Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

royal-37003-9-public-censure.pdf (2014)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (royal-37003-9-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

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

Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT 1X
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: Paul Neil Royal, BPR NO. 18207 FILE NO. 37003-9-ES
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Shelby County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Mr. Royal, an attorney licensed to practice law in

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

Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on September 19, 2014.

In April 2012, Mr. Royal was hired by a client to oppose a General Sessions civil lawsuit

filed by a residential tenant of the client’s. The client asked Mr. Royal to file a detaiaer action to

evict the tenant, and Mr. Royal agreed to do so. Mr. Royal neglected to file the eviction action.

Mr. Royal appeared in court for the client in the civil action and reached an agreement that the

tenant would move out. The civil action was then dismissed. The tenant, however, failed to

move out.

The client then contacted Mr. Royal and asked about the eviction action. Mr. Royal

misrepresented to the client that the eviction action had been filed and was proceeding. Over the

next year, Mr. Royal made at least four additional affirmative misrepresentations to the client

that the eviction action had been filed but was delayed due to various reasons. In April 2013, the

client hired new counsel. The new counsel evicted the tenant in 2014.

In March 2014, Mr. Royal reached a financial settlement with the client equal to twenty—
one months of back rent of the residence due to the delay in the eviction.

By the aforementioneci acts, Mr. Royal has vioxated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.46:.)

(mnduct involving (iishonesry or misrepresentation) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this

violation

FOR THE BOARD OF
PRGFESSIONAL RESFONSIBILITY

Russeafltl’efi, Chair

w t fégfiw
Date

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top