slobey-36057.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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (slobey-36057.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.
REQEWED
: w -.
IN DISCiPLiNARY DISTRICT V APR 1 D 2015
OF THE amcrmesacmnccm
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL msccwsmlmw - mmwmï¬m
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: JAY R. SLOBBY, BPR 140.5398 ' FILE NO. 360576-38
prcndcnt, an attorney licemscd
to practice law in Tamesscc
(Davidson Cmnty)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was am against Jay R. Slcbcy, #5398, an attorney licensed to
practice. law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pumuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. 11. 9,
the 15ch of Iâmfcssional Responsibility ccnsidcrcd these matters at its mccï¬ng on March â13,
2015.
A client hired Mr. Siobey to rcprcaent him inc fcdcml case for viciwticn cfbis rights, and
Mr. Sicbcy ï¬ied the lawsuit. The defendant, thmâcaï¬cr, £2ch a motion to dismiss. Mr. Slcbcy
asked opposing ccunscl for an cxtcnsicn cf timc to ï¬le arcsponsc to thc motion. Opposing ccunscl
agreed to :1 cm: week extension cf time. Mr. Slchcy then ï¬led a motion mistakenly stating that
opposing counsel did not cppcsc a three week Extension of time. Opposing counsel immediately
sent a letter to Mr. Siobey painting out thc error, and asking Mr. Slobcy tc comply with the
agreement to ï¬ic in one week. Thc court, hcwcvcr, gmntcd Mr. Slcbcyâs pending mation
providing a thrice week extension. Oppcsing counsel then sought relicffrom the court. Mr. Slcbcy
ï¬led no rcspcmc tc the motion at any time. The motion to diamiss was granted.
Mr. Slobsy navel: infcmcd his client of the dimissal of the action. The client later
disccvcrcd the dismissal whcn the client called thc court. The client ï¬lcd a civil malpracticc 'aciicn
.mv. n.-
.
A
.
against Mr. Slobey which was settled.
_
By the aforementioned acts, Mr. Slohey violated Rule 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (axpediting litigation), 3.3 (candor to theâ tribunal), and 3.4 (faimcms to
amassing conned). The client m'kfemd harm, but also received a aettiemantin tholegal malpractice
action. Mr. Slobey is harcby Publicly Censmad for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY