reviewers of the report prior to it being
released nationally. Ms. McClendon said “Tennessee is on the forefront of responding and
addressing the concerns and recommendations in the report. It’s exciting to see the collaboration
and conversations that have already started!”
The report’s recommendations focus on five central themes: (1) identifying stakeholders and the
role each one has in reducing the level of toxicity in the profession, (2) eliminating the stigma
associated with help-seeking behaviors, (3) emphasizing that well-being is an indispensable part
of a lawyer’s duty of competence, (4) educating lawyers, judges, and law students on lawyer
well-being issues, and (5) taking small, incremental steps to change how law is practiced and
how lawyers are regulated to instill greater well-being in the profession.
The Tennessee Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Board of Professional
Responsibility, Board of Law Examiners, CLE Commission, and the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program have started round-table discussions with leaders from law firms, bar
associations, and law schools to determine the best way to serve, support and help the legal
community in Tennessee.

2

The Supreme Court Revises
Rule 9, § 32.1
_______________________________________

On March 13, 2017, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a
petition asking the Court to amend Rule 9, Section 32 of the Rules of the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The petition proposed amending the Rule to clarify
that attorney disciplinary hearings are open to the public, unless subject to a
protective order. On August 30, 2017, the Court granted the Board’s Petition.
Click here to read more about this Rule change.

Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Garland v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, No. E2016-01106-SC-R3-BP, 2017 WL 3440558 (Tenn. 2017).
The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed a public reprimand for Knoxville attorney Danny C. Garland, II, based on his
professional misconduct.
In 2014, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Garland. The
petition alleged, in part, that while handling an adoption case, Mr. Garland failed to communicate appropriately with his
clients, failed to exercise reasonable diligence in his representation, and committed professional misconduct. A hearing
panel found that Mr. Garland had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he be publicly
reprimanded. The hearing panel considered his misconduct in handling the adoption case, his prior disciplinary record,
and his experience in the practice of law. Mr. Garland appealed to the Knox County Chancery Court, which affirmed the
hearing panel’s decision. Mr. Garland appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In an opinion authored by Justice Sharon G. Lee, the Court
held that Mr. Garland failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the adoption case, failed to
promptly comply with his client’s requests for information, and failed to act with diligence in his representation, thereby
causing a lengthy delay in the resolution of the adoption. In particular, the Court found Mr. Garland’s firm policies,
practices, and procedures for communicating with clients and monitoring case files to be ineffective. The Court upheld
public censure as an appropriate sanction for Mr. Garland’s professional misconduct.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Holly Kirby determined that the Board of Professional Responsibility should have
proceeded against Mr. Garland under the rules governing a lawyer’s supervision of and responsibility for the conduct of
his nonlawyer staff. Because the Board failed to do so, the hearing panel did not make the proper findings for review by
the Supreme Court. Click here to read the decision.
In Re: Walwyn, No. M2016-01517-SC-BAR-BP 2017 WL 3326433 (Tenn. 2017).
On August 4, 2017, Paul Julius Walwyn, of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended for one (1) year by order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court, effective August 4, 2017. Six (6) months of the suspension is to be served as active
suspension. The remainder of the suspension is to be served on probation with the conditions that Mr. Walwyn engage a
practice monitor to supervise his office management procedures and that he complete an additional six (6) hours of
continuing legal education on subjects related to the management of a law practice and/or client communication.
Mr. Walwyn was appointed to represent a defendant on appeal in a criminal case. He failed to file a notice of appeal. He
waited three and one-half years before filing a motion to accept a late appeal. He did not adequately communicate with
his client. Mr. Walwyn has been twice disciplined for similar misconduct in the past.
A hearing panel recommended that Mr. Walwyn be publicly censured, retain a practice monitor for one year and complete
an additional six hours of continuing legal education on subjects related to the management of a law practice and/or client
communication. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 15.4, the Supreme Court found that the hearing
panel’s punishment was inadequate. It modified the judgment of the hearing panel as set forth above.
Mr. Walwyn’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3, Diligence;
1.4, Communication; and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct.
Mr. Walwyn must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys. Mr. Walwyn must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the
court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement. Click here to read the decision.

4

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2017-F-164

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion
regarding the opening and operation of a proposed interstate law firm, using a trade name,
SETCO Law (the “Firm”).

OPINION
Interstate law firm partnerships are permitted if they comply with The Tennessee Rules
of Professional Conduct. Such interstate law firm partnerships may use a tradename if it
complies with RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5. Interstate law firm partnerships may lease space from a
title company if there is a distinct separation between the law firm and the title company with
regard to entry way, signage, letterhead, business cards, etc., and the customers of the law related
services are advised that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not apply to the
provision of the law related services of the title company, preferably in writing.

INTRODUCTION
The requesting lawyer proposes a 50%-50% partnership between a Tennessee
Professional Services Corporation (PA) and a Florida Professional Services Corporation (PA)
that will operate under a trade name, SETCO Law. The Florida PA will lease space from
SETCO Services, a title company, for which the requesting lawyer is in-house counsel, in Destin,
Florida. The Tennessee PA will lease space from another law firm, Brannon Law, located in
Memphis, TN.
The proposed Firm will have a separate computer system, including secure email system,
apart from SETCO Services and can only be accessed by employees of the Firm. The Firm will
have its own logo which will be conspicuous within the building. All clients, before engagement
with the Firm, will be provided with a written engagement letter that provides in detail that
SETCO Law is an entity separate and apart from SETCO Services and Brannon Law and that
engagement with the Firm is in no way tied to any affiliation with SETCO services or any
services provided therefrom.

ISSUES
I.

Do the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct allow a partnership between a
Tennessee Professional Services Corporation and a Florida Professional Services
Corporation?

II.

Can the partnership ethically use a trade name?

III.

Can the Florida office of the partnership ethically lease space from SETCO
Services, a title company?

DISCUSSION
I.
Do the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct allow a partnership between a Tennessee
Professional Services Corporation and a Florida Professional Services Corporation?
“The growth, development and diversity of the legal profession have spawned a
proliferation of new ways of conducting the practice which have taken lawyers far beyond the
sole practitioner and single office law firm models of an earlier era. Today law firms operate in
multiple cities, form networks or law firms under a common firm name or trade name, and join
forces and pool resources in any number of business arrangements.”1
“In the United States multi-jurisdictional law firm partnerships-formed by attorneys
licensed to practice and physically located in more than one state-are accepted without
question.”2 “The formation of partnerships between attorneys authorized to practice in different
jurisdictions is not unethical.” 3 Nothing in the Model Rules or the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct would prohibit such a partnership so long as the partnership status is
clearly disclosed to the clients, and the partnership complies with the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
If several entities are held out as a single firm, then their lawyers must meet not only the
obligations regarding preservation of confidences and avoidance of conflicts, but also those
arising under rules that normally come into play only when lawyers are associated in the same
firm.4 Those obligations and responsibilities include the partners making reasonable efforts to
ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the
firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.5

1
2

ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-388 (1994) at page 1.
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Op. 278 (1998)

3

ABA, Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Grievances, Formal Op. 316 (1967).
ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-388 (1994) at page 7.
5
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.1(a).
4

6

II.
Can the partnership ethically use a trade name?
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.5 recognizes that a trade name may be
used, if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable
legal services organization, and the rule requires that such a trade name does not violate RPC
7.16 which prohibits lawyers from making false or misleading communications about the lawyer
or the lawyer’s services.7
If a law firm licenses its name to another firm, it must in fact, operate as a single firm and
shall be treated as a single firm for all purposes under the Model Rules, 8 Lawyers may state or
imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact. 9
“A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name or other
professional designation in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of the
firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the
jurisdiction where the office is located.”10

III.
Can the Florida office of the partnership ethically lease space from SETCO Services, a title
company?
No ethical rules restrict the location of the office of a lawyer. Nothing prevents a lawyer
from entering into a landlord-tenant relationship and having an office in the same building as a
land title company.11
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-34, based on the prior Code section DR 2-102(E)
which has been carried into RPC 5.7, holds that “The Code of Professional Responsibility would
not necessarily prohibit a real estate closing business from being located in the same building as
the law firm. However, the divorcement between the offices must be sincere and complete with
no common use of stationary, cards, announcements, names on doors, etc.”12 The Tennessee
Opinion was based on ABA Formal Opinion 328 which held that a lawyer may practice law and
conduct a law related business from the same office as long as all the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, are complied with, particularly DR 2-102(E).

6

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.5 (a).
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.1.
8
ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-388 (1994) at page 1.
9
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.5 (d).
10
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 7.5 (b).
11
AR Jud Eth. Adv. Comm. Advisory Opinion 2000-01 at page 1.
12
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-34 at page 1.
7

7

This is because the real estate title company provides law related services as defined in
RPC 5.7(b) “The term ‘law-related’ services’ denotes services that might reasonably be
performed in conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services, and
that are not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.”13
A real estate title company provides a law related service and therefore lawyers must
adhere to RPC 5.7(a) with regard to their responsibilities regarding law related services.
“A lawyer shall be subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct
with respect to the provision of law-related services, (1) if the law
related services are provided in circumstances that are not distinct
from the lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients; or (2) in
other circumstances by an entity controlled by the lawyer
individually or with others if the lawyer fails to take reasonable
measures to assure that a person obtaining the law related services
knows that the services are not legal services and that the
protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not exist.”14
“Law related services may be provided through an entity that is distinct from that through
which the lawyer provides legal services. If the lawyer individually or with others has control of
such an entity’s operations the Rule requires the lawyer to take reasonable measures to assure
that each person using the services of the entity knows that the services provided by the entity
are not legal services and that the Rules of Professional Conduct that relate to the client-lawyer
relationship do not apply. A lawyer’s control of an entity extends to the ability to direct its
operation. Whether a lawyer has such control will depend upon the circumstances of the
particular case.”15
The lawyer should communicate in writing to the person using the law-related service the
significance of the fact that the provision of the law related service will not create a client-lawyer
relationship. The communication should be made prior to an agreement to provide the law
related services and should preferably be in writing.16 “The burden is on the lawyer to show that
the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired
understanding.17

13

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.7(b).
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.7(a).
15
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.7 comment [4].
16
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.7 comment [6].
17
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.7 comment [7].
14

8

CONCLUSION
The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct permit interstate law firm partnerships that
comply with the rules. Such interstate law firm partnerships may use a tradename if it complies
with RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5. Interstate law firm partnerships may lease space from a title
company if there is a distinct separation from the law firm with regard to entry way, signage,
letterhead, business cards, etc., and the customers of the law related services are advised that the
protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not apply to the provision of the law related
services of the title company, preferably in writing. The proposed interstate partnership appears
to comply with these requirements. It is incumbent upon SETCO Services to make it clear that
persons using the law related services that it provides understand that it is separate and apart
from the Firm leasing space and that the law related services do not create a client-lawyer
relationship with the Firm.

This _____day of_________, 2017.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:
________________________
Bridget Willhite, chair
________________________
Ruth Ellis
_______________________
Jimmie Miller

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

9

Board of Professional Responsibility
36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
Board of Professional Responsibility
Organization and Composition
The Tennessee Supreme Court regulates and supervises the practice of law in Tennessee pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. The Court appoints twelve members to the Board of Professional
Responsibility (the Board) to effectuate Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 and the Court’s disciplinary enforcement.
The Board consists of nine (9) attorneys and three (3) public (non-attorney) members who serve threeyear terms and geographically represent the entire state. In 2016-2017, Board members volunteered 1,019
hours and received no compensation for their service. Current members of the Board include:
Michael King (Chair)
Joe Riley (Vice-Chair)
Kenneth Blackburn (Lay Member)
Dana Dye
Ruth Ellis
Odell Horton, Jr.
John D. Kitch
Joe Looney
Jon Lundberg (Lay Member)
Jimmie Miller
Tyreece Miller (Lay Member)
Bridget Willhite
The Court appoints a Chief Disciplinary Counsel who reports to the Board. The Board also employs
attorneys as Disciplinary Counsel and support staff to assist with attorney registration; consumer assistance;
investigation and litigation. A staff directory is attached as Exhibit A.
District Committee Members
The Tennessee Supreme Court appoints attorneys to serve as district committee members from each
disciplinary district in the state. In 2016-2017, 168 attorneys assisted the Court and the Board as district
committee members reviewing Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendations on investigative files and sitting on
hearing panels conducting formal disciplinary charges. Of the 168 members, 159 reported volunteering 2,463
hours in 2016-2017 for which they received no compensation for their services. A roster of current district
committee members is attached as Exhibit B.

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

Assistance, Investigation and Prosecution
 Consumer Assistance Program (CAP)
Non-frivolous complaints against attorneys submitted by clients, lawyers, judges and the public are referred to
the Board’s Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) for assistance or opened and assigned to Disciplinary
Counsel for investigation. CAP answers questions, provides information, informally mediates disputes, and
refers matters to Disciplinary Counsel for investigation.

Caseload
Number of Cases Opened

2,676

Timeliness of Resolution
0 to 15 days
16 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 or more days

46.0%
14.9%
17.1%
21.9%

Actions Taken
Mediate
Advise
Referrals
Provide Information

34%
44%
15%
7%

 Investigation
Disciplinary Counsel investigate complaints alleging unethical conduct. After investigation, Disciplinary
Counsel recommend dismissal of the complaint if there is insufficient proof of a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. If the investigated complaint reflects a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
Disciplinary Counsel recommend diversion, private informal admonition, private reprimand, public censure, or
the filing of formal disciplinary charges. A district committee member reviews and approves or disapproves
Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation for dismissal, diversion, and private informal admonition. The Board
of Professional Responsibility reviews and approves or disapproves Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation for
private reprimand, public censure, and the filing of formal disciplinary charges.

11

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
A.

Nature of Complaints

B.

Investigative Complaint Caseload

Complaints Received:
Complaints Pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

1,552
610

Total Complaints:

2,162

12

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

C.

Investigative Complaint Disposition:
Administrative Dismissals:
Investigative Dismissals:
Diversions:
Private Informal Admonitions:
Private Reprimands:
Informal Public Censures:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Placed on Retired Status:
Other:18

510
504
30
60
35
46
46
13
10

Total:

1,254

 Formal Disciplinary Proceedings:
After the Board of Professional Responsibility authorizes Disciplinary Counsel to file formal
disciplinary charges (i.e., a petition for discipline) against an attorney, the matter is assigned to three district
committee members who constitute a hearing panel. The Hearing Panel sets the disciplinary proceeding for a
hearing which is open to the public unless a protective order has been entered. The Tennessee Rules of
Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 provides otherwise.
The Board of Professional Responsibility must prove an attorney’s ethical misconduct by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hearing Panels may recommend dismissal, public censure, suspension or
disbarment.

A.

18

Caseload
Formal cases filed during Fiscal Year:
Formal cases pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

136
109

Total formal proceedings:

245

Public hearings conducted in Fiscal Year:

55

Abated by death; complaint withdrawn; duplicate file.
13

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

B.

19

Formal Disciplinary Proceedings Disposition:
Dismissals:
Public Censures:
Suspensions:
Disbarments:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Temporary Suspensions:
Retired:
Reinstatements:
Other19:

4
10
18
23
37
13
12
5
9

Total:

131

Abated by death; voluntary non-suited; denied; withdrawn.

14

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
 Non-disciplinary/Administrative Suspensions:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court suspends attorneys who fail to pay their annual fee
(Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 10.6); fail to complete annual continuing legal education requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R.
21 § 7); fail to comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 43 § 15); fail to
pay the Tennessee professional privilege tax (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 26); or default on student loans (Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 9 § 37). No attorney suspended pursuant to these Rules may resume practice until reinstated by Order of
the Supreme Court. Attorneys were administratively suspended during fiscal year 2016-2017 as follows:
Non-payment of Annual Fee:
Continuing Legal Education non-compliance:
Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts non-compliance:
Professional Privilege Tax non-compliance:
Default on a Student Loan:
Total:

40
112
54
0
1
207

 Current Number of Tennessee Attorneys
Active Attorneys:
Inactive Attorneys:
Pro hac vice Attorneys:

22,832
4,560
690

*Attorneys not included in this chart: Inactive attorneys (4,560); Pro hac vice attorneys (690).

15

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

 Education and Information
The Board issues Formal Ethics Opinions and staff respond to informal ethics questions by phone and internet.
Disciplinary Counsel present continuing legal education seminars, publish Board Notes, a bi-annual newsletter,
and update the Board’s website with rule changes, disciplinary decisions and news for attorneys, judges and the
public.

A.

Ethics Opinions
i.

Informal Opinions

Ethics Counsel and Disciplinary Counsel responded to 2,408 phone and internet inquiries from attorneys
seeking ethical guidance.20
ii.

Formal Opinions

2016-F-161: To the extent settlement provisions require attorneys to turn over documents protected by
the lawyer work product doctrine, the provisions may be prohibited by Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct
5.6(b). That is, a lawyer may not propose or agree to a settlement agreement that requires a lawyer to turn over
any work product materials as part of the settlement if that action will restrict his representation of other clients.

2017-F-162: The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested by the State of Tennessee
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Department of Labor and Workforce Development to issue a Formal Ethics
Opinion regarding the extent to which an ombudsman attorney may provide “limited legal advice” within the
meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. Section 50-6-216(e)(3) which provides that “[a]n ombudsman who is not a
licensed attorney shall not provide legal advice however, an ombudsman who is a licensed attorney may
provide limited legal advice however, an ombudsman who is a licensed attorney may provide limited legal
advice but shall not represent any party as the party’s attorney. No ombudsman shall make attorney referrals.”

B.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Presentations:

Between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017, Disciplinary Counsel presented fifty-one (51) CLE seminars,
attended by approximately 2,967 attorneys.
20

Tennessee attorneys may submit ethics inquiries to the Board by calling 615-361-7500, ext. 212, or via the Board’s website at
www.tbpr.org.

16

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
C.

Board Notes:

In 2016-2017, the Board emailed both Fall and Spring issues of Board Notes, the Board’s semi-annual
newsletter to all attorneys and judges and published it on the Board’s website.
Board of Professional Responsibility
Staff Directory
Name

Title

Extension

Kevin Balkwill

Disciplinary Counsel

223

Carol Bershatsky

Receptionist

200

Patty Burton

Assistant Director

216

Melanie Cail

Legal Assistant - Litigation

237

Laura Chastain

Ethics Counsel

212

Steve Christopher

Disciplinary Counsel

203

Sandy Garrett

Chief Disciplinary Counsel

211

Reynold Gaulden, Jr.

Registration Assistant II

244

Elizabeth Gray

Administrative Assistant – Registration and Scanning

202

Candis Grooms

Case Manager

229

Kelly Heflin

Legal Assistant - Investigations

242

Krisann Hodges

Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel

214

Alan Johnson

Disciplinary Counsel

207

Soumya Kademakki

Lead Legal Assistant - Investigations

218

Cheryl Lang

Administrative Scan Clerk

234

Mary McKnight

Registration Manager

213

Bill Moody

Disciplinary Counsel

217

Dana Patrick

Paralegal

224

Tony Pros

Network Administrator

230

Suzanne Saucier

Lead Legal Assistant - Litigation

221

Jessica Schraw

CAP Paralegal

240

Beverly Sharpe

Director of Consumer Assistance Program

226

Preston Shipp

Disciplinary Counsel

222

Diane Thompson

Legal Assistant - Investigations

201

Suzie Thurber

Administrative Receivables Clerk

219

Julie Turner

Executive Assistant

209

Cheri Weaver

CAP Legal Assistant

208

Rita Webb

Executive Secretary

206

Lani White

Registration and Scan Clerk

234

Meghan Williams

CAP Intake Assistant

228

Russ Willis

Disciplinary Counsel

236

Beverly Yousefzadeh

Administrative Payables Clerk

241

17

Exhibit A

36th Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
District Committee Members
District
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Last Name
Canter
Chitwood
Evans
Haynes
Herndon, IV
Johnstone
Pierce
Smith, Jr.
Stone, III
Terry
Terry
Woods
Adams
Alley
Butler
Cole
Coleman
Cone
Couch
Crutchfield
Draper
Dreiser
Dyer
Eldridge
Ford
Gaby
Hall
Irvine, Jr.
Johnson
King
Krumm
Morrison
O'Kane, Jr.
O'Rear
Stackhouse
Stephens
Teeters
Tonkin
Ward, Jr.
Winters
Woodfin
Young
Bennington Cannon
Blevins
Buchanan
Cash
Crump
Easterly
Hill
Hill
Jacobs
Jenne
Killian
Smith
Swafford
Weiss

First Name
Julie
Kent
Curtis
Olen
Charles
Frank
Nikki
Marvin
Lee
Steven
Fred
Laura
Oliver
Gordon
John
Robert
Gregory
James
Virginia
Karen
David
John
Alyson
John
Joseph
Gene
Christopher
Kenneth
Lawrence
Michael
Brian
Eric
James
Carrie
Mary
Mark
Kevin
Elizabeth
Hugh
John
Clinton
Broderick
Lindsay
Melissa
Ginger
Larry
Stephen
Alan
Rosemarie
Cameron
Philip
Michael
William
William
Lynne
William

District
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Last Name
Aaron
Bobo
Corley
Duncan
Gothard
Hagan, Jr.
Heckman
Henry
Newman
Omohundro
Thompson, Jr.
York
Aden
Bigelow
Boyd
Bryant
Campbell
Carpenter
Castellarin
Dowlen
Gabbert, Jr.
Grant
Kinslow
Kweller
McGee
McLemore, III
Mendes
Milam
Ney, Jr.
O'Bryan, Jr.
Perry
Potempa
Raney
Rubenfeld
Shockley
Shulman
Simmons
Sowell
Sweeney, III
Todd
Welch
Wigger
Bateman
Bates, III
Brown
Bryan
Burlison
Coffinberry
Durham
Fahey, II
Flynn
Free
Garner
Helper
Henry, Jr.
Holt

First Name
Douglas
Stephen
William
Christina
Joy
Anthony
Kyle
Jeffrey
Robert
Lynn
Tom
Randall
Gareth
Robert
Martha
Kenneth
Andrew
Brigid
Michael
Nathan
Craig
Charles
Rhonda
Stanley
Richard
Claiborne
Robert
James
Paul
William
Andrea
Patrick
Aaron
Abby
Gary
Rebekah
Janelle
Alan
Matthew
Daniel
Mary
Gerald
Robert
Douglas
Nathan
Vanessa
John
Anita
Ryan
Michael
Patrick
Mark
Samuel
Kim
Joseph
Charles

District
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Last Name
Kelly
Kozlowski
McWherter
Mounger
Plant
Schell
Smith
Spitzer
Underwood
Walker
Finney, III
Floyd
Hessing
Maddox, III
Marshall
Reynolds
Scott
Thorne
Townsend, Jr.
Bivens
Bowen
Jenkins, Jr.
Maness
Unger, Jr.
Warner, III
Abdullah
Bearman
Branch
Campbell
Canale
Cassidy, Jr.
Childress, Jr.
Click
Diggs
Donelson
Ferrante
Floyd
Halmon
Isaacman
Jones, Jr.
Jordan, III
Kavanagh
Kellum
Mathis
Morrow
Mullins
Patterson
Patton
Podesta, Jr.
Reed
Savory
Sink
Turner
Wellford
Wharton

First Name
Clinton
David
James
Dalton
Paul
Philip
Jerry
Michael
Timothy
Jeffery
Richard
Matthew
Paul
Dwayne
Teresa
William
Clinton
Candace
Edwin
Charles
William
William
Charles
Langdon
John
Imad Al-Deen
David
Thomas
Karen
Stuart
Thomas
Edward
Ricky
Asia
Vivian
Jessica
Amber
Harriett
Leslie
William
Loys
Julia
Timothy
Andre
Charles
Kimbrough
Ashley
Michael
Eugene
Terrence
Russell
Jennifer
Kamilah
Buckner
Andre

Exhibit B
18

Disciplinary Actions
 (April, 2017 – September, 2017)
DISBARMENTS
EDYTHE PASCHALL CHRISTIE, BPR #17920
GIBSON COUNTY
On June 23, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred Edythe (“Didi”) Paschall Christie, of
Gibson County, Tennessee, from the practice of law. Ms. Christie consented to disbarment because she
could not successfully defend charges filed against her with the Board of Professional Responsibility based
upon her criminal conviction for the offense of Tampering with Evidence, in the matter of State of Tennessee
v. Edythe Christie, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Tennessee. The Board initiated formal
proceedings against Ms. Christie following her suspension on September 2, 2015, Pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22. Ms. Christie’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b),
(c) and (d).
Ms. Christie must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
and 19, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
JOHN JAY CLARK, BPR #24360
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On August 9, 2017, John Jay Clark was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The disbarment
took effect immediately. Mr. Clark must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses
and court costs within ninety days.
On November 2, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court summarily suspended John Jay Clark from the practice
of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3 based upon Mr. Clark’s conviction for
forgery. On November 22, 2016, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Final Petition for
Discipline to determine the extent of Mr. Clark’s discipline.
Mr. Clark’s convictions arose from his representation of two clients in uncontested divorce cases.
Mr. Clark prepared final decrees for his clients and forged the signature of the judge. He then gave the final
decrees to his clients leading them to believe they were divorced. In one case, the spouse of Mr. Clark’s
client re-married based upon his belief that he was divorced. Mr. Clark is ordered to pay restitution to three
(3) victims of his crime in the total amount of $3,322.00. Mr. Clark’s conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 8.4 (a), (b), and (c) (Misconduct).
In an unrelated case, Mr. Clark was previously disbarred on December 14, 2016. To date, Mr. Clark
has not been reinstated from his previous disbarment.

19

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Mr. Clark must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
RICHARD KENT HARRIS, BPR #629
TEXAS
On June 16, 2017, Richard Kent Harris, of Montgomery, Texas, was disbarred by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court effective immediately.
The Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Mr. Harris on April 28, 2017, pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3, based upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud.
The Board of Professional Responsibility instituted a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final
discipline to be imposed. In addition, Mr. Harris engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while
suspended for non-payment of the annual registration fee. Mr. Harris entered a conditional guilty plea
agreeing to disbarment.
Mr. Harris’ actions violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice
of law) and 8.4(a) (misconduct) and Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 5.05(a) (unauthorized
practice of law) and 8.4(3) (misconduct).
Mr. Harris must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys. Mr. Harris must pay the Board’s
costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
WESLEY LYNN HATMAKER, BPR #14880
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On August 10, 2017, Wesley Lynn Hatmaker, of Jacksboro, Tennessee, was disbarred from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Hatmaker must make restitution
as a condition of his reinstatement. The order is effective August 10, 2017. Mr. Hatmaker must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Hatmaker misappropriated client funds, failed to communicate with and diligently represent
clients, failed to properly terminate his relationship with clients, practiced law while temporarily suspended
and failed to respond to requests for information from the Board. Mr. Hatmaker pled guilty to four counts of
theft over $60,000 and two counts of theft over $10,000.
Mr. Hatmaker’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4(a),
Communication; 1.15(a) and (d), Safekeeping Property and Funds; 1.16(d), Declining and Terminating
Representation; 5.5(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and
8.4(a), (b), (c) and (g), Misconduct.

20

DISBARMENTS (continued)
On October 3, 2016, Mr. Hatmaker was disbarred for misappropriating funds from clients, and failing
to communicate with and diligently represent clients. That disbarment remains in effect.
Mr. Hatmaker must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
THOMAS HOLLAND MCKINNIE, JR., BPR #15580
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 30, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred Davidson County lawyer, Thomas
Holland McKinnie, from the practice of law and ordered that he pay restitution as a condition of
reinstatement. Mr. McKinnie must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and
court costs within ninety days of entry of the Order.
On September 23, 2016, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. McKinnie alleging that he
misappropriated funds from a trust that he prepared for the benefit of a minor child. Over a period of two
years Mr. McKinnie wrote checks to himself from the trust account in the total amount of $196,469.05. Mr.
McKinnie closed the trust account on October 9, 2014, after the funds had been depleted. In January of
2015, Mr. McKinnie failed to pay the school tuition beneficiary, which resulted in the termination of the
child’s enrollment. Mr. McKinnie did not file a response, and a default judgment was entered against him.
The Hearing Panel found that Mr. McKinnie violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)
(b) and (c), (misconduct).
Mr. McKinnie must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys, and the procedure for reinstatement.
EVERETT HOGE MECHEM, BPR #11854
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Effective April 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Everett Hoge Mechem from the
practice of law based upon his felony conviction for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343:
Wire Fraud; Title 42, United States Code, Section 1383a(a)(3): Supplemental Security Income Fraud; Title
18, United States Code Section, 1001: False Statement, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 641: Theft
of Public Money. Mr. Mechem is required to pay the Board’s costs and court costs in this matter.
Mr. Mechem’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and (c) (Misconduct).
Mr. Mechem must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

21

DISBARMENTS (continued)
TIMOTHY ALLEN PRICE, BPR #21652
SHELBY COUNTY
On August 25, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred Timothy Allen Price from the practice of law
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.1. Mr. Price must pay the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s costs and expenses and court costs within ninety days.
The Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Price that included one complaint. Mr. Price prepared a
fraudulent divorce decree and misrepresented to his client that she was divorced. She did not learn of the
fraud until six years later.
The Hearing Panel found that Mr. Price violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, (Competence);
1.3, (Diligence); 1.4, (Communication); 1.5, (Unreasonable fee); 3.2, (Expediting litigation); 8.1,
(Disciplinary matters); and 8.4(c) and (d), (Conduct involving fraud and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
Mr. Price must pay restitution to his client as a condition of reinstatement to the practice of law.
In an unrelated case, Mr. Price was suspended from the practice of law for two years on July 18, 2011. To
date, Mr. Price has not been reinstated from his previous suspension.
Mr. Price must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active practice
of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

SUSPENSIONS
STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, BPR #20439
MADISON COUNTY
On July 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Stephen Christopher Brooks
from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section
12.2. Mr. Brooks must pay the costs incurred in the disciplinary proceeding to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
On September 29, 2015, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Brooks based upon Mr.
Brooks’ guilty plea to violations of TCA §39-17-418, Simple Possession, Schedule II, Cocaine and violation
of TCA §39-17-425, Possession of Paraphernalia, in the Circuit Court for Madison County, Tennessee. The
Petition for Discipline included one (1) complaint alleging commission of a criminal act, conduct involving
dishonesty, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, failure to comply with a final court
order and violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
A hearing was conducted before a Hearing Panel on May 18, 2016, and the Hearing Panel
recommended that Mr. Brooks be suspended for three (3) years, with six (6) months served as an active
suspension and the remainder on probation subject to compliance with a Tennessee Lawyers Assistance

22

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Program (TLAP) Monitoring Agreement, and with the conditions of probation imposed by the criminal
court. Thereafter, Mr. Brooks violated his probation and failed to comply with his Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Monitoring Agreement. Another Hearing was conducted before the Hearing Panel on March 17,
2017. After a full evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Panel recommended that Mr. Brooks be suspended from
the practice of law for five (5) years.
Mr. Brooks’ ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g),
Misconduct.
Mr. Brooks must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
JOHN WILBUR CASTLEMAN, JR., BPR #23551
WAYNE COUNTY
On June 30, 2017, John Wilbur Castleman, Jr., of Waynesboro, Tennessee, was suspended for one (1)
year and one (1) day, effective immediately. In addition, Mr. Castleman must make restitution to one client
in the amount of $500; obtain an evaluation from the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) within
thirty (30) days and, if TLAP determines a monitoring agreement is appropriate, comply with its terms; and
pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of
Enforcement.
Mr. Castleman was administratively suspended on July 16, 2015, for noncompliance with the
mandatory IOLTA reporting requirement and non-payment of the annual registration fee. On July 20, 2015,
Mr. Castleman was paid a $500 refundable retainer by a client. Mr. Castleman did not deposit the retainer to
his trust account. Mr. Castleman did not refund the unearned fee to the client. After learning of his
suspension, Mr. Castleman met with the client in order to prepare for a hearing. Mr. Castleman did not
notify his clients of his suspension. Instead, he wrote a number of his clients a misleading letter in an effort
to explain his absence from the office without advising them of his suspension. Mr. Castleman also failed to
respond to a request for information from the Board.
Mr. Castleman’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a),
Communication; 1.15(c), Safekeeping Property and Funds; 1.16(d), Declining and Terminating
Representation; 5.5(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and
8.4(a), (c) and (g), Misconduct.
Mr. Castleman must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys, and the procedure for
reinstatement.

23

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
HOMER L. CODY, BPR #10755
SHELBY COUNTY
On August 11, 2017, Homer L. Cody of Memphis, Tennessee was suspended for two years by the Tennessee
Supreme Court effective immediately. Further, Mr. Cody must pay the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.
Mr. Cody represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit wherein the judge found that Mr. Cody had a conflict
of interest. The court disqualified Mr. Cody from continuing to represent the plaintiffs. Mr. Cody was
ordered to refrain from filing any other pleadings on behalf of the plaintiffs. The judge dismissed the
plaintiffs’ case. When two of the plaintiffs appealed, Mr. Cody circumvented the court’s order by writing
two appellate briefs for those plaintiffs who then signed and filed the briefs as if they were not represented
by an attorney. For this, Mr. Cody was suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court for one year on July 27,
2016, in a prior disciplinary case. Mr. Cody prepared three more appellate briefs for the same plaintiffs who
again signed and filed the briefs as if they were not represented by an attorney leading to the present case.
A Hearing Panel found Mr. Cody’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 3.4(c),
Fairness to Opposing Party, and 8.4(a), (c) and (d), Misconduct.
Mr. Cody must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
DON W. COOPER, BPR #1286
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On August 18, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Don W. Cooper from the practice of
law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Cooper
was suspended based upon entering “best interest” pleas to ten counts of a serious crime; i.e., theft.
Mr. Cooper was previously disbarred by the Supreme Court on February 23, 2017. The Supreme
Court ordered the Board to institute a new formal proceeding to determine the extent of final discipline to be
imposed as a result of Mr. Cooper’s pleas.
Mr. Cooper must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
CHARLES DAVID DEAS, BPR #2049
BLOUNT COUNTY
Effective April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Charles David Deas from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months with sixty (60) days to be served as an active suspension and
the remainder served on probation, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 14.1, and ordered
to pay the Board’s costs. Mr. Deas was further ordered to contact the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance
Program (TLAP) for potential monitoring and comply with any recommendations. Upon satisfaction of all

24

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
conditions and the entry of an order of reinstatement by the Supreme Court, Mr. Deas may resume the
practice of law.
On May 9, 2016, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Deas based upon his self-report of his
arrest on June 10, 2014, for driving under the influence and possession of a firearm while intoxicated, and his
subsequent misdemeanor conviction on January 8, 2016, for obstructing a roadway and possession of a
firearm while intoxicated. A Hearing Panel determined Mr. Deas’ conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 8.4(b).
Mr. Deas must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
ROBERT ALLEN DOLL, III, BPR #22764
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On May 31, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Robert Allen Doll, III, from the practice
of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Doll
was suspended based upon being found guilty by a jury of serious crimes; i.e., subornation of aggravated
perjury and criminal simulation.
The Supreme Court ordered the Board to institute a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final
discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Doll being found guilty.
Mr. Doll must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations
and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
S. BRAD DOZIER, BPR #24959
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On June 20, 2017, S. Brad Dozier was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court for two (2) years, with thirty (30) days active suspension and the remainder on probation.
The suspension is to take effect immediately. As conditions of his suspension, Mr. Dozier must engage a
practice monitor, undergo an evaluation by Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and enter into a
monitoring agreement if deemed appropriate by TLAP, and commit no further acts of misconduct resulting
in a recommendation of discipline. Mr. Dozier must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs
within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
In the representation of six (6) clients, Mr. Dozier failed to act with diligence in handling client
matters and failed to adequately communicate with the clients. In one matter, he failed to deposit an
unearned fee in a trust account.
Mr. Dozier’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Diligence; 1.4,
Communication; 1.15, Safekeeping Property and Funds; and 8.4, Misconduct.

25

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Dozier must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
JOHN MARTIN DRAKE, BPR #30532
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective April 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended John Martin Drake from the
practice of law for two (2) years pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and referred
Mr. Drake to Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP).
Mr. Drake, while suspended from the practice of law, knowingly and intentionally made a series of telephone
calls to the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex identifying himself as an attorney and representing
himself as the attorney for an inmate at the facility. By these acts, Mr. Drake violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(b) (bar admissions and disciplinary matters) and 8.4(b) and
(c) (misconduct).
On August 19, 2015, Mr. Drake was summarily suspended from the practice of law (Case No.
ADM2015-00050) for failure to comply with Continuing Legal Education requirements and that suspension
remains in effect.
Prior to seeking reinstatement, Mr. Drake must comply in all aspects with Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the
procedure for reinstatement.
PATRICIA STOLINSKY GRAVES, BPR #26617
WILSON COUNTY
On June 21, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Patricia Stolinsky Graves from the
practice of law for five (5) years pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2. Ms. Graves
must pay restitution to seventeen former clients as a condition of reinstatement to the practice of law. Ms.
Graves must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and court costs within ninety
days.
On November 16, 2015, the Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Graves. On February
23, 2016, the Board filed a Supplemental Petition for Discipline against Ms. Graves. On October 3, 2016,
the Board filed a Second Supplemental Petition for Discipline against Ms. Graves. Ms. Graves entered a
Conditional Guilty Plea which included six additional investigative files admitting her misconduct.
The allegations in the Petitions for Discipline and the six (6) investigative files include overdrafts of
Respondent’s IOLTA account and failure to maintain proper records of the IOLTA account, lack of
competence, diligence and communication, excessive fees, improper termination, failure to expedite
litigation, lack of candor toward a tribunal, unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice, and failure to comply with court orders.

26

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Ms. Graves’ misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, Scope of Representation; 1.3,
Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; 1.16, Declining and Terminating
Representation; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal; 3.4, Fairness to Opposing
Party; 5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4,
Misconduct.
Ms. Graves must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the obligations
and responsibilities suspended attorneys.
RICHARD KENT HARRIS, BPR #629
TEXAS
On April 28, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Richard Kent Harris from the practice of
law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Harris
was suspended based upon his guilty plea to a serious crime; i.e., conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud.
The Supreme Court ordered the Board of Professional Responsibility to institute a formal proceeding
to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Harris’ guilty plea.
On November 23, 2015, Mr. Harris was administratively suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court for
failure to pay the annual registration fee. That suspension remains in effect.
Mr. Harris must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations
and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
DARRYL WAYNE HUMPHREY, BPR #16471
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective September 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Darryl
Wayne Humphrey from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and requiring Mr. Humphrey to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
A Petition for Discipline was filed April 10, 2017, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline was
filed August 14, 2017, alleging Mr. Humphrey engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and failed to
communicate with and diligently represent his clients.
Mr. Humphrey executed a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting he was administratively suspended
September 29, 2015, and thereafter, participated in a telephone conference with the trial court and opposing
counsel, participated in mediation, executed and filed a marital dissolution agreement and final decree of
divorce, continued as counsel of record in five (5) cases despite his suspension, and actively practiced in four
(4) of those cases. Prior to his administrative suspension, Mr. Humphrey failed to diligently represent a
client and file a motion to amend a previous custody order entered by the court.

27

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Humphrey’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence); 1.4
(communication); 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); and 8.4 (a)(b)(c)(d) (misconduct). Mr. Humphrey’s
Summary Suspension Order entered September 29, 2015, remains in effect.
Mr. Humphrey must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for
reinstatement.
JAMES LESTER KENNEDY, BPR #5453
KNOX COUNTY
On July 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending James Lester
Kennedy from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 12.2. Mr. Kennedy must pay the Board’s costs and expenses within ninety days of the entry of the
Order.
Mr. Kennedy served as the executor of an estate that was opened in 1987. In 2009, approximately
twenty-two (22) years after the estate was opened, the beneficiaries discovered that the estate had not been
closed; that Mr. Kennedy had ignored repeated orders by the Court to appear and settle; and in 2000, the
Court had retired the case due to inactivity. After repeated failures to comply with court orders to provide an
accounting, the Court found Mr. Kennedy in contempt and removed him as executor.
The hearing panel found that Mr. Kennedy’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.1, (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel) and 8.4
(misconduct).
Mr. Kennedy must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
PETER M. NAPOLITANO, BPR #21240
MONTGOMERY
On May 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Peter M. Napolitano
from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years, with probation after a period of one (1) year,
conditioned upon payment of $7,500.00 restitution to a client and payment to the Board for all costs in the
disciplinary proceeding. In addition, the Court conditioned any reinstatement of Mr. Napolitano to the
practice of law after the one (1) year active suspension period upon the appointment of a practice monitor
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.9 (2016) to supervise compliance with trust
accounting rules and accounting procedures. Finally, the Court required Mr. Napolitano to perform one
hundred (100) hours of public service work for each year of his probation. The Court affirmed the decision
of the hearing panel, finding Mr. Napolitano misappropriated his client’s money, failed to maintain disputed
funds in his trust account, and testified falsely under oath on three occasions. Pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18.6 (2006), the suspension is effective June 3, 2017.

28

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Napolitano’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional conduct 1.15(a), (b) and (c)
(2003); 1.15(a), (d) and (e) (2011) and 8.4(c) (2012).
Mr. Napolitano must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
JERE FRANKLIN OWNBY, III, BPR #14979
KNOX COUNTY
Effective July 7, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Jere Franklin Ownby, III from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year with thirty (30) days served as an active suspension, and the
remainder, upon reinstatement, served on probation pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section
12.2. Mr. Ownby’s reinstatement and grant of probation is conditioned upon payment of restitution to two
(2) clients. Mr. Ownby is required to pay court costs and the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
A Petition for Discipline was filed February 23, 2017, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline was
filed July 22, 2016, alleging Mr. Ownby missed scheduled deadlines and court appearances in several
matters, failed to provide the legal services for which he was retained, and failed to maintain confidentiality.
Mr. Ownby admitted his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.2
(scope of representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4
(communication); 1.6 (confidentiality); 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel) and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Ownby must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement is entered by the Supreme Court.
SEAN GARDNER SAXON, BPR #18880
COLORADO
On August 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
suspending the law license of Sean Gardner Saxon of Arvada, Colorado, for three (3) years. The suspension
is retroactive to December 28, 2016. Mr. Saxon is licensed to practice law in Colorado and Tennessee.
Upon receiving notification by the Board of Professional Responsibility that Mr. Saxon was subject
to attorney discipline in Colorado, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a notice requiring Mr. Saxon to
demonstrate why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed in Tennessee. The Colorado Hearing Board
found that Mr. Saxon violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4 (c) (disobeying an obligation of a
tribunal); 8.4(b) (criminal acts); and, 8.4 (h) (conduct that wrongfully harms others and reflects adversely on
the lawyers fitness to practice law). Mr. Saxon did not file a response to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s
notice, and the Court found that it was appropriate to enter an Order of Reciprocal Discipline suspending Mr.
Saxon’s license to practice law in Tennessee.

29

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Saxon must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30.4 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
GERALD DENNY WAGGONER, BPR #13988
SHELBY COUNTY
On August 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Gerald Denny
Waggoner, Jr., from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Section 12.2, and requiring payment of restitution to the client and costs to the Board of Professional
Responsibility. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Waggoner will be required to engage a practice monitor
for one (1) year.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Waggoner on March 1, 2016, consisting of one (1)
complaint alleging lack of diligence, lack of communication, incompetent representation, misrepresentations
to client, improper fee and misrepresentations to the Board. Mr. Waggoner applied for and received a
statutory award of attorney fees in an ERISA case. Although required by a written contingency fee
agreement to credit any fee received toward that owed by the client, Mr. Waggoner demanded a forty percent
(40%) contingency fee upon settlement of the case in addition to retaining the previously received statutory
fee. Without the knowledge or consent of his client, Mr. Waggoner removed the disputed fees from his trust
account and converted them to his personal and business use. Further, Mr. Waggoner failed to provide his
client with a detailed accounting of the funds received and converted and materially misrepresented to the
Board that the client’s money remained in the law firm’s trust account. The matter was tried before a
Hearing Panel which determined the appropriate disciplinary sanction to impose upon Mr. Waggoner was a
three (3) year suspension.
Mr. Waggoner’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.4 (communication); 1.5(a)
& (b) (fees); 1.15(a), (b), (d) & (e) (safekeeping property and funds); 8.1(a) & (b) (bar admissions and
disciplinary matters) and 8.4(a), (b), (c) & (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Waggoner must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for
reinstatement.
PAUL JULIUS WALWYN, BPR #18263
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On August 4, 2017, Paul Julius Walwyn, of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended for one (1) year by
order of the Tennessee Supreme Court, effective August 4, 2017. Six (6) months of the suspension is to be
served as active suspension. The remainder of the suspension is to be served on probation with the
conditions that Mr. Walwyn engage a practice monitor to supervise his office management procedures and
that he complete an additional six (6) hours of continuing legal education on subjects related to the
management of a law practice and/or client communication.

30

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Walwyn was appointed to represent a defendant on appeal in a criminal case. He failed to file a
notice of appeal. He waited three and one-half years before filing a motion to accept a late appeal. He did
not adequately communicate with his client. Mr. Walwyn has been twice disciplined for similar misconduct
in the past.
A hearing panel recommended that Mr. Walwyn be publicly censured, retain a practice monitor for
one year and complete an additional six hours of continuing legal education on subjects related to the
management of a law practice and/or client communication. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 15.4, the Supreme Court found that the hearing panel’s punishment was inadequate. It modified the
judgment of the hearing panel as set forth above.
Mr. Walwyn’s ethical misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1,
Competence; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct.
Mr. Walwyn must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys. Mr. Walwyn must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
ERICH WEBB BAILEY, BPR #32614
FRANKLIN
On July 17, 2017, Erich Webb Bailey was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order
of the Tennessee Supreme Court upon finding that Mr. Bailey has failed to comply with the Court’s Order
entered June 28, 2017, directing that he contact Tennessee Lawyers Assistant Program for an evaluation.
The Court’s June 28, 2017 Order expressly provided that failure by Mr. Bailey to comply with the order may
serve as the basis for temporary suspension pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3.
Mr. Bailey is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 16, 2017. After August 16, 2017, Mr. Bailey shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
This temporary suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Bailey may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.
BOBBY GENE GRAY, JR., BPR #11507
McNAIRY COUNTY
Effective July 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Bobby Gene Gray,
Jr. from the practice of law for posing a threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme

31

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in
cases where the attorney’s conduct poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Gray is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and must cease representing
existing clients before August 26, 2017. Thereafter, Mr. Gray shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Gray must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Gray is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Gray
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
R. W. HARDISON, BPR #9479
WILLLIAMSON COUNTY
Effective August 29, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended R. W. Hardison
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Hardison misappropriated funds for his own use and poses a
threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate
summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s misappropriation of
funds.
Mr. Hardison is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and must cease representing
existing clients by September 28, 2017. After September 28, 2017, Mr. Hardison shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Hardison must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Hardison is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Hardison may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.
NATHANIEL HARRIS KOENIG, BPR #10252
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Nathaniel Harris Koenig
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Koenig has misappropriated funds and poses a threat of
substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary
suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the
public.

32

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Koenig is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by June 25, 2017. After July 25, 2017, Mr. Koenig shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Koenig must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Koenig is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Koenig may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.
JENNIFER ELIZABETH JONES, BPR #31850
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 31, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Jennifer Elizabeth Jones
from the practice of law for failing to respond to the Board regarding complaints of misconduct. Section
12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to
practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.
Ms. Jones is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and must cease representing
existing clients before August 31, 2017. Thereafter, Ms. Jones shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Jones must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Jones is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Ms. Jones must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended attorneys and the procedure
for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Ms. Jones
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
ROBERT LEE MARLOW, BPR #9226
BEDFORD COUNTY
On August 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Robert Lee Marlow from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Marlow failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of
misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an
attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a
complaint of misconduct.

33

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Marlow is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by September 24, 2017. After September 24, 2017, Mr. Marlow shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Marlow must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Marlow is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Marlow must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, §§ 28 and
12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended attorneys and the procedure
for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Marlow may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.
GAIL OSTBY MATHES, BPR #4649
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 23, 2017, Gail Ostby Mathes was removed
from Disability Inactive Status. Ms. Mathes was placed on Disability Inactive Status by Order of the
Supreme Court on October 8, 2012. At the time of her placement on Disability Inactive Status, Ms. Mathes’
law license was temporarily suspended for failure to respond to a disciplinary complaint. The June 23, 2017
Order states that the Order of Temporary Suspension entered on June 26, 2012, remains in full force and
effect.
CASEY EUGENE MORELAND, BPR #11069
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 6, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Casey Eugene Moreland
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Moreland poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s
license to practice law if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Moreland is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by May 6, 2017. After May 6, 2017, Mr. Moreland shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Moreland must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Moreland is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

34

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Moreland may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.
ALBERT FITZPATRICK OFFICER, III, BPR #11629
PUTNAM COUNTY
On July 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Albert Fitzpatrick Officer, III,
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Officer poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s
license to practice law if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Officer is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 11, 2017. After August 11, 2017, Mr. Officer shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Officer must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Officer is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Officer may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

PUBLIC CENSURES
CHARLES ALPHONSO CARPENTER, BPR #16429
BLOUNT COUNTY
On April 11, 2017, Charles Alphonso Carpenter, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In two separate matters, Mr. Carpenter neglected his clients’ cases. Mr. Carpenter frequently failed
to respond to calls, emails, and text messages from his clients, and in one instance, he changed office
locations without notifying the client, resulting in a year of no communication. Mr. Carpenter also failed to
appear for court hearings and depositions. Mr. Carpenter has demonstrated a pattern of neglect in violation
of the Rules.
By these acts, Charles Alphonso Carpenter has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence)
and 1.4 (communication) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
KIRK D. CATRON, BPR #23552
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On April 20, 2017, Kirk D. Catron, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

35

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
On June 13, 2016, Mr. Catron was representing a client in chancery court before a special master.
Although the special master ruled in Mr. Catron’s favor on an objection, Mr. Catron remarked, “That’s what
I have come to expect from you.” Mr. Catron continued, “You never treat me or my office fairly, and of
course you will rule against me, as you always do.” Mr. Catron went on to complain that the special master
had treated him unfairly in three other cases and must have a personal problem with him. Mr. Catron’s
actions demonstrated disrespectful and obstreperous conduct to a tribunal.
By these acts, Kirk D. Catron, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(e) (engaging in conduct
intended to disrupt a tribunal), 8.2(a) (impugning integrity of judicial officers), and 8.4(d) (misconduct) and
is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
FRANCIS MICHAEL DESLAURIERS, BPR #12051
TIPTON COUNTY
On April 20, 2017, Francis Michael Deslauriers, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In August of 2012, Mr. Deslauriers was retained to represent a client in a lawsuit against an insurance
company for a property damage claim. In the three and a half years that Mr. Deslauriers was counsel of
record, he took little action other than filing the lawsuit, and he routinely failed to communicate with his
client. The lawsuit was dismissed due to Mr. Deslauriers’ failure to serve the defendants or take their
depositions.
By these acts, Francis Michael Deslauriers, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
JOHN LOUIS DOLAN, JR., BPR #9158
MEMPHIS
On July 31, 2017, John Louis Dolan, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Dolan showed a lack of understanding of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in his representation
of a client, failed to act diligently in meeting deadlines or otherwise expedite the appeal process, failed to
comply with rules and orders of the court, and engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to both the client
and the court.
By these acts, John Louis Dolan, Jr. has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3
(diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (knowing disobedience of an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g)

36

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
(knowing failure to comply with a court order in which the attorney is a party), and is hereby Publicly
Censured for these violations.
DANNY C. GARLAND, II, BPR #17992
KNOX COUNTY
On August 10, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed a Public Censure for Knoxville attorney
Danny C. Garland, II.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Garland based
upon allegations of failure to communicate and failure to exercise appropriate diligence. Mr. Garland began
representation of an adoption matter in September 2010. Over the course of almost three (3) years, Mr.
Garland failed to ensure reasonable communication with his client. Further, Mr. Garland failed to ensure a
timely resolution despite having obtained agreement to the adoption by the opposing party on July 11, 2011,
and again, on September 12, 2012, following an Order by the trial court to prosecute the matter. A hearing
panel found that Mr. Garland had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he be
publicly censured. Mr. Garland appealed the decision to the Knox County Chancery Court, which affirmed
the decision of the hearing panel. Mr. Garland then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. A majority
of the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with a dissenting opinion.
Mr. Garland violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; and 8.4(a),
Misconduct.
ROBIN JEFFREY GORDON, BPR #14618
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 4, 2017, Robin Jeffrey Gordon, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Gordon’s law firm was hired to represent a client in modifying a parenting plan in April 2013.
On September 30, 2014, an associate at Mr. Gordon’s firm handling the matter left employment after filing
the agreed parenting plan. In mid-November 2014, the legal assistant discovered there was a problem with
the agreed order. Mr. Gordon revised the parenting plan and refiled the proposed agreed order on December
18, 2014, but failed to file a child support worksheet. On January 28, 2015, Mr. Gordon filed a child support
worksheet, but did not send it to the judge’s chambers. The court ultimately signed the agreed order on April
23, 2015. Mr. Gordon failed to ensure that the proposed agreed order was timely signed by the judge.
By these acts, Mr. Gordon has violated Rule 1.3 (diligence) and 3.2 (expediting litigation) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

37

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
RANDALL KEITH HATFIELD, BPR #18026
KNOX COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, Randall Keith Hatfield, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Hatfield failed to diligently represent his client or expedite the litigation in his client’s post-conviction
proceeding. Mr. Hatfield also failed to adequately communicate with his client and other persons associated
with the representation and was ultimately removed as appointed counsel by the court.
By these acts, Randall Keith Hatfield, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
ARTHUR WAYNE HENRY, BPR #9484
LOUDON COUNTY
On April 11, 2017, Arthur Wayne Henry, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In February of 2015, Mr. Henry was retained to represent a client in his suit to establish the paternity
of his minor son. Mr. Henry filed the appropriate documents to establish paternity, including a motion for
paternity testing. However, when the opposing party became uncooperative with regard to the paternity
testing, Mr. Henry ceased working on the case, and would not respond to his client’s repeated requests for
information about his case. Therefore, his client was forced to hire a new attorney.
By these acts, Arthur Wayne Henry has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 3.2 (expediting litigation) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
LARRY JOE HINSON, JR., BPR #23286
LEWIS COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, Larry Joe Hinson, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Hinson failed to diligently represent his client or expedite the litigation in his client’s postdivorce case. Mr. Hinson also failed to adequately communicate with his client and failed to timely comply
with the court’s direction to submit a scheduling order in the case. Additionally, Mr. Hinson failed to timely
respond to multiple communications sent to him by the Board.
By these acts, Larry Joe Hinson, Jr. has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

38

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
WILLIAM ARNOLD HOTZ, BPR #4226
KNOX COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, William Arnold Hotz, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Hotz failed to satisfy a third-party lien which he knew to exist at the time he received settlement
funds and paid the settlement funds directly to his client to the detriment of the third-party lienholder. By
these acts, William Arnold Hotz has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property) and
is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
JONATHAN RYAN JOHNSON, BPR #30780
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, Jonathan Ryan Johnson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Johnson failed to competently represent his client’s interest in the entry of a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order after the client’s divorce had concluded. Mr. Johnson failed to diligently represent his client
or expedite the litigation in his client’s post-divorce case and no Qualified Domestic Relations Order has
been approved or filed with the court in the 30 months since the divorce concluded.
By these acts, Jonathan Ryan Johnson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),
and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
SAMUEL JONES, BPR #13849
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 30, 2017, Samuel Jones of Shelby County, Tennessee, was Publicly Censured by order of
the Tennessee Supreme Court.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on February 16, 2016, alleging that Mr. Jones acted improperly in
the representation of two clients in Bankruptcy Court by accepting fees without court approval and failing to
deposit them into his trust account and failing to meet certain filing deadlines.
The Hearing Panel found that Mr. Jones violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence);
1.3 (diligence): 1.15 (safekeeping property); 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 8.4 (a)
(violating rules of professional conduct); and 8.4 (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

39

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)

MARY BELLE LANGFORD, BPR #20169
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, Mary Belle Langford, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of
the Public Censure, Ms. Langford shall make restitution to her client in the amount of $3,250.00 within 180
days.
Ms. Langford failed to adequately communicate with her client and she failed to submit discovery
responses to the opposing party which had been timely provided by her client. Ms. Langford’s neglect and
failure to appear in court led to a default judgment granted to the opposing party and sanctions assessed
against her client in the amount of $3,250.00.
By these acts, Mary Belle Langford has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),
and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
ERICA MAY LOTZ, BPR #31213
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On July 11, 2017, Erica May Lotz, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In her representation of a client in a divorce action, Ms. Lotz withdrew unearned client fees from her trust
account and comingled these fees with her own personal funds. After being discharged by her client, Ms.
Lotz failed to promptly return the unearned fees.
By these acts, Erica May Lotz has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) (comingling client
fees with personal funds), 1.15(c) (withdrawal of unearned client fees from trust account), and 1.16(d)(6)
(returning unearned fees following discharge), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
KRISTEN ELIZABETH MENKE, BPR #24600
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 21, 2017, Kristen Elizabeth Menke, of Davidson County, Tennessee, was publicly censured
by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court further ordered Ms. Menke to pay costs and expenses
to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
On February 19, 2016, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Kristen Elizabeth Menke. The
Petition for Discipline included one (1) complaint of disciplinary misconduct alleging that Ms. Menke made
several inappropriate comments in a closing argument. Ms. Menke was an Assistant District Attorney for
Davidson County. During her argument in a criminal case, Ms. Menke made direct and indirect references

40

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
to the defendant’s decision not to testify. Further, Ms. Menke improperly injected personal opinion about the
justness of the cause in her closing argument.
A hearing panel determined that Ms. Menke violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(e)(1), (2) and
(3) (Fairness to the Opposing Party and Counsel); and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). For these violations, the
Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Ms. Menke.
ALBERT FITZPATRICK OFFICER, BPR #11629
PUTNAM COUNTY
On July 6, 2017, Albert Fitzpatrick Officer, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
On September 12, 2016, Mr. Officer’s license to practice law was suspended for failure to pay the
annual registration fee. While his license was suspended, Mr. Officer made several court appearances for
clients in Putnam, Overton, and Clay counties, and engaged in settlement negotiations in two divorce cases.
By these acts, Albert Fitzpatrick Officer has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
SAMUEL LEE PERKINS, BPR #11857
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 10, 2017, Samuel Lee Perkins, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Perkins failed to timely file a Motion for New Trial for his criminal client which prohibited the
client from raising issues on appeal other than insufficiency of the evidence. Over five years later, the
client’s petition for post-conviction relief was granted. Mr. Perkins’ delay caused injury to his client and to
the administration of justice.
By these acts, Samuel Lee Perkins, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and
8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.
JOHNNY QUITMAN RASBERRY, JR., BPR #19160
SHELBY COUNTY
On April 4, 2017, Johnny Quitman Rasberry, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Rasberry was hired by a client for the adoption of two children. Mr. Rasberry prepared a petition
for the adoption of the children, and the client signed it on March 26, 2015. In August 2015, the client told
Mr. Rasberry that one of the opposing parties in the adoption had expressed interest in agreeing to the

41

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
adoption. Mr. Rasberry failed to file the petition until October 4, 2016, thus causing a significant delay in
the adoption of the two children. Further, he failed to respond to requests for information from his client on
this matter and failed to take any action on the potential agreement of one opposing party.
By these acts, Mr. Rasberry has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (prejudice to the administration of justice).
Mr. Rasberry is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
WALTER T. SEARCY, BPR #11867
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 26, 2017, Walter T. Searcy of Nashville, Tennessee was publicly censured by the Tennessee
Supreme Court, and ordered to pay restitution.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Searcy pursuant
to Rule 9, Rules of the Supreme Court, based upon one complaint alleging that Mr. Searcy improperly held
himself out as a licensed lawyer in his representation of an individual before the EEOC. Mr. Searcy was
suspended from the practice of law on October 14, 1992, and has never been reinstated. Mr. Searcy entered
into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Searcy admitted violating Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1
(communications concerning lawyers services) and 8.4 (a) (misconduct).
For these violations, the Tennessee Supreme Court publicly censured Walter T. Searcy.
MATTHEW F. STOWE, BPR #29994
CARROLL COUNTY
On September 12, 2017, Matthew F. Stowe, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, was
publicly censured by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Stowe is ordered to pay costs to the Board
of Professional Responsibility.
On February 26, 2016, the Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) filed a Petition for
Discipline against Matthew F. Stowe based upon one (1) complaint of misconduct. The alleged ethical
misconduct by Mr. Stowe arises from his actions while serving as the District Attorney General for the 24th
Judicial District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Mr. Stowe engaged in multiple acts of harassment
that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a witness. In the prosecution of a
murder trial, Mr. Stowe’s office, through an Assistant District Attorney, was working with a witness to
secure her testimony at trial. After the witness informed Mr. Stowe’s office of a potential scheduling
conflict, she was informed that her schedule could not be accommodated and she would need to appear as
scheduled. Despite the witness’s agreement with the Assistant District Attorney to attend the trial as
scheduled, Mr. Stowe began directly communicating with the witness and her supervisor in a harassing and
hostile manner and stated that he would hold her personally responsible if she “blow[s] this trial.” Mr.
Stowe indicated that he would prosecute her if she failed to appear and directed his office to begin

42

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
preparation for those charges, even though he knew she had confirmed her appearance. As a result of Mr.
Stowe’s harassment, the witness retained private counsel to accompany her to the trial as a precaution
because she was concerned that if her testimony did not satisfy Mr. Stowe, he would take some kind of
action against her.
An evidentiary hearing was held before a hearing panel. The hearing panel concluded that Mr.
Stowe’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4(a)(1), Respect for the Rights of Third Persons
and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct. For these violations, the Tennessee Supreme Court publicly censured Mr.
Stowe.
WILLIAM STEVEN TAYLOR, BPR #14163
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 14, 2017, William Steven Taylor was publicly censured by Order of the Tennessee Supreme
Court. As conditions of his public censure, Mr. Taylor must engage a practice monitor, undergo an audit of
his trust account, replace funds in his trust account, open a new trust account and obtain one additional hour
of continuing legal education in the mechanics of trust accounting. Mr. Taylor must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Taylor represented a client in a workers compensation matter. He deposited the proceeds of a
settlement to his trust account. He was to use a portion of those funds to pay one of his client’s health care
providers. He failed to timely pay the provider, failed to retain those funds in his trust account, and kept
inadequate trust accounting records.
Mr. Taylor’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, Safekeeping Property
and Funds; and 8.4, Misconduct.

DISABILITY INACTIVE
VERA J . T. ALEXANDER, BPR #9087
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 23, 2017, the law license of Vera J. T.
Alexander was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Alexander cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.

43

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
RONALD E. ARONDS, BPR #33068
HAMILTON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 3, 2017, the law license of Ronald E.
Aronds was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Aronds cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing by clear and convincing evidence
that the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
JOEL ROBERT BELLIS, BPR #27750
MAURY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 28, 2017, the law license of Joel Robert
Bellis was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Bellis cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
RANDELL KENT BROOKS, BPR #11804
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 18, 2017, the law license of Ronald Kent
Brooks was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Brooks cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
KENNETH KEENAN CRITES, BPR #16384
HICKMAN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 7, 2017, the law license of Kenneth Keenan
Crites was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Crites cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

44

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
SUSAN QUINN DEESE, BPR #7204
GEORGIA
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 23, 2017, the law license of Susan Quinn
Deese was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Ms. Deese cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
JAMES PRENTICE DEROSSITT IV, BPR #18623
TEXAS
On July 18, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an Order removing the disability inactive
status of James Prentice DeRossitt IV, a Tennessee attorney who resides in Austin, Texas. On October 13,
2013, the Supreme Court entered an Order transferring Mr. DeRossitt to disability inactive status.
Although the disability inactive status has been removed, the Court noted that Mr. DeRossitt’s license
to practice law will not be returned to active status until the resolution of any disciplinary proceedings
pending before the Board of Professional Responsibility.
JEFFREY DANIEL FARRIS, BPR #18372
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 4, 2017, the law license of Jeffrey Daniel
Farris was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Farris cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
BOBBY GENE GRAY, JR., BPR #11507
McNAIRY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 27, 2017, the law license of Bobby Gene
Gray, Jr., was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9. Mr. Gray has also been temporarily suspended by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court on this
date due to conduct that poses a risk of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Gray cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may request removal of
disability inactive status upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the disability has been

45

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
removed; however, Mr. Gray cannot be reinstated to the practice of law until he has requested, and been
granted, reinstatement from temporary suspension.
PAMELA K. KELLY, BPR #13572
KNOX COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 8, 2017, the law license of Pamela K. Kelly
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Kelly cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
DAVID LAMAR MADDOX, BPR #3122
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 7, 2017, the law license of David Lamar
Maddox was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Maddox cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
ALYSE DWYER MASSERANO, BPR #20496
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 17, 2017, the law license of Alyse Dwyer
Masserano was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Masserano cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice
of law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence
that the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
R. B. PARKER, JR., BPR #3123
SUMNER COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 13, 2017, the law license of R. B. Parker, Jr.
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Parker cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

46

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
HERMAN LAYNE REVIERE, BPR #8807
LAUDERDALE COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 4, 2017, the law license of Herman Layne
Reviere was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Reviere cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
STEVIE RAY ROLLER, BPR #6913
WARREN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 17, 2017, the law license of Stevie Ray
Roller was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Roller cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
WALTER F. WILLIAMS, BPR #5929
HAMILTON COUNTY
On September 15, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an Order removing the disability
inactive status of Walter F. Williams and returning him to the active practice of law.
Mr. Williams was placed on disability inactive status on August 25, 2015, by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court. On May 29, 2017, he filed a petition to be reinstated to active status, which was granted on
September 15, 2017.
AL’RECO LE’JUAN YANCY, BPR #30530
KNOX COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 17, 2017, the law license of Al’Reco Le’Juan
Yancy was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Yancy cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

47

REINSTATEMENTS
CHARLES DAVID DEAS, BPR #2049
BLOUNT COUNTY
Effective June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Charles David Deas to the
practice of law. Mr. Deas had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 17, 2017, for a
period of six (6) months with sixty (60) days to be served as an active suspension, and the remainder on
probation. Mr. Deas filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board found that the Petition was satisfactory and an Order of
Reinstatement was entered by the Court on June 20, 2017.

JOCELYN D. MIMS, BPR #23786
SUMNER COUNTY
On July 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Jocelyn D. Mims to the practice of law.
Ms. Mims had been disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on August 18,
2009, based upon her guilty plea to a serious crime.
On May 12, 2016, Ms. Mims filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c), and a hearing was held before a Hearing Panel on April
17, 2017. The Hearing Panel found that Ms. Mims met her burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for admission to
practice law in Tennessee, and that the resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. Based
upon the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court reinstated Ms. Mims’ license to practice law.

ALBERT FITZPATRICK OFFICER, III, BPR #11629
PUTNAM COUNTY
Albert Fitzpatrick Officer, III, has been reinstated to the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court entered September 11, 2017. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Officer must continue his
compliance with the Monitoring Agreement from the Tennessee Lawyer Assistance Program (TLAP),
subject to any additional TLAP recommendations. Mr. Officer is also ordered to pay the Board’s costs in
this matter.
Mr. Officer was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court on
July 12, 2017, for posing a threat of substantial harm to the public. On August 8, 2017, Mr. Officer filed a
Request for Dissolution or Modification of Temporary Suspension. On August 30, 2017, a Board Panel
entered a recommendation that the temporary suspension be dissolved.

48

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
ALISA LASHELLE SIMMONS (TATE), BPR #22580
SHELBY COUNTY
On September 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Alisa Lashelle Simmons (Tate) to
the practice of law. Ms. Simmons (Tate) had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on
October 27, 2011, for one (1) year, retroactive to her temporary suspension on October 31, 2010. She will be
required to have a practice monitor for twelve (12) months.
Ms. Simmons (Tate) filed a Petition for Reinstatement on June 22, 2016, pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d). The Hearing Panel found that Ms. Simmons (Tate) met her burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in
law required for admission to practice law in this state and that the resumption of the practice of law within
the state will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or
subversive to the public interest. Based upon the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court
reinstated Ms. Simmons (Tate) to practice law.

49

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Creator	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
ModifyDate	Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:00 PM -05:00
PageCount	49
PDFVersion	1.5

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
CreateDate	Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:58 PM -05:00
CreatorTool	Microsoft® Word 2013
DocumentID	uuid:4fb54651-ce30-44ae-bd76-647a66575ca0
FileName	BoardNotesFall2017.pdf
FileSize	1039 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Format	application/pdf
InstanceID	uuid:28a51e2e-0c2f-4c94-bc24-d2f132629613
Language	en-US
Linearized	Yes
MetadataDate	2017:10:12 14:00-05:00
MIMEType	application/pdf
Producer	Microsoft® Word 2013
SourceFile	BoardNotesFall2017.pdf
TaggedPDF	Yes
XMPToolkit	Adobe XMP Core 5.6-c015 84.159810, 2016/09/10-02:41:30

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