Board_Notes_Fall_2015_--_FINAL.pdf (2015)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (Board_Notes_Fall_2015_--_FINAL.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2015

Inside:
2

Spotlight: The Tennessee Board
of Law Examiners: Admission to
the State of Tennessee

5

Spotlight: Tennessee Lawyers’
Assistance Program:
“Take a Walk”

8

Board-sponsored Ethics
Workshop on Nov. 6, 2015

9

New Ethics Counsel
Laura Chastain

10

The Board Remembers
Francis Guess

11

New Formal Ethics Opinion
2015-F-159: “Cloud Computing”

18

Recent Rule 9 Change:
Access to Justice Donations

19

Disciplinary Actions
January-September 2015

Greeting from Justice Jeffrey Bivins
Supreme Court Liaison to the Board of Professional Responsibility

The dedicated staff and board members of the Tennessee
Board of Professional Responsibility provide a vital public
service as a part of our efforts to instill and maintain
public confidence in our legal system. As a component of
their efforts to educate lawyers, judges, and the public
about the Rules of Professional Conduct and the lawyer
discipline process in Tennessee, the Board provides this
semi-annual newsletter to all judges and attorneys in our
state. The Board and I hope that this edition of Board
Notes will provide helpful information to you as we all
strive to improve the administration of justice in our great
state.

1

The Tennessee Board of Law Examiners:
Admission to the State of Tennessee
By Lisa Perlen, J.D., Executive Director
Tennessee Board of Law Examiners

Since my last article for Board Notes in 2013, much has happened at the Tennessee Board of Law
Examiners (TBLE) that will be of interest to an attorney who knows anyone seeking to gain admission by
examination or without examination (Comity and In-House Counsel).
As discussed in the previous article, Tennessee has seen a dramatic increase in the number of InHouse Counsel registrations and Comity applications. In 2013, 35 In-House Counsel applications and 162
Comity applications were submitted; in 2014, 38 In-House and 186 Comity; and through July 31, 2015, 18
In-House and 118 Comity.
In-House Counsel registrations are governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7, § 10.01. The need
to register is found in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7, Section 10.01 and Rule 8, RPC 5.5(d)(1) and
Comment 17. In order to register as In-House Counsel, an applicant must be licensed and in good standing in
at least one other U.S. state or territory or the District of Columbia. The application to register as In-House
Counsel must be filed within 180 days of the registrant obtaining a position as In-House Counsel and having
a continuous presence in the state. If the In-House Counsel fails to register within this time, the In-House
Counsel is subject to professional discipline in this jurisdiction, is ineligible for Comity admission and must
be referred by the TBLE to the Board of Professional Responsibility and to the disciplinary authority of the
jurisdictions of licensure.
Admissions without examination (Comity) are covered by Rule 7, Article V. An applicant for Comity
admission must have been engaged in the active practice of law pursuant to a license for at least five of the
last seven years and the application must be approved prior to the commencement of law business or
employment as a lawyer in Tennessee. Tennessee does not have a practice before admission rule for
attorneys seeking admission without examination.
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 2012-F-91(c) addressed the propriety of employment of an
attorney admitted in another jurisdiction who has not yet been admitted in Tennessee and found that a nonresident lawyer who is admitted in another jurisdiction and applying for admission by Comity may not
provide legal services in Tennessee other than services permitted by RPC 5.5(d).
Since 2013, the TBLE has received a significant number of applications that fall into one of the
following patterns:
1. An In-House Counsel failed to register within the 180 days specified by the Rule. Some have
delayed by many years.
2. An In-House Counsel submits an application for Comity admission within the 180 days i.e., after
beginning work in Tennessee as an attorney.
2

Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
(continued from the previous page)

3. A Comity applicant submits an application after beginning work as an attorney in Tennessee.
There are variations on all of these scenarios, but these three categories cover most of the issues.
With categories 1 and 2, above, the In-House counsel, by failing to register, has triggered the mandatory
TBLE reporting requirements to disciplinary authorities and is no longer eligible for admission by Comity.
With categories 2 and 3, the applicant is submitting an application after employment as a lawyer in
Tennessee begins. In these instances, the TBLE denies the application and the applicant’s only recourse for
admission is by examination. A Show Cause hearing on Character and Fitness may follow for any
subsequent application because of the Applicant’s failure to follow the Rules.
Currently pending before the Supreme Court are amendments to Rules 7 and 8 to fix the language
that makes it impractical for attorneys to move to Tennessee to practice law due to deadline and application
requirements. Comment 17 to Rule 8, RPC 5.5 is being moved to the body of RPC 5.5 so that attorneys who
meet the requirements of RPC 5.5(d)(1) know that there is a registration requirement without having to
search the comments. Further, Rule 7 will include a new provision that allows an attorney licensed in another
jurisdiction who has submitted an application for admission by examination or Comity to practice in a
limited manner with supervision until the application is approved. Lastly, a “safe harbor” provision has been
include in the proposed amendments to Rule 7 that would allow In House Counsel who have not registered
or attorneys with pending applications that do not meet the current requirements to move forward with
registration and application without consequence for 180 days after adoption of the amendments should the
Supreme Court approve the amendments. Please check the TBLE website at www.tnble.org for updates on
the status of the amendments to the Rules.
A significant part of the work of the TBLE is to protect the public welfare by ensuring that lawyers
licensed and practicing in Tennessee meet a threshold of knowledge, ability, character and fitness before
admission to the bar. Failure to require standards for bar admission would subject the public to harm through
ineptitude and malfeasance. The applicable standard of review for Character and Fitness is found in Rule 7, §
6.01(a):
An applicant shall not be admitted if in the judgment of the Board there is reasonable doubt as to
that applicant’s honesty, respect for the rights of others, and adherence to and obedience to the
Constitution and laws of the State and Nation as to justify the conclusion that such an applicant is
not likely to adhere to the duties and standards of conduct imposed on attorneys in this State.
Since 2014, the TBLE has conducted more than 60 Character and Fitness hearings for failure to
disclose arrests or failure to answer questions with candor, academic integrity infractions in law school,
plagiarism, cheating on the Bar examination, and continued patterns of substance abuse. Several applicants
lied to the Board during the hearings, further complicating matters. As a result, four applicants were denied
admission, two agreed to withdraw their applications and to not reapply for three years, and fourteen entered
into monitoring agreements with the Tennessee Lawyers’ Assistance Program.
It is important for attorneys who might be advising an applicant completing the application for admission or
representing an applicant before the TBLE at a Show Cause hearing to understand that full disclosure, even
3

Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
(continued from the previous page)
of expunged records1, and compliance with requests to contact TLAP are in the best interest of the applicant
and speed the licensing process. Failure of an applicant to be candid and forthcoming will delay that
applicant’s license. The TBLE looks for remorse and a positive progression of an applicant’s character.
“Youthful indiscretions” alone will not necessarily result in denial of licensing but are a window to evolution
of character for a determination of whether the applicant will meet the duties and standards of conduct
imposed on attorneys in this State.
For more information on the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners, please contact:
Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
401 Church Street, Suite 2200
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
615-741-3234
BLE.Administrator@tncourts.gov
www.tnble.org

See State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209 (1999) at 211-12 – evidence of criminal acts preceding the arrest are admissible as
evidence of prior bad acts or evidence of social history even if expungement is later obtained; and Rodney Howard Wright v.
Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, No. M2006-00123-COA-R3-CV (2008) that the crucial distinction
is between the criminal acts themselves and the legal status that results from the legal proceedings precipitated by the criminal act.
1

4

Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program:
“Take a Walk”
By Laura McClendon., Executive Director
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program
I have procrastinated writing this article for weeks, mainly because I’m exhausted by both suggested topics:
“Attorney Wellness & Stress Management” vs. “Suicide in the Legal Profession.” I’m not sure which subject I
want to talk about less. Attorney wellness? Be honest, how many of you stop reading as soon as you see the word
in the heading? Attorney suicide? You’re even less likely to read it. I know that every time I receive a request to
speak on the subject, I am re-traumatized by the memories of those I’ve lost to suicide through the years, both
personally and professionally. I initially react like I’ve just been asked to trudge through sand, in the dark, with
fog rolling in. I have to take a deep breath and prepare to hurt.
We’re going to cover both topics, and, in order to get it over with, we’ll start with suicide. According to a
recent CNN article, lawyers are 3.6 times more likely to suffer from depression than non-lawyers. Subsequently,
research shows that lawyers—out of 105 professions surveyed—have one of the highest rates of suicide. In
Tennessee alone, there have been eight attorney suicides within the past six months. These are proven stats, but
the “whys?” of which are debatable.
Members of the legal profession are inherently reluctant to ask for help so the machinations of their brains
remain relatively uncharted. After a suicide, we conduct a psychological “suicide autopsy” in which we attempt
to piece together their stories, excerpts of which I will share below. The only real name used is Chancellor Carr,
whose death rocked the foundation of legal professionals across the state.
Martin: Talented criminal defense attorney with a long history of addiction. He was arrested for
threatening to assault his girlfriend, a notoriously turbulent relationship founded in chaos. Courts
intervened. More arrests followed. Positive drug screens occurred, and the BPR got involved. The
thought of losing his law license proved too much. He hung himself in his apartment.
Betty: Partner in prestigious law firm. Struggled with the shame of childhood abuse. Long history
of depression and previous suicide attempts. A few weeks before she killed herself, she seemed
better…happier… lighter. She called several of her friends to thank them for everything they’d
done for her and told them that she was leaving for a much needed vacation. When she didn’t
return, someone went to her house and found her in the bathtub – a bullet in her heart. Her items
were packed and labeled; her funeral arranged and pre-paid.
Chancellor Carr: He was sworn into office only a few months before he put a gun to his head. He
was found in his car in the parking lot of the Memphis Country Club. No one saw it coming. On the
surface he seemed to have it all: success, money, family, career. But what he didn’t have was hope.
No one will know the depths of Chancellor Carr’s depression because he covered it so well.
These stories are a tip of the iceberg. They stun us and make us want to look away. The word suicide trips
on our tongues, and we start to create different stories. We label their deaths “heart attacks” and “accidents”
because suicide is too repulsive. We focus on why we are different, healthier, more invested in life. Eventually
we stop remembering.
5

Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program: “Take a Walk”
(continued from the previous page)

So what do we do about this epidemic? Interestingly enough, suicide prevention nestles quietly in the topic
of wellness.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces wellness (meaning the opposite of illness) to the 1650s, but the
“wellness” movement actually began in the 1950’s and exploded in the 21st century. Insurance companies,
corporations, and professions latched onto the word and began to drill it into our heads. And then they patted
themselves on the backs in satisfaction.
I stifle a yawn when I think about the typical wellness presentation. Wellness is used interchangeably with
life balance and necessitates the discussion of diet, sleep, exercise, family, hobbies, spirituality. We love to show a
picture of the scales of justice with life on one side and work on the other. We take quizzes that suggest things we
might want to do in order to be healthier. Some insurance companies assign coaches who offer encouraging tidbits
about how to make smoothies and will tell you to take a walk for just 30 minutes every day.
Raise your hand if you didn’t already know what you need to do to lose weight and get in shape. Did you
also know that you should go to bed earlier and try to get eight hours of sleep? Can it really be that simple?
When I was diagnosed with Stage III aggressive breast cancer a couple of years ago, the dynamics of my
life tilted and spilled. But that unforeseeable plunge gracefully landed me on a profoundly trite but true revelation:
wellness actually is simple. Being human is complicated.
I am in a helping profession—I don’t ask for help. One of the things that I hated most about being sick is
that I felt needy and vulnerable. Initially I wanted to keep it a secret so that I could maintain the façade of having
it all together. Expecting commiseration, I whined to a friend of mine who had been through a similar situation,
and he said “Laura, sometimes you have to suck it up and let people support you.”
I sucked it up. People brought food, sent cards, followed me on my “CaringBridge” blog, posted
encouraging messages, and mailed thoughtful gifts. I was nurtured and hugged. Friends on the periphery of my
life stepped out of the shadows and brought me love and light. Instead of it feeling weak and helpless, I felt
hopeful and at peace. I let people help me. Instead of the lowest time of my life, it became a year of strength.
Most religious leaders, theorists and philosophers say that it is better to give than receive, and I am a giver
by trade. But I discovered that it is just as necessary to receive in order to truly give. I needed help; I asked for
help; I received help. In turn, those that gave me help were emotionally rewarded. Their help made me stronger,
made them stronger, and ultimately made my ability to help others stronger. Simple but complicated. Wellness
can be obtained by helping others.
So do you want to commit to wellness? Give a hand to someone who is struggling and can’t ask for help.
Despair and hopelessness dissipate when we fully engage in the gift of human interaction. We all have something
to give.
If you don’t know what you have to offer or where to start, call TLAP. We have many individuals that
could benefit from a cup of coffee with a non-judgmental listener. If you listen closely, that individual may open
6

Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program: “Take a Walk”
(continued from the previous page)
up to you, and you’ll walk away feeling strangely uplifted. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll give hope to someone
who couldn’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. And maybe, just maybe, it’ll prevent them from seeing suicide as
a solution. It may sound oversimplified, but if enough of us do this, it’s bound to ripple through the entire legal
profession.
Yes, taking a walk will increase your level of wellness. But taking someone with you on that walk may
save a life.
Laura McClendon, Executive Director, Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP)

TLAP is a free, confidential assistance program providing consultation, referral, intervention, and crisis
counseling for lawyers, judges, bar applicants and law students who are struggling with substance abuse, stress or
emotional health issues. Visit www.tlap.org to learn more about TLAP, make an anonymous referral, request an
appointment, become a volunteer, or make a donation to the Cain Fund.
For additional resources about suicide, visit TLAP’s page at: http://www.tlap.org/suicide-warning-signs
or The National Suicide Prevention Hotline: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

7

Board of Professional Responsibility
Ethics Workshop
_______________________________________

The Board of Professional Responsibility’s annual Ethics Workshop will be
held November 6, 2015, at the Nashville School of Law. Featured topics at the
workshop include ethics in family law; an attorney’s competent use of technology;
ethics regarding social media; criminal law issues; everyday ethical dilemmas; and
Tennessee Lawyers’ Assistance Program (TLAP). The non-refundable registration
fee for 6.0 hours of dual CLE credit is $100.00 in addition to a $6.95 processing
fee. Speakers include Marissa Moses Russ; Virginia Connell; William Ramsey;
Ed Yarbrough; Brian Faughnan; Ted Rice; Laura Chastain; Krisann Hodges;
Eileen Burkhalter Smith and Sandy Garrett. Attorneys interested in attending this
year’s workshop may register at the Board’s website at www.tbpr.org.

8

New Ethics Counsel
Laura Chastain
_______________________________________

The Board of Professional Responsibility is pleased to announce the
appointment of Laura Chastain as the Board’s new Ethics Counsel. Previously,
Laura was Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel with the Board of Professional
Responsibility for 17 years. After she left the Board in 2007, she continued to
serve the Board in a volunteer capacity as a Hearing Committee Member. Laura is
a frequent speaker at Continuing Legal Education seminars and has been teaching
Ethics and Professionalism at the Nashville School of Law since 2003. She
previously served as past President of the National Organization of Bar Counsel
and Liaison to the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. For
informal ethical guidance and opinions, contact the Board at 1-800-486-5714 and
at www.tbpr.org.

Laura Chastain

9

The Board Remembers Francis Guess
(Reprinted by permission from www.tncourts.gov/news; July 25, 2015)

Francis Guess, a Nashville community leader who served the legal profession in many ways, died July 24, 2015
in Nashville.
Mr. Guess served on the Board of Professional Responsibility from 2012-2014, and on the Tennessee Supreme
Court’s Access to Justice Commission. As a non-lawyer, he provided a distinctive viewpoint to issues that
faced the legal community.
“His insight, passion and service to the justice system will long be remembered,” said Board Chief Disciplinary
Counsel Sandy Garrett.
“Francis Guess brought a unique and unwavering voice in issues of justice,” said Chief Justice Sharon Lee. “His
service to the professional and advocacy of issues important to those in need of legal assistance will always be
remembered.”
Access to Justice Commission Chair Doug Blaze served on the commission while Mr. Guess was a member
from 2009-2014.
“Francis brought an excellent perspective to the Access to Justice Commission. His insights regarding selfrepresented litigants and how to best get the word out about the Commission’s initiatives was invaluable to our
mission,” Blaze said.
Mr. Guess also served on the boards of the Nashville Minority Business Development Fund; Country Music
Hall of Fame and Museum Board of Officers and Directors.

Francis Guess
1945 - 2015
10

Formal Ethics Opinion
2015-F-159
Issued September 11, 2015
by the Board of Professional Responsibility
QUESTION:
May an attorney ethically store confidential client information or material in “the cloud”?

CONCLUSION:
A lawyer may use cloud-based services with regard to confidential client information.
In using cloud-based services, a lawyer must use reasonable care to assure that client
confidentiality is protected and client property is safeguarded. See, RPC 1.6(a) and 1.9(c). A
lawyer must comply with his or her duty of competence in the selection and continued use of
the providers of cloud-based services. See, RPC 1.1. A lawyer must use “reasonable efforts”
to ensure that the conduct of providers of cloud-based services is compatible with ethical
obligations of the lawyer, and, if the lawyer is a partner or otherwise has managerial authority
in a law firm, the lawyer must use “reasonable efforts” to make sure that the firm has measures
in place to assure that providers of cloud-based services engage in conduct compatible with
ethical obligations of the lawyer. See, RPC 5.3(a) & (b).
A copy of this Opinion is attached.
11

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2015-F-159

May an attorney ethically store confidential client information or material in “the cloud”?

OPINION
A lawyer may ethically allow confidential client information to be stored in “the cloud” if the
lawyer takes reasonable care to assure that: (1) all such information or materials remain
confidential; and (2) reasonable safeguards are employed to ensure that the information is
protected from breaches, loss, and other risks. Due to rapidly changing technology, the Board
doesn’t attempt to establish a standard of care, but instead offers guidance from other
jurisdictions.
DISCUSSION
Technological advances have changed the way lawyers and law firms may store, retrieve and
access client information. An inquiry has been made regarding whether a lawyer can ethically
store confidential client files and information in “the cloud”.
Cloud computing is technology which allows a lawyer to store and access software or data
through the cloud—a remote location which is not controlled by the lawyer but by a third party
which provides the storage or other computing services. It is the use of a network of remote
servers, hardware and/or software to store, manage, transmit, process and/or retrieve data off the
lawyer’s premises, rather than on a server or personal computer on the lawyer’s premises.
The services, which may be long-term storage of confidential client information or shorter-term
storage or services to enable data processing or web-based email, are typically purchased from a
provider on a subscription fee basis. The service provider assumes the responsibility for new
technology and software updates. The lawyer’s computing device is simply a way of accessing
the information stored in the cloud from any location with Internet access.1 2
12

Ala. Ethics Op. 2010-02 (2010); Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3 (2014); Ariz. Ethics Op. 09-04 (2009); Cal. Ethics Op. 2010-179
(2010); Conn. Informal Op. 2013-07 (2013); Fla. Ethics Op. 12-3 (2012); Iowa Ethics Op. 11-01 (2011); Ky. Ethics Op. E-437
(2014); Me. Ethics Op. 207 (2013); Mass. Ethics Op. 12-03 (2012); N.H. Adv. Ethics Op. 2012-13/4 (2013); N.Y. Ethics Op. 842
(2010); Nev. Ethics Op. 33 (2006); N. C. 2011 Formal Op. 6 (2012); Ohio Informal Ethics Op. 2013-13 (2013); Or. Ethics Op.
2011-188 (2011); Penn. Formal Ethics Op. 2011-200 (undated); Va. Legal Ethics Op. 1872 (2013); Wash. Advisory Op 2215
(2012).

12

Because cloud computing places data, including client data, on remote servers outside of the
lawyer’s direct control, it has given rise to some concerns regarding its acceptability under
applicable ethics rules. See “Cloud Ethics Opinions Around the U.S.”, American Bar
Association, Legal Technology Resource Center. This summary lists the standard of “reasonable
care” with regard to the lawyer’s use of cloud technology from all states supporting the use of
cloud storage.
Due to the fact that technology is constantly evolving, this opinion only provides lawyers with
guidance in the exercise of reasonable care and judgement regarding the lawyer’s use of cloud
technology in compliance with the rules of professional conduct, rather than mandating specific
practices regarding the use of such technology. Ky. Ethics Op. E-437 (2014); Penn. Formal
Ethics Op. 2011-200 (undated); Vt. Ethics Op. 2010-6 (2010).
Although cloud computing offers increased mobility and accessibility to client information, the
placement of a service provider between the lawyer and confidential client information for which
the lawyer is responsible adds a layer of risk and loss of direct control by the lawyer over the
stored or transmitted information. N.H. Adv. Ethics Op. 2012-13/4 (2013). A lawyer owes the
same ethical duties, obligations and protections to clients with respect to information for which
they employ cloud computing as they otherwise owe clients pursuant to the Rules of Professional
Conduct with respect to information in whatever form. Me. Ethics Op. 207 (2013); Ohio
Informal Ethics Op. 2013-13 (2013); Penn. Formal Ethics Op. 2011-200 (undated).
Often, in house counsel has no input with regard to the technology used by the corporation, but
owes the duty of communication with the corporate client regarding the risks and benefits of
cloud storage. Comment 3 to RPC 1.1323states that when constituents of the organization make
decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or
prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing
serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer’s province.
Use of the technology is ethically proper if the lawyer abides by the Rules of Professional
Conduct: to act competently, RPC 1.13, 4 to take reasonable measures to protect the
confidentiality, security,

23

Comment [3], to RPC 1.13 provides:
When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if
their
utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are
not as such in the lawyer's province. Paragraph (b) makes clear, however, that when the lawyer knows that the organization is
likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization
or is in violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the
best interest of the organization. As defined in RPC 1.0(f), knowledge can be inferred from circumstances, and a lawyer cannot
ignore the obvious.

34

RPC 1.1 Competence, provides:
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill,
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

13

and accessibility of client information stored and transmitted through the cloud, RPC 1.64,5,65,6,7
and 1.9(c)7;8by competently choosing the provider of the cloud services.
The lawyer is not required by the rules to use infallible methods of protection. “When
transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client,
the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the
hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special
security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of
privacy…” RPC 1.6, cmt. [16]6. “…Rather, the lawyer must use reasonable care to select a
mode of communication that, in light of the circumstances, will best protect confidential client
information and the lawyer must advise affected parties if there is reason to believe that the
chosen communications technology presents an unreasonable risk to confidentiality.” Me. Ethics
Op. 207 (2013); N. C. 2011 Formal Ethics Op. 6 (2012). “Special circumstances, however, may
warrant special precautions.” RPC 1.6, cmt. [16]6. What safeguards are appropriate depends
upon the nature and sensitivity of the data. Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3 (2014).

45
Rule 1.6 (a): Confidentiality of Information provides:

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation; or
(3) the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) or required by paragraph (c).
5

Comment [15], Acting Competently to Preserve Confidentiality, to RPC 1.6 provides:
[15] A lawyer must act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against inadvertent or
unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are
subject to the lawyer's supervision. See RPCs 1.1, 5.1, and 5.3.

6

Comment [16], to RPC 1.6 provides:
[16] When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer must
take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty,
however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable
expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of the lawyer's expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the
extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require
the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this Rule or may give informed consent to the use of a
means of communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule.

7

Rule 1.9: Duties to Former Clients, provides in part:
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a
client in a matter shall not thereafter reveal information relating to the representation or use such information to the
disadvantage of the former client unless (1) the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, or (2) these Rules
would permit or require the lawyer to do so with respect to a client, or (3) the information has become generally known.

14

Fla. Ethics Op. 12-3 (2012) states that lawyers should “consider whether the lawyer should use
the outside service provider or use additional security in specific matters in which the lawyer has
proprietary client information or has other particularly sensitive information.”
The duties of competence 3 and confidentiality 4, 5, 6 owed to the client by the lawyer are ongoing
and are not delegable8, 9, 10.9,10,11While competence does not require a lawyer to become an expert
in data storage, it does require that the lawyer remain aware of how and where data are stored
and what the provider service agreement says. Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3 (2014).
The American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.111,12which is identical in
its wording to Rule 1.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, has amended its Model
Rule Comment on maintaining competence to include keeping abreast of changes “including the
benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”. Otherwise the comment is the same as
the Tennessee version of the comment on maintaining competence.
Because the delegation of file storage to a provider of cloud computing services adds a layer
between the lawyer and confidential client information over which the lawyer has responsibility,
competence also requires that the lawyer ensure that tasks are delegated to competent service
providers which the lawyer has selected after investigating the qualifications, competence, and
89

Rule 5.1: Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers, provides in part:
(a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial
authority in a law firm, shall make 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.

910

Rule 5.3: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants, provides:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed, retained by, or associated with a lawyer:
(a) a partner and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a
law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the
nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with these Rules;
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s
conduct is compatible with these Rules;
1011

Comment [1] to RPC 5.3 provides:

[1] Lawyers generally employ nonlawyer assistants in their practice, including secretaries, investigators, law student interns,
and paraprofessionals. Such assistants, whether employees or independent contractors, act for the lawyer in rendition of the
lawyer's professional services. A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the
ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to representation
of the client, and should be responsible for their work product. The measures employed in supervising nonlawyer assistants
should take account of the fact that they do not have legal training and are not subject to professional discipline.
1112

Maintaining Competence [8] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the
law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and
education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. Underlining added.

15

diligence of the provider to ensure that client information is reasonably likely to remain
confidential and secure through storage and retrieval. Ky. Ethics Op. E-437 (2014). The
primary obligation is to select a reliable provider under the circumstances. In making this
selection, the lawyer should consider the provider’s ability to protect the information, to limit
authorized access only to necessary personnel and to ensure that the information is backed up, is
reasonably available to the lawyer and is reasonably safe from unauthorized intrusion. Alaska
Ethics Op. 2014-3 (2014); Penn. Formal Ethics Op. 2011-200 (undated).
Suggested guidelines in helping lawyers competently choose the provider of the cloud services
with the Rules of Professional Conduct are set forth in the following opinions:1213
Ala. Ethics Op. 2010-02 (2010) concludes “that a lawyer may use “cloud computing” or thirdparty providers to store client data provided that the attorney exercises reasonable care in doing
so.” The Commission defined “reasonable care” as requiring the lawyer to:
1. Learn how the provider would handle the storage and security of the data;
2. reasonably ensure that the provider abides by a confidentiality agreement in handling
the data; and
3. stay abreast of appropriate safeguards that should be employed by both the lawyer
and the third party.
N. C. 2011 Formal Ethics Op. 6 (2012) and Me. Ethics Op. 207 (2013) suggest that in dealing
with providers of cloud computing services or hardware, lawyers should adopt additional
safeguards made relevant by the Rules of Professional Conduct, such as:
1. An agreement between the cloud service provider and the lawyer or law firm that the
provider will handle confidential client information in keeping with the lawyer’s
professional responsibilities.
2. If the lawyer terminates use of the cloud computing services or product, the provider goes
out of business, or the service otherwise has a break in continuity, the law firm will have
a method for retrieving the data, the data will be available in a non-proprietary format
that the law firm can access, or the firm will have access to the vendor’s software or
source code.
3. Careful review of the terms of the law firm’s user or license agreements with the
provider, including the security policy.
4. Evaluation of the cloud provider’s (or any third party data hosting company’s) measures
for safeguarding the security and confidentiality of stored data.
1213

The Board is not adopting these opinions, but they are set forth as guidance to consider.

16

Pa. Formal Ethics Op. 2011-200 (undated), Maine Ethics Op. 207 (2013), N.H. Advisory Ethics
Op. 2012-13/4 (2013) and Ohio Informal Ethics Op. 2013-13 (2013) listed issues which lawyers
should consider before using a cloud computing service, including that the service provider:


will notify the lawyer if requested to produce data to a third party, and provide the
lawyer with the ability to respond to the request before the provider produces the
requested information;



has procedures to respond to government or judicial attempts to obtain disclosure
of client data;

Lawyers also need to have internal policies and procedures to aid in complying with the Rules of
Professional Conduct with regard to cloud computing. Penn. Formal Ethics Op. 2011-200
(undated) and Me. Ethics Op. 207 (2013) list internal policies and procedures that lawyers should
adopt in connection with cloud usage such as:
1. backing up data to allow the firm to restore data that has been lost, corrupted, or
accidentally deleted;
2. educating and training employees of the firm who use cloud computing to abide by all
end user security measures, including, but not limited to, the creation and regular
replacement of passwords.
CONCLUSION
A lawyer may use cloud-based services with regard to confidential client information. In using
cloud-based services, a lawyer must use reasonable care to assure that client confidentiality is
protected and client property is safeguarded. See, RPC 1.6(a) and 1.9(c). A lawyer must comply
with his or her duty of competence in the selection and continued use of the providers of cloudbased services. See, RPC 1.1. A lawyer must use “reasonable efforts” to ensure that the conduct
of providers of cloud-based services is compatible with ethical obligations of the lawyer, and, if
the lawyer is a partner or otherwise has managerial authority in a law firm, the lawyer must use
“reasonable efforts” to make sure that the firm has measures in place to assure that providers of
cloud-based services engage in conduct compatible with ethical obligations of the lawyer. See,
RPC 5.3(a) & (b).
This 11th day of September, 2015.
ETHICS COMMITTEE:
Wade Davies
H. Scott Reams
Michael Callaway

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

17

The Supreme Court Revises Rules and
Attorneys Respond with Donations
_______________________________________

Effective July 1, 2015, in response to a petition filed by the Access to
Justice Commission concerning attorneys’ pro bono work, the Tennessee Supreme
Court entered an Order, amending Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, Sections 10.10 and 10.2.
New Rule 9, Section 10.2(d) provides, “…every attorney shall have the
opportunity to make a financial contribution to support access-to-justice
programs. Funds raised through optional contributions will be distributed to
access-to-justice programs which provide direct legal services to low income
Tennesseans.” Rule 9, Section 10.10(b) was amended as follows: “In reporting
the extent of the attorney’s pro bono legal services and activities, the attorney is
requested to state whether or not the attorney made any voluntary financial
contributions pursuant to RPC 6.1(c), but the attorney need not disclose the
amount of any such contribution. Since implementation through September 15,
2015, four-hundred and forty-seven attorneys (447) have donated $20,919 to
access to justice programs.
18

Disciplinary Actions
 (January 2015 – September 2015)
DISBARMENTS
Kent Lowery Booher (Roane County)
On January 15, 2015, Kent Lowery Booher, of Harriman, Tennessee, was disbarred by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court, effective immediately.
The Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Mr. Booher on October 7, 2014 pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22, based upon of his conviction of statutory rape in violation of T.C.A. 39-13506. The Board of Professional Responsibility instituted a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final
discipline to be imposed. Mr. Booher entered a conditional guilty plea agreeing to a sanction of disbarment.
Mr. Booher’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b) and (d), Misconduct.

Hal Wilkes Wilkins (Davidson County)
On January 28, 2015, Hal Wilkes Wilkins, of Nashville, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Wilkins was previously disbarred in another case on July
22, 2014. Mr. Wilkins was ordered to pay restitution to a former client, or to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client
Protection, if appropriate, in the amount of $17,990.00. Finally, Mr. Wilkins must pay the Board’s costs and
expenses.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on July 3, 2014, that included three (3) complaints of misconduct. In
one case, Mr. Wilkins informed his client that he had reached a settlement, but ceased communicating with the
client thereafter. His client retained another lawyer to complete the settlement on her behalf. In another case,
Mr. Wilkins agreed to represent his client on a contingency fee basis and did not enter into a written fee
agreement. After he filed the complaint, he ceased communicating with the client. In the third case, Mr.
Wilkins settled a personal injury case on behalf of his client in the amount of $30,000.00. He tendered a check
to his client in the amount of $12,100.00, and told her that he would use the remainder to pay her medical bills
and his fee. He did not provide his client with a settlement sheet and failed to pay the subrogation claims. In all
three cases, Mr. Wilkins abandoned his clients and did not inform them that he had been temporarily suspended
from the practice of law on December 2, 2013.
Mr. Wilkins’ actions violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping
property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), and 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters).
By failing to notify his client, opposing counsel and the court of his temporary suspension, Mr. Wilkins violated
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18 (2006). Mr. Wilkins must comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18 (2006) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4
(2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

19

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Edward T. Farmer (Rutherford County)
On March 3, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Edward T. Farmer of Rutherford County,
Tennessee. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, Mr. Farmer’s disbarment is effective
immediately.
Mr. Farmer consented to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself against
allegations of ethical misconduct arising from criminal charges in the matter of State of Tennessee v. Edward
Farmer, in the Criminal Court for Robertson County, Tennessee. Mr. Farmer entered into a best interest plea
for violations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403/Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1105, Facilitation of Especially
Aggravated Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-101/Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503,
Attempt to Commit Tampering with Evidence. Mr. Farmer’s actions violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
of Professional Conduct 8.4.

Daniel Rafael Solla (Knox County)
On April 21, 2015, Daniel Rafael Solla, of Flowery Branch, Georgia, formerly of Knoxville, Tennessee,
was disbarred from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Solla was ordered to pay
restitution to eighteen (18) former clients, or to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, if appropriate. Finally,
Mr. Solla must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs.
The Board filed a Petition for Discipline, a Supplemental Petition for Discipline, and a Second
Supplemental Petition for Discipline, against Mr. Solla based upon twenty (20) complaints of misconduct. The
primary issue in all of the complaints is abandonment of practice. In April 2013, Mr. Solla left his law practice
without advising his clients. He failed to communicate with clients, failed to attend meetings, and failed to
attend court on behalf of his clients. Mr. Solla entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to this
misconduct.
Mr. Solla admits his guilt of violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence),
1.4 (Communication), 1.5(a)(b)(f) (Fees), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property and Funds), 1.16(d) (Declining and
Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d)
(Misconduct).

George Ernest Skouteris, Jr. (Shelby County)
On April 21, 2015, George Ernest Skouteris, Jr., of Memphis, Tennessee, was disbarred by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court. This sanction shall run concurrently with a previous disbarment imposed on
February 21, 2014. Mr. Skouteris was also ordered to pay restitution to a former client and to pay the Board’s
costs and expenses.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed Petition for Discipline containing one (1) complaint of
misconduct and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline containing one (1) complaint of misconduct. In the first

20

DISBARMENTS (continued)
complaint, Mr. Skouteris failed to respond to the client’s numerous emails and telephone calls, ignoring her
requests for status updates. Finally, the client investigated the matter and discovered that the statute of
limitations for her cause expired on October 8, 2010, and that Mr. Skouteris never filed a lawsuit. Without her
knowledge, Mr. Skouteris had settled the case for $10,480.00 and he later informed her that the money had been
in his trust account for months. This money was deposited in his trust account, but the balance of the account
dropped below what he should have been holding in trust. In the second complaint, Mr. Skouteris was hired in
a personal injury case. Mr. Skouteris failed to use a written fee agreement for the contingency fee. Further, he
failed to consult and notify his clients about settlements he accepted. Mr. Skouteris made slow installment
payments of the funds without adequately communicating with his clients about the total funds due to them.
Mr. Skouteris entered into a Conditional Guilty plea admitting to this misconduct.
His actions violate the following Rule(s) of Professional Conduct: 1.1; Competence; 1.2(a), Scope of
Representation; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.5(a-c), Fees; 1.15(a) and (c), Safekeeping Property;
4.1(a), Truthfulness in Statements to Others; 5.5(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).

Brenda Lee McCann (Florida)
On September 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
disbarring Brenda Lee McCann, of St. Augustine, Florida. Ms. McCann was licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, Alabama and Florida. Ms. McCann was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Alabama by Order
entered April 24, 2015.
Upon receipt of an Order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated October 30, 2014, approving
disciplinary revocation and permanently revoking Ms. McCann’s license to practice law in Florida, the Board of
Professional Responsibility, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 25.4, filed a Notice of
Submission on April 15, 2015.

Sharon Elizabeth England (Williamson County)
On September 14, 2015, Sharon Elizabeth England was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The disbarment took effect immediately. Further, Ms. England must pay the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline based upon two complaints of
misconduct. In the first complaint, Ms. England failed to appear at a status hearing and the case was
dismissed. She failed to notify her client of the dismissal. In the second complaint, Ms. England failed to
respond to a motion to dismiss, failed to appear at the hearing and the case was dismissed. She failed to notify
her client of the dismissal. Ms. England abandoned her practice. She also failed to respond to requests for
information from the Board.

21

DISBARMENTS (continued)
A Hearing Panel found Ms. England’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 3.2, Expediting
Litigation; 8.1(b), Bar Admissions and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), Misconduct.
Ms. England was previously suspended for failing to respond to requests for information from the
Board on August 13, 2013, for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements on August 25,
2014, and for a student loan default on May 15, 2015. To date, Ms. England has not been reinstated from her
previous suspensions.

Fletcher Whaley Long (Montgomery County)
On September 14, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred Fletcher Whaley Long from the
practice of law. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23 (2014), the disbarment was entered
with the consent of Mr. Long as evidenced by his affidavit. On September 9, 2014, the Board of Professional
Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Long based upon three (3) complaints of unethical
conduct. A Supplemental Petition for Discipline was filed on June 2, 2015, adding two (2) additional
complaints of misconduct. On May 15, 2015, Mr. Long was suspended from the practice of law after being
convicted of extortion in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-14-112, and a Petition for Final
Discipline was filed on May 22, 2015.
The Petition and Supplemental Petition alleged Mr. Long charged unreasonable fees; provided
incompetent representation; filed meritless claims; failed to perform professional services; failed to provide
diligent representation; failed to refund unearned fees; failed to protect client property; made false statements of
fact and failed to disclose material facts to a tribunal; threatened criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in
a civil proceeding; failed to properly supervise his co-counsel and knowingly ratified her misconduct; failed to
report the professional misconduct of his co-counsel and partner; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
deceit and misrepresentations. In addition, five (5) disciplinary complaints were pending before the Board
containing allegations similar to those set forth in the Petitions for Discipline.
Mr. Long’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communication; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping of Property and Funds; 3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions;
3.2, Expediting Litigation; 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal; 4.4, Respect for the Rights of Third Persons; 5.1,
Responsibilities of Partners, Managers and Supervisory Lawyers; 5.3, Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer
Assistants; 1.16, Terminating Representation); 8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct; 8.1, Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), Misconduct.

Joseph James Doherty (Hamblen County)
On September 2, 2015, Joseph James Doherty was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court and
ordered to pay restitution of $600. The disbarment took effect immediately. Further, Mr. Doherty must pay the
Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.

22

DISBARMENTS (continued)
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline and a Supplemental Petition for
Discipline based upon four complaints of misconduct. In the first complaint, Mr. Doherty appeared in court
while suspended for failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements. In the second complaint,
Mr. Doherty failed to respond to a motion to dismiss and failed to advise his client that the case had been
dismissed. In the third complaint, Mr. Doherty failed to complete the probating of an estate. In the fourth
complaint, Mr. Doherty failed to properly serve the defendant causing the suit to be barred by the statute of
limitations. He failed to advise his client of this and instead made misrepresentations to his client leading him
to believe that the case was ongoing. Mr. Doherty failed to notify his clients that he had been suspended for
failing to comply with continuing legal education requirements. Mr. Doherty abandoned his practice. He also
failed to respond to requests for information from the Board.
A Hearing Panel found Mr. Doherty’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
1.1, Competence; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 3.2,
Expediting Litigation; 5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1(b), Bar Admissions and Disciplinary Matters; and
8.4(a), (c) and (g), Misconduct.

Elbert Jefferson, Jr. (Shelby County)
On August 24, 2015, Elbert Jefferson, Jr. was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court, pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 4.1.
October 31, 2014, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Jefferson. The Hearing Panel found
that after securing his client’s signature on a settlement check in the amount of $2,100.00, Mr. Jefferson
deposited the funds into his trust account. Over the course of the following month, he converted the proceeds to
his own use. Thereafter, Mr. Jefferson misled his client about the reason he could not disburse her portion of
the settlement. In the course of the investigation, Mr. Jefferson did not respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s
request for information about the funds missing from his trust account.
The Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Jefferson violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence;
1.4, Communication; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; 8.4(a),
Misconduct.

Robert Lawson Cheek, Jr. (Knox County)
On August 12, 2015, Robert Lawson Cheek, Jr. was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The
disbarment took effect immediately. Mr. Cheek must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and
expenses and court costs within ninety days.
On April 30, 2014, Mr. Cheek entered a guilty plea to mail fraud in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee. On May 21, 2014, the Tennessee Supreme Court summarily suspended
Robert Lawson Cheek, Jr. from the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Final Petition for Discipline to determine the extent of Mr.

23

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Cheek’s discipline. Another Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Cheek based upon a complaint
received after his summary suspension on May 21, 2014. The two cases were consolidated for Final Hearing.
Mr. Cheek misappropriated settlement funds, withheld money from settlements to pay subrogation
claims, paid only a portion of the claims, and in some cases, he forged his clients’ signatures on settlement
checks. The Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Cheek violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence;
1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; 8.4(a - d), Misconduct.

Derek A. Artrip (West Virginia)
On August 12, 2015, Derek A. Artrip of Ona, West Virginia was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. The disbarment is effective immediately. Further, Mr. Artrip must pay the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline based upon Mr. Artrip’s
representation of a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Mr. Artrip did not respond to written discovery, did not
respond to a motion to compel, and did not respond to a motion to dismiss. After nonsuiting the case, Mr.
Artrip failed to timely refile the case despite telling his client that he would do so. Thereafter, Mr. Artrip made
misrepresentations to his client leading him to believe that the case was ongoing. Mr. Artrip failed to notify his
client of his temporary suspension, his one (1) year suspension on May 9, 2013, and his disbarment on
November 14, 2013. Mr. Artrip abandoned his client and failed to properly terminate their relationship. He
also failed to respond to a request for information from the Board.
A Hearing Panel found Mr. Artrip’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1,
Competence; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 8.1(b), Bar
Admissions and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), (c) and (g), Misconduct.

Christopher Lee Brown (Shelby County)
On July 20, 2015, Christopher Lee Brown, of Memphis, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Brown must make restitution as a condition of
his reinstatement. Mr. Brown must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days
of the entry of the Order of Enforcement. The order is effective July 30, 2015.
The Petition for Discipline, and three (3) Supplemental Petitions, included eighteen (18) complaints
alleging lack of diligence, lack of communication, incompetent representation, failing to expedite litigation,
misrepresentations to clients, misappropriation from clients, failing to refund unearned fees, a trust account
overdraft, improper advertising, failing to notify clients of prior suspensions, committing a criminal act, failing
to comply with a court order, and failure to respond to the Board. Mr. Brown also abandoned his law practice.
In addition, Mr. Brown pled guilty to theft of property over $60,000.

24

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Mr. Brown’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.2, Scope of
Representation; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communications; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; 1.16, Declining
and Terminating Representation; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 5.3, Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer
Assistants; 7.3, Solicitation of Potential Clients; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), (b),
(c) and (g), Misconduct.

SUSPENSIONS
Robert R. Rexrode (Knox County)
On January 6, 2015, Robert R. Rexrode, of Knox County, Tennessee was suspended by the Tennessee
Supreme Court for one (1) year all of which is to be served on probation subject to the condition that he engage
a practice monitor.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 16, 2014, alleging that Mr. Rexrode failed to act with
reasonable diligence by not promptly filing a motion for his client to use cash collateral, attempted to collect
fees before obtaining court approval, submitted fee applications that failed to follow Bankruptcy procedures for
identification of time devoted to the case, neglected his client’s case and charged an unreasonable fee. Mr.
Rexrode entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Rexrode’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, (diligence); 1.2, (competence); 1.4,
(communication); 1.5, (fees); 3.3, (candor toward the tribunal), and; 8.4, (misconduct). The Supreme Court’s
Order will go into effect ten (10) days from the date of entry.

Angela Jenkins-Hines (Madison County)
On January 23, 2015, Angela Jenkins-Hines, of Madison County, Tennessee, was suspended from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year, consisting of sixty (60) days of
active suspension and the remainder to be served on probation subject to the conditions that she complete at
least one additional hour of CLE focused on trust accounting before the expiration of her active suspension and
engage a practice monitor during the period of probation.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on March 27, 2014. The Petition for Discipline included three (3)
complaints against Ms. Jenkins-Hines based upon overdrafts of her trust account and use of her trust account for
personal and business banking purposes.
Ms. Jenkins-Hines entered into a conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct. Ms. JenkinsHines’ actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (a) and (b) (safekeeping property).

25

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Leroy Cain, Jr. (Davidson County)
On January 28, 2015, Leroy Cain, Jr., of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law
for one (1) year and (1) day by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr.
Cain must complete a land sale transaction, or pay restitution to the purchaser, or the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund
for Client Protection. Mr. Cain must pay the Board’s costs and expenses.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on October 24, 2013, that included one (1) complaint of misconduct.
While representing the heir of an estate in a probate matter, Mr. Cain received a check from the purchaser of
property being sold by the estate. He then released the purchase money to the seller without ensuring the
delivery of clear title. Mr. Cain entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct. Mr. Cains’
actions violated RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property).

Elizabeth Catherine Cox Velasquez (Sevier County)
On January 30, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Elizabeth Catherine
Cox of Sevierville, Tennessee for three (3) years, with one (1) year served as an active suspension, retroactive
to February 3, 2014, and the remaining two (2) years served on probation. Ms. Cox must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs.
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18.5, the effective date of the order of suspension
is February 9, 2015. Ms. Cox’s probationary period will begin upon her reinstatement to the practice of law
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. Section 30.4(c). During her probation, Ms. Cox must engage the
services of a practice monitor, avoid new complaints of misconduct, enter into any monitoring agreement
recommended by TLAP and pay restitution to her clients.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Cox based upon six
(6) complaints of misconduct. Ms. Cox revealed damaging client information to the court in her request to
withdraw, failed to communicate with her client and missed a scheduled court appearance, stopped
communicating with her clients, provided legal advice to a client while suspended from the practice of law and
failed to advise clients of her temporary suspension entered February 3, 2014. In mitigation of the above
misconduct, Ms. Cox experienced serious personal and family issues.
Ms. Cox admitted violating Tennessee Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.3 (diligence),
1.4 (communication), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 5.5
(unauthorized practice of law), 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and 8.4 (misconduct).

Roy Patrick Neuenschwander (Knox County)
On February 2, 2015, Roy Patrick Neuenschwander, of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from the
practice of law for eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The suspension is to be served on probation subject to the condition that Mr. Neuenschwander make monthly

26

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
payments of restitution, and attend a continuing legal education program on ethics which includes IOLTA and
trust account materials. Mr. Neuenschwander must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on April 16, 2013, that included one (1) complaint of misconduct.
After settling a personal injury case, Mr. Neuenschwander’s client asked to keep her settlement proceeds in his
trust account until she could decide what to do with them. On two occasions, Mr. Neuenschwander asked if he
could borrow money from her settlement proceeds, and she agreed. Shortly after the loans, his client passed
away and Mr. Neuenschwander agreed to represent her son in connection with her estate. He then signed a
promissory note in which he agreed to re-pay the loan to the son. Mr. Neuenschwander did not advise either
client of a conflict of interest and the need to obtain independent legal advice, nor did he obtain the clients’
written, informed consent.
A Hearing Panel held that Mr. Neuenschwander violated RPC 1.7, (Conflicts of Interest: Current
Clients); 1.8(a) (3), (Conflicts of Interest: Prohibited Transactions); and 8.4, (Misconduct). The Circuit court
affirmed the Hearing Panel.

Darren T. Cole (Maury County)
On February 3, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Darren T. Cole of
St. George, Utah, for three (3) years. Mr. Cole formerly maintained an office in Maury County, Tennessee.
Mr. Cole was further ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding against him.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Cole based upon
four (4) complaints of misconduct. In the first matter, Mr. Cole failed to account to his client for work
performed and expenses incurred and used his trust account to pay personal expenses. In the second matter, Mr.
Cole advised his client he was moving to California, and over the objection of his client, Mr. Cole transferred
the representation to another attorney. In the third matter, Mr. Cole engaged in the practice of law as corporate
counsel for a California company without registering with the State Bar of California and paying the required
fee. In the fourth matter, Mr. Cole made materially false statements in his bar application.
A hearing panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility imposed the sanction of disbarment. Mr.
Cole appealed the Hearing Panel’s judgment, and the Chancery court modified the judgment of the hearing
panel and imposed a suspension of three (3) years. The hearing panel and the trial court determined Mr. Cole
violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(e)(1) and (e)(2), Fees; 1.15(a) and (b), Safekeeping Property and
Funds; 1.16(d), Declining or Terminating Representation; 5.5(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law; 8.1, Bar
Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a) and (c), Misconduct.

Clayton F. Mayo (Madison County)
On February 20, 2015, Clayton F. Mayo, of Jackson, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law
by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for three (3) years. Mr. Mayo must serve one year of the sanction as
an active suspension and the remaining two (2) years shall be served on probation subject to conditions that Mr.

27

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mayo engage a practice monitor and engage the Tennessee Lawyer’s Assistance Program for an evaluation.
Further, Mr. Mayo was ordered to make restitution to former clients and must pay the Board’s costs and
expenses. The active period of suspension is retroactive to a Temporary Suspension Order entered on January
27, 2014; therefore, Mr. Mayo will be immediately eligible to petition for reinstatement so that he may begin
his probationary period.
The Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee initiated formal
disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Mayo based upon six (6) complaints of misconduct alleging that Mr. Mayo
missed trial dates, neglected clients’ matters, failed to communicate with clients and finally abandoned his
practice. The clients paid Mr. Mayo a fee, and while Mr. Mayo did some initial work, he eventually stopped
responding to them and failed to follow through on their legal work. Mr. Mayo entered into a Conditional
Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Mayo’s actions violated the Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3,
Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.5(a), Fees; 1.16(d), Declining and Terminating Representation; 3.2,
Expediting Litigation; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct.

Shannon Michele Lovins (Sullivan County)
On February 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
suspending the law license of Shannon Michele Lovins, of Bluff City, Tennessee, for five (5) years subject to
conditions imposed by the North Carolina State Bar. The suspension is retroactive to December 5, 2012.
Upon receiving notification by the Board of Professional Responsibility that Ms. Lovins was subject to
attorney discipline in North Carolina, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a notice requiring Ms. Lovins to
demonstrate why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed in Tennessee. Ms. Lovins’ license to practice law
in North Carolina was suspended upon finding that Ms. Lovins pled guilty to several criminal offenses
involving illegal drugs, disorderly conduct, and driving while under the influence of an impairing substance.
Ms. Lovins also failed to conduct the requisite reconciliations of her trust account, commingled funds by
leaving her attorney fees in the trust account, over-disbursed funds from the trust account to third parties, and
failed to follow mandatory management and record-keeping procedures. There was no evidence that Ms.
Lovins’ failure to follow proper trust account management and record-keeping procedures was the result of
dishonesty or for self-gain.
Ms. Lovins voluntarily stipulated to the findings of a North Carolina State Bar Hearing Panel
acknowledging that she violated North Carolina General Statues, Section 84-28(b)(2) Rules 1.15-2(a), (f), (j)
and (m), 1.15-3(a), (b) and (d), 8.4(b). After considering the record of the North Carolina State Bar, the
Supreme Court of Tennessee found that it was appropriate to also enter an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
suspending Ms. Lovins’ license to practice law in Tennessee.

28

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
William Clark Barnes (Maury County)
On March 31, 2015, William Clark Barnes, former Maury County lawyer now of Memphis, Tennessee,
was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for three (3) years, with six
(6) months active suspension and two (2) years and six (6) months to be served on probation. The order was
effective upon entry. Mr. Barnes must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety
days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Barnes failed to timely file a brief in a criminal appeal, failed to diligently prepare a personal injury
lawsuit necessitating its voluntary dismissal, failed to consult with his clients prior to voluntarily dismissing that
case, was not diligent in his representation of a party to a divorce, failed to advise his client in an employment
discrimination matter that her case was dismissed on summary judgment, failed to timely file a brief in another
criminal appeal, and failed to adequately communicate with a client in a custody matter. Mr. Barnes entered
into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Barnes’ actions violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16 (declining and terminating
representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation) and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

Joseph Paul Calandriello (Davidson County)
On April 1, 2015, Joseph Paul Calandriello, of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of
law for three (3) years, consisting of eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days served as active suspension
and the remainder to be served on probation subject to the condition that he remain in compliance with his
existing Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) monitoring agreement. Mr. Calandriello must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on July 29, 2014, that included four (4) complaints of misconduct.
The first complaint was from the Davidson County District Attorney General reporting Mr. Calandriello’s arrest
for possession of a controlled substance, DUI, violation of the open container law and public intoxication. The
other complainants reported that Mr. Calandriello had abandoned his practice and ceased communication.
Mr. Calandriello entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct. Mr. Calandriello’s
actions violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16
(terminating representation) and 8.4 (a) (misconduct).

Billy J. Reed (Knox County)
On May 4, 2015, Billy J. Reed, of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law for
three (3) years, retroactive to the date the Supreme Court entered an Order of Temporary Suspension, January
17, 2014. Mr. Reed was ordered to make restitution to four former clients or the Tennessee Lawyer’s Fund for
Client Protection. Finally, Mr. Reed must pay the costs and expenses incurred by the Board. The Court ordered
Mr. Reed to contact the Tennessee Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“TLAP”) and follow any recommendations.

29

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Reed containing six (6) complaints of misconduct. In the
first complaint, Mr. Reed failed to adequately communicate with his client after a settlement was reached. By
the time the case came to a conclusion, he stopped communicating with his client. In the second complaint, Mr.
Reed failed to adequately communicate with his client concerning her requests to begin litigation in a real estate
dispute. In the third complaint, Mr. Reed filed a Petition for Conservatorship on behalf of his client; however,
he failed to communicate with her or to complete the case. In the fourth complaint, Mr. Reed represented his
clients through a trial and appeal of a boundary dispute. After the appeal, his clients were entitled to recover
costs. Mr. Reed stopped communicating with them and he failed to schedule a hearing to recover the costs. In
the fifth complaint, Mr. Reed was hired to represent his client in a wrongful foreclosure case. The client was
unable to communicate with Mr. Reed about his case and ultimately had to hire new counsel. In the final
complaint, Mr. Reed was hired to represent his client in a real estate dispute. Mr. Reed failed to respond to
motions and he failed to adequately represent his client.
A Hearing Panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Reed’s actions violated
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5(a) (Fees); 1.16(d) (Declining and
Terminating Representation); 3.2, (Expediting Litigation); 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),
and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct).

Fletcher Whaley Long (Montgomery)
On May 15, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Fletcher Whaley Long from the practice of
law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Long was
suspended based upon his having been convicted of extortion in violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-112. The Supreme
Court’s Order is effective immediately.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to institute formal
proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Mr. Long as a result of his
conviction of a serious crime.

Carrie Watson Gasaway (Montgomery)
On May 15, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Carrie Watson Gasaway from the practice
of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Ms.
Gasaway was suspended based upon her having been convicted of extortion in violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-112.
The Supreme Court’s Order is effective immediately.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to institute formal
proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Ms. Gasaway as a result of her
conviction of a serious crime.

30

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Thomas Holland McKinnie, Jr. (Williamson County)
On June 26, 2015, Thomas Holland McKinnie, Jr., of Williamson County, was suspended by the
Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 4.2.
On August 6,
2014, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. McKinnie pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 9. Mr. McKinnie submitted a Conditional Guilty Plea that was approved by the Hearing
Panel, the Board and the Supreme Court. In one matter, Mr. McKinnie did not pursue a case after telling his
client that it was moving forward. In another matter, after settlement, Mr. McKinnie did not provide his clients
with a settlement sheet and led them to believe he was still negotiating to reduce a subrogation claim after it had
been paid. In the last matter, Mr. McKinnie failed to pursue his clients’ case and communicate with his clients
about its status.
Mr. McKinnie’s actions violate the following Rule(s) of Professional Conduct: 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communication, 1.5, Fees; and 8.4(c), Misconduct.

Gregory Wayne Minton (Madison)
On June 26, 2015, Gregory Wayne Minton, formerly of Jackson, Tennessee, was suspended by Order of
the Tennessee Supreme Court for five (5) years. Mr. Minton is also ordered to pay restitution to five (5) former
clients. Mr. Minton must pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary action to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Minton based upon
thirteen (13) complaints of ethical misconduct alleging lack of diligence, lack of communication, abandonment
of practice, failure to appear in court for several cases, negligence, accepting fees and then failing to provide
adequate legal services, contempt of court, misuse of his trust account causing overdrafts in his trust account on
multiple occasions, and failure to notify clients of his temporary suspension entered June 14, 2013. Mr. Minton
entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea which was approved by a Hearing Panel and the Tennessee Supreme
Court for violations of Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1, Competence; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4(a) and (b),
Communication; 1.5(a)(b) and (f), Fees; 1.15(a), Safekeeping Property; 1.16(d), Terminating Representation;
3.2, Expediting Litigation; 3.4(c) and (d), Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a)-(g), Misconduct.

Joseph Brent Nolan (Knoxville)
On June 26, 2015, Joseph Brent Nolan, of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for six (6) months. In addition, Mr. Nolan must make restitution
as a condition of his reinstatement. The order was effective upon entry. Mr. Nolan must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Nolan delegated sole responsibility for management of his trust account to his mother, a nonlawyer
employee. She used the trust account, without his knowledge, in order to pay the expenses of his law practice

31

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
and other businesses owned by Mr. Nolan. As a result, a client did not receive all the proceeds of a settlement to
which he was entitled and a subrogation claim was not paid. Mr. Nolan failed to communicate adequately with
the client and failed to provide him with a settlement statement. Mr. Nolan’s failure to adequately supervise his
nonlawyer employee was addressed in a related matter and he is currently serving a two (2) year suspension,
with one (1) year active suspension and one (1) year on probation.
Mr. Nolan’s actions violated RPC 1.4 (communication), 1.5(c) (fees), 1.15(a) and (d) (safekeeping
property and funds), 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants) and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

John Jay Clark (Williamson County)
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended the law license of John Jay Clark of
Franklin, Tennessee, for four (4) years and ordered Mr. Clark to pay the Board’s costs and expenses.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against John Jay Clark on
November 19, 2014, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline on March 23, 2015, based upon four (4)
complaints of misconduct. Mr. Clark failed to remit $24,000.00 in attorney’s fees to the law firm at which he
was employed; altered a verification from a pleading to make it appear the document was executed on a later
date; notarized the verification and filed the pleading with the Juvenile Court without the knowledge or consent
of his client. Mr. Clark attempted to visit clients in jail on at least twenty-nine (29) occasions while his license
to practice law was suspended for non-compliance with CLE requirements. In mitigation, Mr. Clark fully
reimbursed his former law firm for the fees and cooperated with the Board in the disciplinary proceedings. In
addition, Mr. Clark experienced a significant personal loss.
Mr. Clark entered a conditional guilty plea, approved by a Hearing Panel for the Board, the Board and
the Supreme Court, admitting he violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), (b) and (d)
(safekeeping of property and funds); 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal); 5.5(a) and (b) (unauthorized
practice of law) and 8.4(a) (c) and (d) (misconduct).

Cynthia Lee Costner-Sexton (Blount County)
On September 18, 2015, the law license of Cynthia Lee Costner-Sexton, a Maryville attorney, was
suspended by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days
retroactive to July 21, 2014. Ms. Costner-Sexton must pay restitution, the Board’s costs and expenses, and
court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement. The Supreme Court Order was
effective upon entry, and Ms. Costner-Sexton remains suspended until an Order of Reinstatement is entered.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Ms. Costner Sexton based upon one complaint of misconduct.
A Hearing Panel for the Board found Ms. Costner-Sexton failed to reasonably communicate with her client,
failed to provide professional services after accepting a retainer, failed to refund unearned fees and failed to
respond to the Board.

32

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Ms. Costner-Sexton’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communications; 1.5, Fees; 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation; 8.1, Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4, Misconduct.

William Leon Hendricks (Shelby County)
On September 17, 2015, William Leon Hendricks, of Memphis, Tennessee, was suspended from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for four (4) years, retroactive to April 30, 2013,
with two (2) years active suspension and two (2) years of probation. The order is effective September 27,
2015. Mr. Hendricks must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the
entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Hendricks represented the owners of companies against whom the Department of Commerce and
Insurance filed suit to seize and liquidate the companies because they were providing nonexistent insurance
and were unlawfully engaging in the business of insurance without licensure. Despite an injunction against
transferring the assets of the business, Mr. Hendricks participated in transferring some of the companies’
assets and continuing to transact the business of the companies under new names. He was charged with
contempt for violating the injunction. He was indicted and received pretrial diversion for facilitation to
commit a Class B felony. In mitigation, he claims he was duped by his clients who are under federal
indictment for their roles in the scheme. Mr. Hendricks has fully cooperated with law enforcement and has
not challenged his temporary suspension pending resolution of the criminal matter and the Petition for
Discipline.
Mr. Hendricks’ actions violated RPC 1.16(b) (declining and terminating representation), 3.4(c)
(fairness to opposing party and counsel) and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct).

Edythe Paschall Christie (Gibson County)
On September 2, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Edythe Paschall Christie from the
practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3.
Ms. Christie was suspended 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 Supreme Court’s Order is effective immediately.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to institute
formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Ms. Christie as a result
of her conviction of a serious crime.

33

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Donald Walter Fisher (Davidson County)
On August 21, 2015, Donald Walter Fisher of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of
law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year, with ninety (90) days served as active
suspension and the remainder on probation. The order was effective upon entry. Mr. Fisher must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Fisher failed to properly supervise non-lawyer assistants in a personal injury practice by allowing
them to have too much responsibility for client communication and settlement negotiations. A non-lawyer
employee of Mr. Fisher made a telephone solicitation of two potential clients soon after their automobile
accidents. The same employee gave gas cards to two clients. That employee signed Mr. Fisher’s name to a
complaint. Mr. Fisher filed a complaint on behalf of two persons with adverse interests. Mr. Mr. Fisher failed
to adequately communicate with his clients and failed to adequately supervise his non-lawyer employees.
Mr. Fisher’s actions violated RPC 1.4 (communication), 1.7(a) (conflicts of interest: current clients),
1.8(e) (conflicts of interest: specific rules), 5.3(b) (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants), 7.3(a)
(solicitation of potential clients) and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

Michael Barton Brooks (Shelby County)
On August 21, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Michael Barton Brooks from the practice
of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Brooks
was suspended based upon his guilty plea to a serious crime; i.e., aggravated assault and vehicular assault.
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. Brooks’s guilty plea.

Mitchell Stanley Givens, Jr. (Washington County)
On August 13, 2015, Mitchell Stanley Givens, Jr., of Johnson City, Tennessee, was suspended from the
practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year with thirty (30) days to be served as
an active suspension and the remainder served on probation, subject certain obligations set forth in the Supreme
Court’s Order. Mr. Givens must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety (90) days
of the entry of the Order of Enforcement. The order is effective upon entry.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Givens on August 4,
2014, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline on March 27, 2015, alleging Mr. Givens misrepresented
himself online as a Supreme Court Rule 31 listed mediator; failed to have his client execute a written
contingency fee agreement; failed to promptly distribute settlement proceeds to his client; and misled his client
to believe her personal injury action was still pending. Mr. Givens entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea
admitting to the misconduct. In mitigation, Mr. Givens forfeited his contingency fee and cooperated fully with
the Board.

34

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Givens’ actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5
(fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16 (terminating representation), 7.1 (communications concerning a
lawyer’s services) and 8.4 (misconduct). Mr. Givens must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30 (2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

Rebecca C. (Vernetti) Kaman (Knox County)
On August 11, 2015, Rebecca C. (Vernetti) Kaman, formerly of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended
from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for one (1) year to be served consecutive to
a three (3) year suspension entered on March 21, 2014, and ordered to pay restitution to two former clients. Ms.
Kaman is required to pay the Board’s costs and expenses and court costs within ninety days of the entry of the
Order of Enforcement. The Supreme Court’s Order is effective upon entry.
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 21, 2014, and a Supplemental Petition for Discipline was
filed on November 14, 2014, containing four (4) separate complaints of misconduct. In the complaints, Ms.
Kaman failed to reasonably communicate with her clients; filed initial pleadings in the wrong court resulting in
sanctions being imposed upon her client; failed to refile the Petition in Circuit Court as she represented would
be done; failed to refund any fees or provide an accounting; failed to serve a complaint and, thereafter, failed to
respond to an Order to Show Cause or inform her client of the pending Order. Ms. Kaman filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice without authority from her client and misrepresented the case was
pending. Ms. Kaman also failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
Ms. Kaman entered a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting she violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3
(diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (terminating representation), 8.1 (bar admission and
disciplinary matters) and 8.4 (misconduct).

James Marion Allen (Shelby County)
August 6, 2015, James Marion Allen, of Memphis, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law
by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court for six (6) months. The order was effective upon entry. Mr. Allen
must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of
Enforcement.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Allen based upon
one complaint of misconduct alleging Mr. Allen engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after the
suspension of his law license on July 14, 2008, for failure to pay registration fees. Mr. Allen entered into a
Conditional Guilty Plea admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Allen’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5, (unauthorized practice of law).

35

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Billy J. Reed (Knox County)
On May 4, 2015, Billy J. Reed, of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law for
three (3) years, retroactive to the date the Supreme Court entered an Order of Temporary Suspension, January
17, 2014. Mr. Reed was ordered to make restitution to four former clients or the Tennessee Lawyer’s Fund for
Client Protection. Finally, Mr. Reed must pay the costs and expenses incurred by the Board. The Court ordered
Mr. Reed to contact the Tennessee Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“TLAP”) and follow any recommendations.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Reed containing six (6) complaints of misconduct. In the
first complaint, Mr. Reed failed to adequately communicate with his client after a settlement was reached. By
the time the case came to a conclusion, he stopped communicating with his client. In the second complaint, Mr.
Reed failed to adequately communicate with his client concerning her requests to begin litigation in a real estate
dispute. In the third complaint, Mr. Reed filed a Petition for Conservatorship on behalf of his client; however,
he failed to communicate with her or to complete the case. In the fourth complaint, Mr. Reed represented his
clients through a trial and appeal of a boundary dispute. After the appeal, his clients were entitled to recover
costs. Mr. Reed stopped communicating with them and he failed to schedule a hearing to recover the costs. In
the fifth complaint, Mr. Reed was hired to represent his client in a wrongful foreclosure case. The client was
unable to communicate with Mr. Reed about his case and ultimately had to hire new counsel. In the final
complaint, Mr. Reed was hired to represent his client in a real estate dispute. Mr. Reed failed to respond to
motions and he failed to adequately represent his client.
A Hearing Panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Reed’s actions violated
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5(a) (Fees); 1.16(d) (Declining and
Terminating Representation); 3.2, (Expediting Litigation); 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),
and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct).

Homer L. Cody (Shelby County)
On July 28, 2015, Homer L. Cody of Memphis, Tennessee was suspended for one hundred eighty (180)
days by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The suspension shall begin on August 7, 2015. Further, Mr. Cody must
pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline based upon Mr. Cody’s
representation of two plaintiffs which resulted in a concurrent conflict of interest. Mr. Cody previously
received a public censure for the same conduct, with the same two plaintiffs; however, he continued with the
representation by filing an additional pleading on their behalf. Despite receiving that public censure, Mr. Cody
continued representing both plaintiffs. While the second disciplinary proceeding was pending, Mr. Cody filed a
second suit wherein he continued to represent the same two plaintiffs.
A Hearing Panel found Mr. Cody’s actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.7,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients; and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct. Mr. Cody appealed the decision to the
Circuit Court for Shelby County, which affirmed the Hearing Panel’s decision. Mr. Cody appealed the decision
of the Shelby County Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. In its July 27, 2015 unanimous

36

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Opinion, authored by Chief Justice Sharon G. Lee, the Supreme Court held the findings of fact and conclusions
of law made by the Hearing Panel were supported by substantial and material evidence and were neither
arbitrary, capricious nor characterized by an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court further concluded that the
misconduct of Mr. Cody justified the imposition of a 180-day suspension from the practice of law.

Yarboro Ann Sallee (Knoxville)
On July 23, 2015, Yarboro Ann Sallee, of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of law
for one (1) year by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18.5 (2006), Ms.
Sallee’s one (1) year suspension from the practice of law is effective ten (10) days after the entry of the order.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Sallee based upon
two related complaints of misconduct. In the first complaint, Ms. Sallee failed to keep her clients reasonably
informed about the significant amount of fees and expenses being incurred, failed to adequately communicate
the legal services Ms. Sallee intended to provide, charged an unreasonable fee, and failed to promptly surrender
the papers and property of her clients after they terminated her representation. In the second complaint, Ms.
Sallee threatened to present a criminal charge against her former clients for the purpose of obtaining an
advantage in a civil matter.
A Hearing Panel found Ms. Sallee’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4
(Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.16 (Declining and Terminating Representation); 4.4 (Respect for the Rights of
Third Persons), and 8.4 (Misconduct) and recommended her license to practice law be suspended for one (1)
year. Ms. Sallee appealed the decision to the Chancery Court for Knox County, which affirmed the Hearing
Panel’s decision. Ms. Sallee appealed the decision of the Knox County Chancery Court to the Supreme Court
of Tennessee. In its July 23, 2015 unanimous Opinion, authored by Justice Holly Kirby, the Supreme Court
held the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Hearing Panel were supported by substantial and
material evidence and were neither arbitrary, capricious nor characterized by an abuse of discretion. The
Supreme Court further concluded that the misconduct of Ms. Sallee justified the imposition of a one (1) year
suspension from the practice of law.

SUSPENSION DISSOLVED
James D. McWilliams (Georgia)
On March 19, 2013, James D. McWilliams, of Washington, Georgia, was summarily suspended by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court after pleading guilty to a serious crime. He was placed on diversion
pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-313. The matter was referred to the Board for filing a Petition for Final Discipline.
Mr. McWilliams has successfully completed his probation and no conviction will result from his guilty plea.
Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Final Discipline and on August 25, 2015, the Supreme Court
entered an Order dissolving the summary suspension. The Order is effective ten days after entry. Mr.
McWilliams was on inactive status prior to the summary suspension and resumes inactive status.

37

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
Yarboro Ann Sallee (Knox County)
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Yarboro Ann Sallee from
the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Sallee 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.
Ms. Sallee is precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing existing clients
by March 8, 2015. After March 8, 2015, Ms. Sallee shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law
clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Sallee 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. Sallee is required to deliver to
all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Patricia Donice Butler (Roane County)
On March 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Patricia Donice Butler
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Butler 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.
Ms. Butler is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing
existing clients by April 12, 2015. After April 12, 2015, Ms. Butler shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Butler 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. Butler is required to deliver to
all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Marshall Scott Smith (Madison County)
On April 14, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order summarily and temporarily
suspending Marshall Scott Smith from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Smith misappropriated funds
and that he 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 where an attorney poses a
threat of substantial harm to the public. In addition, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered a separate Order on
April 14, 2015, finding that Mr. Smith should be removed from disability inactive status.

38

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Smith’s law license was placed on disability inactive status on October 7, 2014. Since that time, he
has been precluded from practicing law. Upon entry of the Order of Temporary Suspension on April 14, 2015,
Mr. Smith must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 12.3 and 28 regarding the
responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

Patricia Lynne Stolinsky (Wilson County)
On April 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Patricia Lynne Stolinsky
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Stolinsky has 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.
Effective April 17, 2015, Ms. Stolinsky is precluded from accepting any new cases and she must cease
representing existing clients by May 17, 2015. After May 17, 2015, Ms. Stolinsky shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Stolinsky 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. Section 28 of Supreme Court Rule
9 requires Ms. Stolinsky to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

John Lyndon Lowery (Davidson County)
On May 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an Order summarily and temporarily
suspending John Lyndon Lowery from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Lowery 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 in cases of an attorney’s failure to
respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.
Effective May 28, 2015, Mr. Lowery is precluded from accepting any new cases and he must cease
representing existing clients by June 27, 2015. After June 27, 2015, Mr. Lowery shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Lowery 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. Section 28 of Supreme Court Rule
9 requires Mr. Lowery to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Jamie Ellen Machamer (Davidson County)
On May 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an Order summarily and temporarily
suspending Jamie Ellen Machamer from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Machamer has failed to

39

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
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.
Effective May 28, 2015, Ms. Machamer is precluded from accepting any new cases and she must cease
representing existing clients by June 27, 2015. After June 27, 2015, Ms. Machamer shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Machamer 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. Section 28 of Supreme Court Rule
9 requires Ms. Machamer to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Fred Auston Wortman, III (Shelby County)
On June 23, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Fred Auston Wortman, III,
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Wortman poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to
practice law in matters where an attorney’s continued practice of law poses a threat of substantial harm to the
public.
Effective June 23, 2015, Mr. Wortman is precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by July 23, 2015. After July 23, 2015, Mr. Wortman shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Mr.
Wortman 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. Wortman is required to deliver to all
clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Patricia Lynne Stolinsky (Wilson County)
On August 7, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Patricia Lynne Stolinsky
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Stolinsky poses a substantial threat of 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 where it has been demonstrated that the attorney poses a threat of substantial
harm to the public.
Effective, August 7, 2015, Ms. Stolinsky is precluded from accepting any new cases and she must
cease representing existing clients by September 6, 2015. After September 6, 2015, Ms. Stolinsky shall not
use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is
conducted.

40

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Ms. Stolinsky 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. Section 28 of Supreme Court
Rule 9 requires Ms. Stolinsky to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

John Thomas Jones (Knox County)
On July 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended John Thomas Jones from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Jones 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 in cases of an attorney’s misappropriation of funds.
Mr. Jones is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 23, 2015. After August 23, 2015, Mr. Jones shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. 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 his law license. Mr. Jones is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Venita Marie Martin (Shelby County)
On July 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Venita Marie Martin from the
practice of law upon finding that Ms. Martin 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.
Ms. Martin is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing
existing clients by August 16, 2015. After August 16, 2015, Ms. Martin shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Martin 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. Martin is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

PUBLIC CENSURES
Larry Joe Hinson, Jr. (Lewis County)
On January 9, 2015, 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.

41

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Mr. Hinson failed to act diligently or adequately communicate with his court appointed client and the
court in a post-conviction matter. Mr. Hinson also failed to comply with the court’s order and failed to take any
action in the matter after promising the court he would do so. Additionally, Mr. Hinson misrepresented to the
court and the Board that he had filed a pleading with the court when there was insufficient evidence of such
filing.
By these acts, Larry Joe Hinson, Jr. has violated Rules of Professional 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3 (candor toward tribunal), 3.4(c) (disobeying obligations of
tribunal), 8.l(a) (false statement of material fact to Board), and 8.4(a) and (c) (misconduct) and is hereby
Publicly Censured for these violations.
Wendell J. O’Reilly (Williamson County)
On January 9, 2015, Wendell J. O’Reilly, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. O’Reilly failed to act diligently or adequately communicate with a client during his representation.
Mr. O'Reilly neglected the client’s civil matters causing the dismissals of the proceedings which were
prejudicial to his client.
By these acts, Wendell J. O’Reilly has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured
for these violations.

Daphne Michelle Davis (Davidson County)
On January 9, 2015, Daphne Michelle Davis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Davis failed to act diligently and failed to adequately communicate during her representation of a
client in two matters. Ms. Davis also deceived her client into believing that she had filed a civil action with the
court when such action was never taken.
By these acts, Daphne Michelle Davis, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 8.4(a) and (c) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Arvin H. Reingold (Hamilton County)
On January 13, 2015, Arvin H. Reingold, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

42

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Mr. Reingold represented a plaintiff in a lawsuit against her insurance company after her house was
destroyed by a fire. Mr. Reingold failed to advise his client when her case was dismissed on the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and, as a result, the client lost her right to appeal.
By these acts, Mr. Reingold has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4
(communication), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Darryl Wayne Humphrey (Shelby County)
On January 26, 2015, Darryl Wayne Humphrey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Humphrey failed to keep his client’s funds in his trust account, failed to promptly issue a refund
upon termination of the representation, and failed to maintain reasonable communication with his client after a
refund was requested.
By these acts, Mr. Humphrey violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.4
(communication), and 1.16 (terminating representation), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Bradley Aaron Teplitsky (Shelby County)
On January 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Bradley Aaron Teplitsky, of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, who formerly practiced law in Shelby County, Tennessee.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Teplitsky based on
a complaint of misconduct. A Hearing Panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility found Mr.
Teplitsky submitted a false affidavit to the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and
Specialization claiming to have attended two (2) Memphis Bar Association seminars and concluded that Mr.
Teplitsky should receive a public censure for his conduct. Mr. Teplitsky appealed the Hearing Panel’s
decision to the Shelby County Chancery Court which affirmed the decision of the Hearing Panel. Thereafter,
Mr. Teplitsky filed a notice of appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court dismissed Mr. Teplitsky’s
appeal for failure to file a transcript of the evidence. The Supreme Court approved the Hearing Panel’s Order
as the Court’s final order in the matter. The Court further ordered Mr. Teplitsky to pay the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceeding.
By his conduct, Mr. Teplitsky violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct
8.4(c) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for the violation.
George Edward S. Pettigrew (Claiborne County)
On January 29, 2015, George Edward S. Pettigrew, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

43

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Mr. Pettigrew provided financial assistance to his client by providing her with the use of his personal
automobile while her cases were pending. Mr. Pettigrew falsely reported to the Board and falsely testified
before the court that he had not loaned his automobile to his client.
By these acts, Mr. Pettigrew, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) (conflict of interest), 3.3
(candor toward tribunal), 8.1(a) (disciplinary matters), and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly
Censured for these violations.

William Caldwell Hancock (Davidson County)
On February 9, 2015, William Caldwell Hancock, of Nashville, Tennessee, was publicly censured by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline based upon a complaint of
misconduct filed against Mr. Hancock. Mr. Hancock was suspended on August 21, 2013 for failure to complete
continuing legal education requirements. While suspended, Mr. Hancock engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law by continuing to represent a client. Mr. Hancock drafted and filed legal pleadings on behalf of a client.
Mr. Hancock entered into a conditional guilty plea consenting to a public censure.
Mr. Hancock’s actions violate the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 5.5(a), Unauthorized
Practice of Law; and 8.4(a), Misconduct.

Andrew Nathan Hall (Morgan County)
On February 12, 2015, Andrew Nathan Hall, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Hall was retained to represent clients in bankruptcy proceedings. They paid a total of over $2,400
in attorney’s fees and filing fees. However, for over a year, Mr. Hall took no action in the case. When the
clients called Mr. Hall’s office, they were repeatedly told the bankruptcy petition would be filed shortly, but
nothing was done until the clients filed a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Hall.
By these acts, Andrew Nathan Hall has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3
(diligence), 1.4 (communication), and 3.2 (expediting litigation) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.

William Robert Bruce (Shelby County)
On February 20, 2015, William R. Bruce, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

44

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Mr. Bruce entered a plea to Criminal Attempt Possession of a Controlled Substance, which is a
misdemeanor. The charge was later dismissed as a result of the completion of a diversion program.
By these acts, William R. Bruce has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (misconduct) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

Steven Edward Sams (Knox County)
On February 26, 2015, Steven Edward Sams, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
After being temporarily suspended from the practice of law, Mr. Sams engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law by entering into an engagement agreement with a client in an immigration asylum case. Mr.
Sams misled the client by representing that he was working on an appeal in the asylum case. The client
discovered that no appeal had been timely filed and that Mr. Sams’ license to practice law had been suspended.
On November 26, 2014, Mr. Sams was disbarred for misconduct in an unrelated case.
By these acts, Steven Edward Sams has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.16 (terminating representation), and 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and is hereby
Publicly Censured for these violations.

Gerald Stanley Green (Shelby County)
On February 27, 2015, Gerald Stanley Green, of Memphis, Tennessee, was publicly censured by the
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Gerald Stanley Green on
June 4, 2014, based upon two related complaints of misconduct arising from Mr. Green’s representation of a
client during the appeal of a criminal conviction. Mr. Green failed to file a statement of the evidence as
required by Rule 24 of the Rules of Appellate Practice, filed a brief without citations to the record, and failed to
present an oral argument to the Court of Appeals.
A hearing panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility found Mr. Green’s actions violated Rules
of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence).

John Bennett Iwu (Davidson County)
On April 15, 2015, John Bennett Iwu, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Iwu
practiced law in Georgia while his license to do so was administratively suspended. By these acts, Mr. Iwu

45

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) and is hereby Publicly Censured for
this violation.

Eric Lyndol Davis (Williamson County)
On April 16, 2015, Eric Lyndol Davis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Davis received three disciplinary complaints all of which detailed issues concerning his alcohol
abuse. Mr. Davis communicated threats to others, was convicted of driving under the influence, and was found
to have serious alcohol problems by Order of the court in a custody dispute. Additionally, Mr. Davis disclosed
confidential information of a former client in litigation against the former client.
By these acts, Eric Lyndol Davis has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) (duties to former
clients) and 8.4(b) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Jay R. Slobey (Davidson County)
On April 20, 2015, Jay R. Slobey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
A client hired Mr. Slobey to represent him in a federal case for violation of his rights, and Mr. Slobey
filed the lawsuit. The defendant, thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss. Mr. Slobey asked opposing counsel for
an extension of time to file a response to the motion. Opposing counsel agreed to a one-week extension of time.
Mr. Slobey then filed a motion mistakenly stating that opposing counsel did not oppose a three-week extension
of time. Opposing counsel immediately sent a letter to Mr. Slobey pointing out the error, and asking Mr.
Slobey to comply with the agreement to file in one week. The court, however, granted Mr. Slobey’s pending
motion, providing a three-week extension. Opposing counsel then sought relief from the court. Mr. Slobey
filed no response to the motion at any time. The motion to dismiss was granted.
Mr. Slobey never informed his client of the dismissal of the action. The client later discovered the
dismissal when the client called the court. The client filed a civil malpractice action against Mr. Slobey which
was settled.
By these acts, Mr. Slobey violated Rule 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation),
3.3 (candor to the tribunal), and 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel). The client suffered harm, but also received
a settlement in the legal malpractice action.

46

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
James D. R. Roberts, Jr. (Davidson County)
On April 20, 2015, James D. R. Roberts, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In an appellate brief, Mr. Roberts argued that the lower court had been “evasive and untruthful,” had
“conduct[ed] unnecessary hearings and enter[ed] untruthful and harassing orders in order to cover up” its own
improper conduct; and made improper findings against him “to deflect attention from its own illegal acts.”
In ruling against Mr. Roberts, the Court of Appeals noted that Mr. Roberts made “unwarranted
accusations impugning the integrity” of the trial court and “baseless and improper assertions” designed to
deflect attention away from his own “flagrant misconduct in the trial court.”
By these acts, James D. R. Roberts, Jr., violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (statements about
judicial officers) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

John T. Harding (Sumner County)
On April 28, 2015, John T. Harding, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Harding failed to deposit a client’s refundable fee into his trust account and instead commingled the
funds into his operating account. Mr. Harding also had his client enter into a fee agreement seven (7) months
after his representation began which was more advantageous to Mr. Harding without advising his client of the
reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel.
By these acts, John Thompson Harding has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees), 1.8(a)
(conflict of interest), and 1.15 (safekeeping property) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Joel Robert Bellis (Maury County)
On April 30, 2015, Joel Robert Bellis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Bellis threatened to harm one of his former law partners which was confirmed after a full hearing in
an Order of Protection proceeding.
By these acts, Joel Robert Bellis has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (misconduct) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for this violation. In addition, Mr. Bellis shall be required to attend and successfully
complete an anger management program approved by the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program within one
hundred eighty (180) days of issuance of this Public Censure.

47

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
David Sidney Eichholz (Savannah, Georgia)
On April 30, 2015, David Sidney Eichholz, of Savannah, Georgia, was publicly censured by the
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against David Sidney Eichholz
on August 20, 2014, based upon one complaint of misconduct. On May 14, 2012, Mr. Eichholz’s Tennessee
license was placed on inactive status at his request. While his Tennessee license was inactive, Mr. Eichholz
accepted the representation of a client in a personal injury action pending in Memphis, Tennessee. Mr.
Eichholz was contacted by the client’s former lawyer and was informed the client did not intend to change
counsel. During the conversation, Mr. Eichholz indicated he was licensed to practice law in Tennessee but did
not disclose his license was inactive. Mr. Eichholz’s professional letterhead and website also failed to disclose
the inactive status of his Tennessee license. In mitigation, Mr. Eichholz withdrew from the representation
immediately after contact with the client’s former lawyer, made no formal appearance and took no action in the
personal injury case pending in Memphis. Mr. Eichholz also modified his letterhead and website to comply
with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Eichholz entered a conditional guilty plea admitting he violated Supreme Court Rules of
Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer’s services),
7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and 8.4 (misconduct).

Charles James Friddell, Jr. (Davidson County)
On May 12, 2015, Charles James Friddell, Jr., of Nashville, was publicly censured by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Charles James Friddell,
Jr., on July 31, 2014, based upon one complaint of misconduct arising from his involvement in a series of real
estate financing transactions designed to protect certain personal assets of his client from business creditors.
Mr. Friddell represented the buyer, seller and lender in the real estate transactions without obtaining the
informed consent of his clients, confirmed in writing. Mr. Friddell prepared the real estate transaction
documents, handled the foreclosure and trustee’s sale, handled the real estate closing and recorded the deed of
trust. Thereafter, Mr. Friddell learned no actual consideration had been paid but took no action to correct or
disaffirm the recorded instruments and the fraudulent conveyance.
Mr. Friddell entered a conditional guilty plea admitting he violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.7, Conflict of Interest; 1.9, Duties to Former Clients; 2.2, Lawyer Serving as an Intermediary
Between Clients; 4.1, Truthfulness in Statements to Others; and 8.4(a), Misconduct.

48

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Ruth Ann Ambs (Knox County)
On June 25, 2015, Ruth Ann Ambs, formerly of Knoxville, was publicly censured by the Supreme Court
of Tennessee.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Ruth Ann Ambs on
January 21, 2015, based upon one (1) complaint of misconduct alleging a failure to reasonably communicate
with her client, to refund unearned fees and to provide professional services for which she was retained. Ms.
Ambs entered a conditional guilty plea, approved by a Hearing Panel for the Board, the Board and the Supreme
Court, admitting she violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 1.16(d)(6)
(declining and terminating representation), and 8.4(a) (misconduct). In mitigation, Ms. Ambs experienced
significant health issues and refunded her unearned fee.
On October 3, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order temporarily suspending Ms.
Ambs’ license to practice law for failure to respond to the Board concerning the complaint of misconduct. Ms.
Ambs’ temporary suspension was dissolved by the June 25, 2015 Order of Enforcement.

Edmund Victor Smith (Kentucky)
On September 1, 2015, Edmund Victor Smith, of Christian County, Kentucky was publicly censured by
the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline, and a Supplemental Petition for
Discipline, against Mr. Smith pursuant to Rule 9, Rules of the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith submitted a
Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging violations of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 1.16(d) (6) (declining and terminating representation); and 8.4(a)
(misconduct).
Mr. Smith did not promptly refund an advance payment of fees after he withdrew from representation.
He also failed to enter into a written fee agreement with another client and did not adequately communicate
with his clients.

Aaron Alexander Smith (North Carolina)
On August 27, 2015, Aaron Alexander Smith, of Charlotte, North Carolina, an attorney licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Smith harassed and threatened a former acquaintance resulting in the issuance of a Restraining
Order, the institution of misdemeanor criminal charges, and the filing of a civil action. Mr. Smith successfully
completed a pre-trial intervention program and the criminal charges were dismissed and expunged. Mr. Smith
reached a confidential settlement with the former acquaintance and the civil action was dismissed.

49

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
Barbara Sims Arthur (Hamilton County)
On August 25, 2015, Barbara Sims Arthur of Chattanooga, Tennessee was publicly censured by the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Arthur pursuant to
Rule 9, Rules of the Supreme Court based upon two complaints. In the first complaint, Ms. Arthur prepared
two Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petitions, but was unable to file them because she had not been reinstated to
practice in the Bankruptcy Court following a previous suspension. Ms. Arthur’s clients signed the Petitions as
pro se litigants, indicating they were not represented by counsel and Ms. Arthur filed them. In the second case,
Ms. Arthur’s client had been served with a detainer warrant. Ms. Arthur represented to opposing counsel that
the Bankruptcy Court had issued an automatic stay, when her file revealed that the request for a stay had been
denied.
The Hearing Panel found that Ms. Arthur violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.2 (scope of representation); 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions);
3.3 (candor toward the tribunal); 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others); and 8.4 (misconduct).

Thomas Anthony Travaglini (Davidson County)
On July 29, 2015, Thomas Anthony Travaglini, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Travaglini practiced law while his license was suspended for CLE noncompliance. Mr. Travaglini’s
law license was suspended from August of 2014 to January of 2015, yet he continued to file pleadings and
appear in court.

Keith Alan Black (Hamilton County)
On July 16, 2015, Keith Alan Black, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Black failed to file an appellate brief in a criminal case, failed to respond to Criminal Court of
Appeal orders regarding the brief, and was found in contempt of Court.
By these acts, Keith Alan Black has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.4(d) (prejudice to administration of justice), and Rule 9, §11.3 (willful refusal to comply
with a court order), and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

50

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
James Gregory King (Davidson County)
On July 16, 2015, James Gregory King, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property) requires that funds belonging to the client be
placed in a trust account and held separately from the lawyer’s funds. Mr. King failed to deposit and/or
maintain client funds which were paid for a court reporter in his IOLTA account. Additionally, Mr. King kept
personal and operational funds in his IOLTA account and paid personal bills from his IOLTA account.
By these acts, James Gregory King has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping
property) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

Kevin McLean Kelly (Davidson County)
On July 16, 2015, Kevin McLean Kelly, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Kelly entered a guilty plea to Driving Under the Influence. This was Mr. Kelly’s second conviction
for Driving Under the Influence.
By these acts, Kevin McLean Kelly has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (criminal act
reflecting adversely on lawyer’s fitness) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

James Michael Marshall (Maury County)
On July 16, 2015, James Michael Marshall, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Marshall was convicted of two counts of assault against his former wife and former father-in-law.
Mr. Marshall was also found to be in contempt of court in an unrelated civil matter for failure to pay court
ordered child support, alimony, and medical costs.
By these acts, James Michael Marshall has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(g)
(misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

Clement Dale Potter (Campbell County)
On July 9, 2015, Clement Dale Potter, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

51

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
In 2012, Mr. Potter, an assistant public defender, gave his client, who was a criminal defendant charged
with attempted rape, incorrect advice regarding the requirements of the sex offender registry and lifetime
community suspension. Thus, Mr. Potter failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his client had all of the
relevant information needed to make an intelligent decision as to whether to plead guilty. Based on Mr. Potter’s
erroneous advice, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals allowed his client to withdraw his guilty plea.
By these acts, Mr. Potter has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence)
and 1.4 (communication), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violation(s).

DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS
Ira J. Katzman (Shelby County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered February 2, 2015, the law license of Ira J. Katzman
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Katzman 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.

Patrick R. Egger (Cumberland County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered February 19, 2015, the law license of Patrick R.
Egger was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Egger 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.

Laura Elizabeth Mills (Knox County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 6, 2015, the law license of Laura Elizabeth
Mills was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Mills 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.

52

DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS (continued)
William A. Davidson (Knox County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 17, 2015, the law license of William A.
Davidson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Davidson 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.

David Gregory Hays (Shelby County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 28, 2015, the law license of David Gregory
Hays was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Hays 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.

Ashely Denise Preston (Davidson County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 26, 2015, the law license of Ashely Denise
Preston was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Ms. Preston 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.

Gayle A. Lattimore (Hamilton County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 15, 2105, the law license of Gayle A. Lattimore
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Lattimore 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.

53

DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS (continued)
Kenneth Ronald Worley (Washington County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 22, 2015, the law license of Kenneth Ronald
Worley was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Worley 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.

Anna Bentley Williams (Davidson County)
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 9, 2015, the law license of Anna Bentley
Williams was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Williams 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.

Jack Edward Seaman (Davidson County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 9, 2015, the law license of Jack Edward
Seaman was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Seaman 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.

Vincent Zuccaro (Williamson County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 9, 2015, the law license of Vincent
Zuccaro was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Zuccaro 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.

54

DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS (continued)
Walter F. Williams (Hamilton County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 25, 2015, the law license of Walter F.
Williams was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Williams 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.

William M. Monroe (Shelby County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 24, 2015, the law license of William M.
Monroe was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Monroe 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.

Jon Alan Ballew (Knox County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 12, 2015, the law license of Jon Alan Ballew
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Ballew 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.

John Thomas Jones (Knox County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 11, 2015, the law license of John Thomas
Jones was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Prior to being placed on disability inactive status, Mr. Jones’ license to practice law had been temporarily
suspended by the Supreme Court on July 24, 2015, after the Court determined that Mr. Jones had
misappropriated funds and posed a threat of substantial harm to the public. The Court’s August 11, 2015 Order
did not remove the temporary suspension.
Mr. Jones 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.

55

DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS (continued
William James Davis (Mississippi)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 14, 2015, the law license of William James
Davis of Pope, Mississippi was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Davis 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.

Edwin Barrett Charles (Washington County)
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 14, 2015, the law license of Edwin Barrett
Charles was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Charles 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.

REMOVED FROM DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS
Keith Lane Edmiston (Knox County)
On August 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an Order removing Keith Lane Edmiston from
disability inactive status. Mr. Edmiston’s law license was moved to disability inactive by Order of the Supreme
Court on December 2, 2013. Mr. Edmiston petitioned the Court to return the status of his license to active
status on April 17, 2015.

REINSTATEMENTS
John Robert Hershberger (Shelby County)
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated John Robert Hershberger to the active
practice of law. Mr. Hershberger had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on May 30, 2014, for
a period of two (2) years, with sixty (60) days served as an active suspension and the remainder on probation.
On December 15, 2014, Mr. Hershberger submitted documentation to the Board of Professional Responsibility
demonstrating that all conditions for reinstatement to the active practice of law have been met; therefore, he is
reinstated and will now be placed on probation for the remainder of the two (2) year period.

56

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
Venita Marie Martin (Shelby County)
Venita Marie Martin has been reinstated to the practice of law by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court
effective January 27, 2015. Ms. Martin is also ordered to pay the Board’s costs in this matter.
Ms. Martin was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court on
November 13, 2014, for failing to respond to a complaint of misconduct. On December 11, 2014, Ms. Martin
filed a Petition for Reinstatement from Temporary Suspension. On January 12, 2015, a Hearing Panel entered a
recommendation that the temporary suspension be dissolved.

Gary N. Lovellette (Putnam County)
On February 2, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated the law license of Gary N. Lovellette.
Mr. Lovellette had been temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on November 26, 2014, for
failing to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility regarding a complaint of misconduct. Section 4.3
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. Mr.
Lovellette filed a Petition to Dissolve Temporary Suspension on January 6, 2015, asking the Court to reinstate
him. A Hearing Panel appointed to hear the Petition recommended to the Supreme Court that the temporary
suspension be dissolved. Mr. Lovellette was ordered to pay costs and expenses of the proceeding.
Ramsdale O’DeNeal, Jr. (Davidson County)
On February 23, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Ramsdale O’DeNeal, Jr., to the
practice of law. Mr. O’DeNeal had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 7, 2009, for a
period of (1) year.
On May 23, 2014, Mr. O’DeNeal filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law and a hearing
was held before the Hearing Panel on October 21, 2014. A Hearing Panel found that Mr. O’DeNeal
demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for the practice of law, and
that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity or standing of the bar or
administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. Based upon the Hearing Panel’s recommendation
and upon notification from the Department of Revenue that he is in good standing, the Supreme Court reinstated
Mr. O’DeNeal’s license to practice law.

John Edward Herbison (Montgomery County)
On February 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated John Edward Herbison, Jr., to the
practice of law. Mr. Herbison had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on November 20, 2014,
for a period of eighteen (18) months with sixty (60) days of the suspension to be served as an active suspension

57

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
and the remaining sixteen (16) months on probation. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, Mr. Herbison
will begin service of his probationary period.
On February 2, 2015, Mr. Herbison filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law. Pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4 (c), the Board verified the conditions required for reinstatement
were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court on February 23, 2015, indicating Mr.
Herbison was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered February 24,
2015, was effective upon filing.

Elizabeth Catherine Cox Velasquez (Sevier County)
On April 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Elizabeth Catherine Cox (now Elizabeth
Catherine Velasquez) to the practice of law. Ms. Velasquez was suspended from the practice of law by Order
of this Court on January 30, 2015, for a period of three (3) years retroactive to February 3, 2014, with one (1)
year to be served on active suspension and the remaining two (2) years served on probation subject to certain
conditions set forth in the Order of Enforcement. Ms. Velasquez will begin her probationary period upon
reinstatement to the active practice of law.
On February 2, 2015, Ms. Velasquez filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law. Pursuant
to Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4 (c), the Board verified the conditions required for
reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Ms. Velasquez
was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered April 8, 2015, was
effective upon filing.

Angela Jenkins-Hines (Madison County)
On April 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Angela Jenkins-Hines to the practice of
law. Ms. Jenkins-Hines was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Court on January 23, 2015, for
a period of one (1) year, with sixty (60) days to be served on active suspension and the remainder to be served
on probation subject to certain conditions set forth in the Order of Enforcement. Ms. Jenkins-Hines will begin
her probationary period upon reinstatement to the active practice of law.
On March 12, 2015, Ms. Jenkins-Hines filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law.
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4(c), the Board verified that the conditions required
for reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Ms.
Jenkins-Hines was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered April
13, 2015, was effective upon filing.
Mary Jeanette Clement (Sumner County)
On May 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Mary Jeanette Clement to the practice of
law. On June 30, 2014, Ms. Clement was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee

58

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
Supreme Court for a period of two (2) years with nine (9) months of the suspension is to be served as an active
suspension and fifteen (15) months to be served on probation with conditions. Ms. Clement will begin her
probationary period upon reinstatement to the active practice of law.
On April 7, 2015, Ms. Clement filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law. Pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4 (c), the Board verified that the conditions required for
reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Ms. Clement
was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered May 8, 2015, was
effective upon filing.

Yarboro Ann Sallee (Knox County)
On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee dissolved the temporary suspension of Yarboro Ann
Sallee. Ms. Sallee had been temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court on February 6, 2015, for failing to
respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility 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. Thereafter, Ms.
Sallee filed a response with the Board and petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel recommended to the
Supreme Court that the temporary suspension be dissolved. Ms. Sallee was ordered to pay costs and expenses
of the proceeding.

William C. Gosnell (Shelby County)
On June 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated the law license of William C. Gosnell to
active status. Pursuant to a Notice of Contention of Disability filed on December 18, 2014, the Supreme Court
transferred Mr. Gosnell’s license to disability inactive status by Order dated December 23, 2014, and referred
the matter to a hearing panel to determine Mr. Gosnell’s capacity to practice law and respond to or defend
against a disciplinary complaint. A hearing panel determined Mr. Gosnell failed to demonstrate he suffered
from a disability which makes it impossible for him to respond to or defend against the underlying disciplinary
complaint and recommended the Supreme Court dissolve the Order of December 23, 2014. The Order
reinstating Mr. Gosnell’s license to practice law is effective June 9, 2015.

William Caldwell Hancock (Davidson County)
On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated William Caldwell Hancock to the practice
of law. Mr. Hancock was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Court on September 30, 2014, for
a period of thirty (30) days.
On May 6, 2015, Mr. Hancock filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law. Pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4(c), the Board verified that the conditions required for
reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Mr. Hancock

59

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered June 15, 2015, was
effective upon filing.

Jamie Ellen Machamer (Davidson County)
Jamie Ellen Machamer has been reinstated to the practice of law by order of the Tennessee Supreme
Court effective June 16, 2015. Ms. Machamer is also ordered to pay the Board’s costs in this matter.
Ms. Machamer was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court on
May 28, 2015, for failing to respond to a complaint of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Ms. Machamer filed a
Petition to Dissolve Order of Temporary Suspension.
On June 11, 2015, a Hearing Panel entered a
recommendation that the temporary suspension be dissolved.

Mitchell Stanley Givens (Washington County)
On September 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Mitchell Stanley Givens to the
practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) (2014). Mr. Givens’ license to
practice law was suspended by Order of the Court on August 13, 2015, for a period of one (1) year, with thirty
(30) days to be served as an active suspension. Mr. Givens filed a Petition for Reinstatement on August 31,
2015.

William S. Lockett (Knox County)
On July 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated William S. Lockett to the practice of law
effective immediately. Mr. Lockett had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on July 3, 2012,
for a period of four (4) years, retroactive to April 13, 2010. Mr. Lockett filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the
practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d) (2014).
A Hearing Panel found that Mr. Lockett complied with the terms and conditions of his suspension, and
further found that he had demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required
for the practice of law, and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity or
standing of the bar or administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. Based upon the Hearing
Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Lockett’s license to practice law.

Patricia Lynne Stolinsky (Wilson County)
On July 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated the law license of Patricia Lynne Stolinsky.
Ms. Stolinsky had been temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 17, 2015, for
failing to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility 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

60

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. Ms.
Stolinsky filed a Petition to Dissolve Temporary Suspension on May 22, 2015, asking the Court to reinstate her.
A Hearing Panel appointed to hear the Petition recommended to the Supreme Court that the temporary
suspension be dissolved. Ms. Stolinsky was ordered to pay costs and expenses of the proceeding.

61

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Creator	Microsoft® Word 2013
ModifyDate	Friday, September 25, 2015 3:28 PM -05:00
PageCount	61
PDFVersion	1.5

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
CreateDate	Friday, September 25, 2015 3:28 PM -05:00
FileName	Board_Notes_Fall_2015_--_FINAL.pdf
FileSize	972 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Language	en-US
Linearized	No
MIMEType	application/pdf
Producer	Microsoft® Word 2013
SourceFile	Board_Notes_Fall_2015_--_FINAL.pdf
TaggedPDF	Yes

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