Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

hagaman-26386-2-public-censure.pdf (2010)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (hagaman-26386-2-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

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.

FELED
W
BOARD OF PRUFESglONAL HES ONSIBILIT‘I'

SUPREME GOURTHDEF TENNESSEE
IN DISCIPLINARY
OF THEDISTRICT II ‘ MW
WM».
Executive Secretary
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: CLINTON EUGENE HAGAMAN BPR NO. 22108 ' FILE No.263 86-2(K)-TC
Respondent, an attorney licensed
. to practice law in Tennessee

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Clinton Hagaman, an attorney licensed to practice

law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the

Board of Professional Responsibility considered this matter at its inseting on March 12, 2010.

Respondent worked as an associate attorney for Tommy K. Hindrnan. In June, 2003,

Respondent informed Mr. Hindrnan that he had a substance abuse problem and intended to leave

town to seek professional treatment for an undetermined length of time. Subsequent to

Respondent’s departure, Mr. Hindrnan was confronted'by Derik Price, who alleged that he had

paid Respondent $10,000.00 for representation in a felony theft case. Mr. Price provided Mr.

Hindman with a letter from Respondent indicating that a $10,000.00 retainer had been received

for representation of Mr. Price. Mr. Hindrnan could not confirm whether or not W. Price had

actually paid Respondent, but nevertheless agreed to represent Mr. Price through the conclusion

of 'his criminal matter. Respondent states that Mr. Price was the individual who provided

narcotics to him. Mr. Price wanted to deceive his father iiivho had grown curious about his

spending of a substantial sum of personal funds. Mr. Price had spent the money on narcotics.

Mr. Price requested a letter from Respondent indicating that $10,000.00 had been paid for legal
services attributed to his felony drug charge. Respondent states that he initially declined to write

the letter, but later relinquished fearing that he would lose his narcotic contact. ReSpondent

denies that any money was exchanged between Mr. Price and himself. Mr. Hindman filed the

disciplinary complaint against Respondent, but recently acknowledged that there are no

outstanding complaints or unresolved issues related to Respondent’s previous employment with

his firm or his representation of any clients.

By the aforementioned facts, Clinton Hagaman as violated Rule of Professional

Conduct RPC 8.4(c) and is hereby Publically Censured for this violation.
/

FOPéI-I erg“) o
P OF its) AL s/a‘ssmru‘r

Roger/yfiness, Ch if ‘

Date

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top