miller-31644-32340.pdf (2010)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference. The original PDF remains the official record for legal purposes.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (miller-31644-32340.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICTII till! JIlII 2 âI ï¬t! 3; .05
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
0
RESPONSIBILITY 330333 â3' 03MT3333â
SPSIâtS Ill.
F THE
SUPREME COURT or TENNESSEE 1â,...me , "LawmwilltEGSECWâ
IN RE: RANDY K. MILLER, BPR No. 21321 FILE nos. 3 1644~2-KS
Respondent, an attorney licensed 32340â2-KS
to practice law in Tennessee
(Knox County}
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaints were ï¬led against. Randy K. Miller, an attorney licensed to practice law
in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the Board of
Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December 10, 2010.
In the ï¬rst matter, the client hired Respondent in May 2008 to represent him in a diVOrce.
The client asserts the agreement was for $5 00; $250 up front and $250 after resolution of the matter.
Respondent paid the up front $250. Respondentassertsthat he told the client thedivorce papers
would not be ï¬led until the entire $500 fee was paid. On May 28, 2008, the client returned the
signed and notarized prepared divorce papers to Respondent. On June â26, 2008, Respondent
requested $170 from the client for ï¬ling fees, which the client paid. By e-mail, Respondent told the
client more than once that he had ï¬led the divorce papers. At one point in the e-mails, Respondent
stated that there isnât a court date yet and later Respondent stated that he didnât recall the exact date,
but the final hearing would be the week ofOctober 14, 2008. The client began calling and e-ntailing
Respondent aï¬er learning his divorce had not been ï¬led with the court, with no success. To date,
Respondent hasnât refunded the $170 ï¬ling fee paid by the client, even though he didnât tile
anything. Respondent told the client that he would return the papers to him, but has not. Respondent
has past disciplinary history for similar conduct. â
In the second matter, Respondent filed a pleading in court stating that he could not receive a
fair and unbiased hearing before two identiï¬ed judges because both have shown blatant and open
personal bias against him by ï¬ling ethics complaints against him and one was a former political
opponent of his. Respondent claimed defamation by one ofthe judges.
. By the aforementioned facts, Randy K. Miller, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct
1.4 (communication), 8.2020(1) (reckless statement about the integrity ofjudges) and 8.4 (a), (c) and
(d) (misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice) and is hereby Publicly
Censored for these Violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
iféia M. Hollabaugh, eta,-
MB «90¢ 2
Date