Candy 2001-1211-9-LC rel.PDF (2002)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (009382-20020425.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.
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
LANCE B. BRACY WILLIAM W. HUNT, III
CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730 CHARLES A. HIGH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217 SANDY GARRETT
LAURA L. CHASTAIN
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE FAX: (615) 367- 2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
CONSUMER COUNSEL/DIRECTOR E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: JOHN R. CANDY, BPR #9382
CONTACT: LAURA L. CHASTAIN
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
April 25, 2002
MEMPHIS LAWYER SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE OF LAW
On April 16, 2002 the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending the
law license of John R. Candy for a period of thirty (30) days; ordered Candy to refund
$13,700.00 immediately to the estate of Stan Perry; immediately issue duplicate checks
to Thomas Shouse in the amounts of $625.93 and $93.25; ordered Candy to give
settlement statements to any clients to whom he disburses any money in the future;
ordered Candy to reimburse the Board of Professional Responsibility for the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings, and ordered Candy to set up a trust
accounting system in compliance with Formal Ethics Opinion 89-F-121.
Candy failed to adequately communicate with his clients; failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client; failed to explain matters to the extent
necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation
and by failing to seek the lawful objective of his clients; failed to use his escrow account
in compliance with DR 9-102(A)(B); and charged an excessive fee all of which were in
violation of the disciplinary rules containing the Code of Professional Responsibility.
LLC:mw
Candy 2001-1211-9-LC rel.doc