Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

phillips-33899.pdf (2011)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (phillips-33899.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.

Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.

Filoii if}
2911 {Lilli 25 iii ll: 5%
El DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT o:
OF THE ooooo 3r ooofingoool
BOARD OF PROFESSEONAL RESPONSIBILITY RWWWL1
01” THE
SUPREME COURT op TENNESSEE -W
mo. stow

INRE: MIMI mums BPR N0. 5320 FILE NO. 33899—9»—PS
Respondent,on ottornoy licensed
to 131acme law111 Tennessee
(Shelby County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Mimi Phillips, an attorney licensed to practico law

in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of miocooduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, tho Board

of Profcssional Responoibiliiy oonsidorod those mattoil‘s at its meeting on Soptomhcr 9, 2011.

The Rospoodom alleged in a petition in a child custody case that ho: client had always

paid child support. However, the Respondent failed to include in the petition that hot: oliont

owed a child support arrearago of aboot $3,000. The trial judge expi'csscd concern that the

Respondent, in alleging her client had always {mini his child support, had violated Rule of

Professional Conduct 3.3, because a material fact, his child support arrowago, had'not boon

dicoloscd. In a letter of oxplanaiion to tho judge, tho Respondent misrepresented her prior

disciplinary history.

By stating in the petition that her client had always paid his: child support without

disclosing his substantial child support aimarago; the Respondent violated Rule 3.3. Also, the

Respondent’s representation to tho coufi‘ about her prior disoiplinmy history was incorrect. In

addition to violating Rulo 3.3, this statement violated Rule 84(0).

By the afm'cmcntioncd facts, Mimi Phillips has violated Rules of Professional Conduct
3‘3 (candor t0 the tribunal) and 8.403) (misrepresentation) and is hereby Publicly Censm'ed for

these violations.

FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

flaflotflmm
' ' Ilél'éi’Hfill'alli'E—ifiém'dlfii‘fl ” ' ' " "

0mm 159111311
Date

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top