roberts-36965.pdf (2015)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (roberts-36965.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 DISTRICT V
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: JAMS D.R. ROBERTS, JR., BPR NO. 17537 FILE NO. 36965-5-PS
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against Jamen DR. Roberts, Jr., #17537 an attorney
licensed to practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts ofmisoonduct. Pursuent to Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 9, the Board ofProfessional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on March
13, 2015.
In an appellate brief, the Respondent argued that the lower court had refused to follow the
law or the Rules of Civil Procedure; had been âevasive and untruthï¬ll,â had âconduct[ed]
unnecessary hearings and enter[ed] untruthful and harassing orders in order to cover upâ its own
improper conduct; and made improper. ï¬ndings against him âto deï¬ect attention from its own
illegal acts.â â
The Court of Appeals noted the âhigh ironyâ of the Respondent accusing the trial court of
misconduct when it was the Respondent who orchestrated a Charade to disrupt the sheriffâs sale of
his clientâs property. The appellate court also noted that in his brief, the Respondent made
âunwarranted accusations impugning the integrityâ of the trial court, âbaseless and improper
assertionsâ designed to deï¬ect attention away from his own âï¬agrant misconduct in the trial
court."
By the aforementioned acts, Mr. Roberts has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2
(statements about judicial ofï¬cers) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
FOR THE BOARD OF