sitton-2904-sc-opinion-lee-2018-2904-5-kh.pdf (2021)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (sitton-2904-sc-opinion-lee-2018-2904-5-kh.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.
01/22/2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs May 28, 2020
IN RE: WINSTON BRADSHAW SITTON, BPR #018440
___________________________________
No. M2020-00401-SC-BAR-BP
___________________________________
SHARON G. LEE, J., concurring in Section III, not joining in Sections I and II.
I join only in Section III of the majority opinion, agreeing that we should increase
Mr. Sittonâs punishment to a four-year suspension from the practice of law with one year
on active suspension and the remainder on probation.
I do not join in Sections I and II because those sections exceed the scope of our
review under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 15.4 and this Courtâs March 20,
2020 Order. See Order, In re Sitton, No. M2020-00401-SC-BAR-BP (Tenn. Mar. 20, 2020)
(order deeming attorney discipline to be âinadequateâ and âpropos[ing] that the punishment
should be increasedâ).
Under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 15.3(a), the Hearing Panel
submitted its findings to the Board of Professional Responsibility. The Board and Mr.
Sitton could have appealed the Hearing Panelâs findings, but neither did. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R.
9, § 15.3(b). The Board then filed a proposed Order of Enforcement with this Court for
review of the recommended punishment âwith a view to attaining uniformity of
punishment . . . and appropriateness of punishment under the circumstances of [the]
particular case.â Id. § 15.4(b). Based on Rule 9, section 15.4(c), this Court found that the
âproposed punishment seems inadequate. . . . Accordingly, this Court propose[d] that the
punishment should be increased.â Order, In re Sitton, No. M2020-00401-SC-BAR-BP
(Tenn. Mar. 20, 2020).
Thus, the only issue for review under Rule 9, section 15.4(c) and the Courtâs Order
was whether we should increase Mr. Sittonâs punishment. Yet in Section I, the majority
addressed Mr. Sittonâs various complaints about how the Hearing Panel handled his case,
finding Mr. Sittonâs complaints had no merit. In Section II, the majority concluded that the
evidence supported the Hearing Panelâs decision that Mr. Sitton violated sections 8.4(a)
and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Only in Section III did the majority address
the inadequacy of Mr. Sittonâs punishment.
Sections I and II exceed the scope of this Courtâs review under Rule 9 and the
Courtâs Order and are dicta. Thus, I join only in Section III of the majority opinion.
___________________________
SHARON G. LEE, JUSTICE