bates-32703c-32878.pdf (2009)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (bates-32703c-32878.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

1 FIL es ‘
ZQHAPR 27 PH 2‘- #3
BMW £3?" Wfifiiffifiéfifisfié
IN DISCRLINARY DISTRICT VI E EPQRSWLI E Y
OF THE
BOARD OF mosesslosw. RBSpONSIBILITY Wm. «swam. see 6-
OF m
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

WMMHGIMESMWHWBeéFEfirBPkNG£0699. EIBENNO. 3303 u~G»KB
Resyonaent, an atterney licensed ‘ FILE NO. mam—ems
to practice law in Tennessee «um»... \ . . . . a .... . ..
moan—hm“ nh—m‘u u {Wfiom’ftyD a v- ._. r-w- ~- vm—w __—HNWW—nvhwnw< ~

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaims were filed against (Binaries Matthew Bates, an attoriney licensed to

prsefice law in Temmssee. aiieging certain sets of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

9, the Board of 13xofessional Responsibfiity csnsidesecl these matters at its meeting on March 11,

201 1.

The c'iient retained Respsndent on April 2'1, 2009, to represent her interests in a divorce.

Respondent faiied to contact the opposing counsel or file an Answer on behalf of the client and a

Defaukt Juégment elation was filed) against her. Respondent evehttmliy med an Answer,

[funnier—Complaint, and Restraining Order 0:: behalf of the alien? but failed to provide a cepy of

the pleadings to his client. Resecndelit late: resisted ink) an Agreed Drfier with opposing eemmsei

to set the case-1’61; tl'i5NKMKfifiififfi‘fimfimg‘fT1113 was done thhout the chent’s ImoWIedge 0‘1‘ ‘5

consent. The client attempted to communicate with Respondent about the case but was oniy able

to speak, at times, with his legal assisumt. On August 27, 2009, Respondent ammumed a

settiement “m the must with opposing emmsel and the defendant husband without the knowledge

61" eefiseifi Effie” éiien’t}"""'Tfié'Fiifiil'"'fie5i‘ee"ststea‘t‘hsf all iieasssar‘ypai-‘fieywe fii‘éé‘éi‘if “field

prbperly before the .Court in accordance wiih the Rules of Civil Procedure, although
| (I: r‘;'\l."f!‘rli‘-.-jnizt.

n f'
.--§- =.' .-’.*'.‘:.‘i'--"-'"=fi-.’.--'--- ,. _ _ .
Réspbmfant’fi: alimtfizgg mat {in attendance. Respondent failed to Immediately send a. copy of the

_ Final Decree to-the climt. During the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent’s

paralegal had executad Reapondbm’s name in pleadings and had submitted them to the court.

In a Second case, a uiiént retained. "Respondent in Sepiamber, 2008, to reprasant him in a

—1331‘samal—i-fljmuy—eflfierfiespefldefitis-effiee-d-id—net—Bbtainmedifl[kl-Tabsasa-Emflmi‘izEtti'crnsfi‘omifim“ ”“— "

cliant mfil May 1, 2009. Respondent filed etcivil action on be'haif ofthe client on Jpne 17, 2009.

While the litigation was pending, Respondent’s legal assistant prepared con‘espondanoe and

pleadings and set cases on the: (30.1311: dmkat without autlmtizatiml. The client mafia savwal

rthempts 1:5 contaut Rmpnndent but was unable to conunmnioate with him.

By the aforementionad ants, Charles Matthew Bates has violated Rules of Professional

Conduct 1.2 (scopes pf mpreaantation), 1.3 (diliganca),_1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expadfling

litigation), 3.3 (candor tow’m‘d the in'ibuml), and 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonnlawym-

assisinnts) and is heraby Publialy Censurad far these violations.

FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CESLQLHQLWQ
. Leia Hollahnugh, {111531.13
l .
wwm £467,115 k .a
Data ‘

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