BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2007)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference. The original PDF remains the official record for legal purposes.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (bailey-29538-29908-30090-9-rel.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500
(800) 486-5714
FAX: (615) 367-2480
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
Website: www.tbpr.org
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: JAVIER M. BAILEY, BPR #14186
CONTACT: JAMES A. VICK
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-366-0631
November 28, 2007
MEMPHIS LAWYER CENSURED
Javier M. Bailey of Memphis, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on November 16, 2007. The censure was issued by the Board pursuant
to Rule 9, Section 8 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Bailey did not
request a hearing on the matter.
Respondent committed violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in four
matters. In one, the Respondent never listed or acknowledged the Complainantâs
status as a client, did not keep the client informed about the status of the litigation, and
did not respond to the Complainantâs demand for a refund of fees. The Respondent did
subsequently make a refund.
In another matter, the clientâs suit was dismissed because Respondent had not
properly effected service of process, and the Respondent failed to appear or to notify
the Court of his absence at a required scheduling conference. A second suit was
dismissed with prejudice because Respondent had not timely filed same.
In another matter, the Respondent did not purchase or file the transcript, pay the
proper fee, or file the form of appearance in the clientâs case in 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals, resulting in the dismissal of the clientâs appeal for failure to prosecute. The
Respondent did not notify his client between January through May of 2006 that the
appeal had been dismissed. The Respondent filed a motion to reinstate the appeal.
The motion was granted and substitute counsel was appointed to handle the appeal. In
an unrelated matter, the Respondent failed to respond to the written discovery or to a
motion to compel, resulting in the striking of this clientâs answer, the entry of default
judgment, and the setting of a hearing on a writ of inquiry to determine damages. The
Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the writ of inquiry.
In another matter, the Respondent improperly endorsed the Bankâs two party
check made payable to a contractor and his clients, and instructed his client to deposit it
without the endorsement of the contractor.
By his conduct the Respondent violated RPCs 1.3, 1.4(a)(b), 1.15(b) and 8.4(a)(c)(d) by
his actions in the four captioned files.
Bailey 29538-29908-30090-9 rel.doc
PLEASE NOTE
YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES, FORMAL ETHICS
OPINIONS, NEWSLETTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT
THE BOARDâS WEBSITE
www. tbpr.org/Subscriptions