BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2007)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (brayton-29272-rel.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
1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500
(800) 486-5714
FAX: (615) 367-2480
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
Website: www.tbpr.org
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: TONY N. BRAYTON, BPR# 013725
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
January 30, 2007
MEMPHIS LAWYER CENSURED
Tony N. Brayton, of Memphis, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility on
January 30, 2007. The censure was issued by the Board pursuant to Rule 9, Section 8 of the Rules of Tennessee
Supreme Court. Brayton did not request a hearing on the matter.
A complaint alleging ethical misconduct was filed against Brayton alleging failure to properly
communicate with a client, and failure to move with reasonable diligence. Brayton was appellate counsel with
the Shelby County Public Defenderâs Office for a defendant in a first degree murder case wherein the
Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death penalty in late February of 2006 on direct appellate
review. Both the client and the State Post-Conviction Defender expected Brayton to file both a petition for
rehearing with the Tennessee Supreme Court and a direct petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Brayton did neither, and did not inform the client or the Office of the Post-Conviction Defender of his
decision before the expiration of the ninety day period in which to file the petition for writ of certiorari.
Further, Brayton did not move to withdraw before the Tennessee Supreme Court in sufficient time to allow the
State Post-Conviction Defender the ability to assume representation, to check out the record, and to timely file
the petition for writ of certiorari. Neither the client nor the State Post-Conviction Defender learned that Brayton
had not filed the petition for writ of certiorari until mid-July of 2006, and the Post-Conviction Defenderâs
motion requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a late-filed petition for writ of certiorari was denied in
October of 2006.
On these facts, the Board found that Brayton did not properly explain to his client or to the Post-
Conviction Defender his decision to refrain from filing a petition for writ of certiorari. The Board also found
that Brayton did not move to withdraw in sufficient time, and that his failures in this regard resulted in a waiver
of the clientâs right to file a direct certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Brayton 29272-9 rel.doc
PLEASE NOTE
YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES, FORMAL ETHICS OPINIONS,
NEWSLETTERSAND ANNUAL REPORTS ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT THE BOARDâS WEBSITE
www. tbpr.org/Subscriptions