BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2006)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (smith-27909-7-rel632743135932672004.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: THOMAS VERNER SMITH, BPR #11686
CONTACT: CHARLES A. HIGH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(615) 361-7500
January 30, 2006
JACKSON, TENNESSEE ATTORNEY CENSURED
T. Verner Smith, a Jackson, Tennessee attorney, was publicly censured by the Board of
Professional Responsibility on January 30, 2006. A public censure is a rebuke and warning to
the attorney, but it does not affect the attorneyâs right to practice law.
The censure resulted from a complaint filed by Smithâs former wife. Mr. Smith signed
his former wifeâs name to two promissory notes and one deed of trust. The parties disputed
whether Mr. Smith had his former wifeâs verbal consent to sign.
The former wife also reported that Smith had loaned money to a number of clients
through a business that he had an undisclosed pecuniary interest in. While he stated that he did
not believe that the loans were violative of ethics rules he agreed that he would not loan money
to his own clients in the future in the manner complained about.
Mitigating factors apply in these matters. Mr. Smith has no prior discipline and has been
in practice over twenty years. The promissory notes were for purchase of cars for the children of
Mr. Smith and his former wife. Mr. Smith paid off both loans and the former wife was not
required to pay any amount. The deed of trust was on the law office building of Mr. Smith
which his former wife had no ownership interest in. All of the lawyers in his firm signed the
deed of trust, along with their wives. His former wife incurred no liability for the loan secured
by the deed of trust.
None of his clients ever complained about the loans made to them. The loans were
usually for short terms and allowed the clients to receive an advance on the settlement of their
legal matters. As stated, Mr. Smith has agreed not to make such loans to his own legal clients in
the future.
The ethical rules violated were RPC 1.8(a) and (e), and RPC 8.4(a)(b)(c) and (d).
The rules of professional conduct are mandatory for all attorneys. They state a minimum
level of conduct and any violation reflects negatively on the standing and integrity of the bar.
Smith 27909-7 rel.doc
PLEASE NOTE
YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES,
FORMAL ETHICS OPINIONS, NEWSLETTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS
ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT THE BOARDâS WEBSITE
www. tbpr.org/Subscriptions