board-notes-fall-2022.pdf (2022)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (board-notes-fall-2022.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES

published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2022

Inside:
2

Spotlight: TLAP Update 2022:
The TLAP Foundation and
TLAP’s Services

5

Ethical Issues in Handling
Residential Real Estate
Closings

17

Board of Professional
Responsibility’s 2022 Ethics
Workshop

18

Board of Professional
Responsibility New
Disciplinary Counsel

19

Board of Professional
Responsibility’s 41st
Annual Report

31

Disciplinary Actions
April 2022 – September

Greeting from Floyd Flippin
Chair, Board of Professional Responsibility

As my term as Chairman of the Board of Professional Responsibility
nears its end, I want to say what a honor it has been to serve. My
Dad, Jerry Flippin, was one of the first lawyers to serve on the
Board. He was very proud of that service and when he died in 2019
was proud that I had the opportunity to serve on the Board.
I want to thank the Supreme Court for appointing me to the Board.
A special thanks to Justice Roger Page and Justice Holly Kirby for
being our liaisons during my term as Chairman.
It has been a true blessing to serve. A “high water” mark in my
life. I have worked alongside some of the finest lawyers and lay
people in the State. Our Chief Disciplinary Counsel Sandy Garrett
and her entire staff are second to none. All of them take their jobs
seriously. We all know how important the work of the Board is and
how many people are affected by the decisions we make. We do not
make those decisions lightly.
To the lawyers across the State, I have so much respect for you. An
overwhelming number of you do the right things every day. Keep it
up. You have never been needed more than now.

TLAP Update 2022: The TLAP Foundation
and TLAP’s Services
Buddy Stockwell, Executive Director
Tennessee Lawyer Assistance Program

The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) is very grateful to announce that in
2021 the new TLAP Foundation became fully operational. It is a stand-alone 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation authorized by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and it is fully independent of TLAP.
The Foundation’s support services include temporary financial assistance to TLAP clients
requiring treatment, augmentation of TLAP services for clients, special events for client support and
public awareness, and enhancement of TLAP’s access to national resources such as the American
Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and other wellness programs.
For the first time in Tennessee, we now have a Foundation that provides financial assistance
to lawyers, judges, and bar applicants who need help to complete diagnostics, treatment and/or
monitoring as recommended by TLAP in order to objectively restore their fitness to practice.
TLAP has always offered a myriad of support services, all of which are absolutely confidential
by state statute. 1 Also, TLAP has never, and will never, charge a penny for its professional services
including crisis support, professional addiction interventions, clinical intake, facilitation of
appropriate diagnostics and treatment as indicated, and professional monitoring services that often
make a tremendous difference in recovery success and objectively establishing fitness to practice.
TLAP also conducts scores of educational CLE’s each year, and produces the annual conference
“Camp TLAP” that includes presentations by nationally acclaimed speakers.
Also, at no cost and when the person has been compliant and successful in TLAP’s free
monitoring program, TLAP provides expert testimony and advocacy to support fitness to practice
in formal regulatory licensure cases involving bar admissions or discipline.
TLAP’s highly specialized clinical services continue to evolve to meet the demanding needs
of legal professionals. Lawyers Assistance Programs across the nation have come a long way in the
last two decades, as have many other programs that support licensed professionals who hold the
public’s trust such as doctors, nurses, and airline pilots, etc.
To be licensed in these types of professions, one must demonstrate and maintain good
character and fitness to practice. These days, supporting fitness to practice is more complex. No
longer just a program for alcohol and drug problems, TLAP now offers totally comprehensive
mental health support and employs a professional clinical staff equipped to provide support for any
mental health issue.
In fact, over 50% of TLAP’s cases last year had nothing whatsoever to do with drug or alcohol
issues. This reflects the findings of the 2016 ABA study “The Prevalence of Substance Use and
Other Mental Health Concerns Among American Attorneys” that revealed our profession is
1

See: T.C.A. 23-4-105
2

suffering from Depression at rates that are higher than alcohol or drug issues. TLAP has actually
designed and added a new category of monitoring agreements specifically tailored to support fitness
to practice in mental health cases having nothing to do with alcohol or drugs.
As to substance use disorders, spectacular progress has also been made in the development
of clinical guidelines and clinical best practices for monitoring programs like TLAP. Today’s
programming and monitoring at TLAP can render no-relapse addiction recovery success rates
averaging 85% and even higher.
This level of reliability is exceptional in the field of addiction. To provide a frame of
reference, according to estimates by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), typical substance
use treatment for the general public renders no-relapse success rates in the range of 40% to 60%. 2
Basically, the likelihood of relapse and a return to substance use is a “flip of a coin.”
Licensing authorities (and the profession and the public) require much better recovery
assurances than a mere 50/50 chance as to whether or not a lawyer or judge will remain safe to
practice long term or instead relapse and return to substance use and impairment (and potentially
harm the public).
For example, as to recovery expectations, the standard for reinstatement after being placed
on disability inactive status is to prove by “clear and convincing evidence that the attorney’s disability
has been removed and the attorney is fit to resume the practice of law.” 3 TLAP’s clinical support
and monitoring is specialized and tailored to support objective outcomes that reliably demonstrate
fitness to practice at these required levels.
Shifting gears, it is paramount to also acknowledge that TLAP’s cases are predominantly selfreferrals. These cases do not involve any regulatory component whatsoever. On average, 80% of
TLAP’s cases remain wholly unknown to regulatory authorities. Instead, these totally private cases
involve legal professionals who have discretely and proactively reached out for TLAP’s specialized
help, all before unethical conduct occurs and discipline is involved. In total privacy, TLAP saves
lives and careers by confidentially supporting successful recovery outcomes and fitness to practice.
To be clear, TLAP does not ever under any circumstances report cases to bar admissions or
discipline. In all confidential cases, clients decide to follow TLAP’s clinical recommendations, or
not. It’s up to them. TLAP never releases any information to anyone without a written waiver by the
client wherein the client instructs TLAP to the share information.
As to the 20% of TLAP’s cases formally referred to TLAP by bar admissions or discipline,
these cases always involve some type of troubling “conduct” on the part of the respondent. Their
behavior has somehow become known to regulatory authorities and it is causing them concern about
fitness to practice. DUI or drug-related arrests, allegations of impairment in court, or other such
issues can trigger a bar admissions or disciplinary complaint that causes an official referral to TLAP,
all pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rules.
Of course, not all of these formal referrals want help from TLAP. The demeanor of TLAP
clients in these referral cases can range from full cooperation and appreciation for TLAP’s support,
to full-blown hostility toward TLAP. Regardless, the mindset of any given referral does not impact

2
3

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/treatment-recovery
See: Supreme Court Rule 9. Section 27.7(b)
3

TLAP’s pure desire to help. TLAP always does everything it can to encourage every referral to take
full advantage of TLAP’s support.
Against the backdrop of all of the above, and now circling back to the new TLAP
Foundation, this new entity is extremely important to all TLAP participants. The entire spectrum of
clients at TLAP all encounter one common challenge: “how will I manage the cost of diagnostics,
treatment if indicated, and drug screening during TLAP monitoring, etc.?”
While TLAP’s support, facilitation of specialized recommendations and programming,
monitoring services, and expert advocacy, etc., are always absolutely free, at the same time TLAP
has never been, nor has it ever claimed to be, a hospital, inpatient treatment center for licensed
professionals, or drug-screening laboratory, etc.
Some or all of these third-party medical costs can be expensive, depending on the
circumstances in any given case. This can present a significant and sometimes insurmountable
financial barrier to someone getting the real help that they need as a licensed professional and being
monitored by TLAP to objectively demonstrate that they are fit to practice.
The new TLAP Foundation is now here and available to provide financial help in those cases
where the person wants to take advantage of TLAP’s help and is willing to do so, but simply can’t
afford to do it. No one wants to see someone’s path to recovery and their ability to return to the
practice of law blocked due to a lack of personal finances to address a health issue.
The TLAP Foundation needs your financial support in order ensure that funds are available
and always on hand to support our peers in need. There are two very easy ways for you to help:
1. Donate directly to the Foundation by visiting TLAP’s website: https://tlap.org/donate/ All
funds go directly to the Foundation (not to TLAP). All cash donations to the Foundation are
tax-deductible; or,
2. Also, at no cost whatsoever to you, please use the “Amazon Smile” option. Go to
https://smile.amazon.com and select the TLAP Foundation as your charity. Automatically,
and without any increase in the price of your purchase, the Amazon Smile Foundation will
donate 0.5% of the purchase price to the TLAP Foundation. So please “smile” and help save
lives and careers in the legal profession.
In the meantime, if you or someone you know needs TLAP’s help, please call us at (615)
741-3238, write us at tlap@tncourts.gov, or visit us on the internet at www.tlap.org. All
communications are confidential by law and you do not have to give your name.

4

Ethical Issues in Handling Residential Real Estate Closings
Steven J. Christopher 4

Residential real estate closing practice brings with it numerous
potential ethical pitfalls. Attorneys practicing in this area can best avoid making
ethical errors by being cognizant of these issues and creating protocols to obviate
them. This article will provide an overview of some of the ethical issues most likely
to be encountered in the handling of residential real estate closings and practice
suggestions to address them.
The Relationship Between the Closing Attorney and the Real Estate Agent
Residential real estate closing attorneys may obtain much of their business
through referrals from a seller or buyer’s real estate agent. If a real estate agent
refers their client to a closing attorney who handles the closing timely and effectively
and where the buyer and/or seller reports having a positive experience with the
closing, the real estate agent will likely choose to refer future clients. Through these
continued referrals, the real estate agent and closing attorney become acclimated to
each other’s processes, which makes ongoing referrals mutually beneficial.
Establishing and maintaining such a business relationship with a real estate
agent is not ethically improper. However, the more business that is generated
through referral from a particular real estate agent, the more crucial the relationship
becomes for the lawyer financially. This creates a personal interest for the attorney
in staying in the real estate agent’s good graces to ensure repeat business of the
agent’s customers and generation of continued fees. As the real estate agent is not
the closing attorney’s client, this personal interest creates the danger of a concurrent
conflict of interest pursuant to RPC 1.7. Such a relationship also potentially
implicates RPC 5.4(c), which prohibits a lawyer from permitting a person who
recommends the lawyer’s services to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional
judgment in rendering such legal services.
An attorney’s client in a residential real estate closing is the seller or buyer in
a split closing, or both the seller and buyer if the attorney is handling both sides of
the transaction. In addition to representing the buyer and/or seller, the attorney may
also represent the interests of the lender providing financing to the buyer in the
transaction. The closing attorney owes their principal duty to their clients and not
the real estate agent. 5
4

Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Investigations Section of the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
5

TENN. SUP. CT. R. 8, Rule 1.3, Comment [1]. The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct,
codified at Rule 8 of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules, will be cited as RPC _._.
5

In most cases, the interests of the real estate agent will be in accordance with
the interests of the client(s). By the time that the closing attorney is brought into the
picture, the terms of the real estate transaction will typically have been fully
negotiated. Consequently, everyone involved wants the closing to proceed and their
interests are thereby aligned. However, should an issue arise where there may be a
need to postpone the closing, such as where a client has issues or concerns about the
documentation or where the closing attorney discovers an issue that needs to be
addressed, the real estate agent will understandably want the closing to proceed
promptly to receive their commission, and may express frustration with the closing
attorney for any delay. In this circumstance, the real estate closing attorney must
prioritize their loyalty and ethical duties to their client(s) over the concerns of the
real estate agent.
A concurrent conflict of interest exists if the representation of one client will
be directly adverse to another client, or if there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or by a personal
interest of the lawyer. 6 A concurrent conflict may be waived only where the lawyer
reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent
representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the
representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another
client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a
tribunal, and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. 7 In
the circumstance where the attorney’s relationship with the real estate agent, either
in a particular closing or on an ongoing basis creates a true personal conflict, such a
conflict would likely not be waivable, as waiver is only permissible if the real estate
closing lawyer would be able to be able to continue to provide diligent representation
to the client. If the personal conflict created through the relationship with the real
estate agent materially interfered with the closing attorney’s exercise of judgment, it
is not feasible that the closing attorney would be able to continue to maintain their
undivided loyalty to the client(s).
An ongoing tension between a closing attorney’s loyalty to their client(s) and a
desire to maintain a positive relationship with a real estate agent will not normally
rise to a level to constitute a concurrent conflict or implicate RPC 5.4(c). As indicated
above, a concurrent conflict only exists where there is a significant risk that the
attorney’s representation of the client(s) will be materially limited by the attorney’s
personal interest (emphasis added). However, closing attorneys who receive frequent
referrals from the same real estate agent should remain fully conscious of the ongoing
potential conflict that this relationship creates and to be mindful of RPC 5.4(c).

6

RPC 1.7(a)(1)-(2).

7

RPC 1.7(b)(1)-(4).
6

If a circumstance arose that created a true concurrent conflict or which
implicated RPC 5.4(c), in lieu of terminating the attorney’s relationship with the real
estate agent, it would not be improper for the closing attorney to address the matter
privately with the real estate agent to ameliorate the issue and potentially maintain
the business relationship. If the issue involved only a single closing, it would also be
permissible under Tennessee’s ethical rules to seek to withdraw from the
representation. Even if the closing was in process, the attorney would be permitted
to do so if the withdrawal would not have a material adverse impact on the client. 8
Under such a circumstance, it would be proper for the closing attorney to assist the
client(s) in securing successor counsel, to waive any fee for the closing, and facilitate
the transfer of paperwork and working with successor counsel to facilitate transfer of
responsibilities. 9
A related ethical issue that arises through the generation of business through
referral from real estate agents is the danger that the seller and/or buyer will not be
conscious of the fact that an attorney-client relationship has been created with the
closing attorney. This is particularly the case where the clients are not frequent
purchasers of legal services. If it is not self-evident from the name of the closing
attorney’s firm or otherwise that the closing attorney is an attorney, the clients may
additionally not be conscious of the fact that they are being referred to a law firm.
These issues are very likely not going to be present where the closing attorney
represents the lender, as the agents of the financial institution will be very acclimated
to the closing process and fully conscious that an attorney-client relationship is being
established.
The danger of these misperceptions by the seller and/or buyer arises out of the
dynamics of the formation of the attorney-client relationship through referral from a
real estate agent as opposed to the way an attorney-client relationship is normally
formed. A client normally initiates the process of hiring a lawyer, the client and
lawyer meet, and a fee agreement is executed. The client is an active participant in
the process, and it is self-evident that they are hiring a lawyer. In contrast, when an
attorney is retained to handle a closing through referral from the real estate agent,
the buyer and seller are in a largely passive role. The real estate agent advises the
client of the name of the attorney who will handle the closing and otherwise initiates
the process, and the closing may be scheduled through communication between the
real estate agent and the closing attorney. There will frequently be numerous
communications between the real estate agent and the closing attorney after the
closing attorney agrees to the representation, as well as communications between the
closing attorney and the client(s) where the real estate agent is also a party. The
relationship between the closing attorney and the client is also relatively very brief,
8

RPC 1.16(b)(1).

9

RPC 1.16(d). A lawyer who is discharged by a client, or withdraws from representation of a
client, shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, take steps to protect the client’s interests.
7

typically consisting of limited communications before closing, the closing itself, and
the transmittal of funds. The client may never meet the closing attorney and instead
work with a legal assistant at closing for execution of the documentation.
Closing attorneys need to be aware that this methodology creates the danger
that the buyer and/or seller will not be fully conscious that the closing attorney is an
attorney, that an attorney-client relationship has been formed, and that the closing
attorney’s duty of loyalty is owed to the client. The most effective way to ensure these
understandings is through good written and verbal communication. A comprehensive
form letter can be sent to the client under the attorney’s signature at the
commencement of the representation clarifying the closing attorney’s role, the
attendant privileges of the attorney-client relationship, and outlining the process that
will be followed. Such communication will not only undergird the fact that an
attorney-client relationship has been formed but will ensure the attorney’s
compliance with their duty to reasonably consult with the client about how the client’s
objectives are to be accomplished, and to keep the client reasonably informed about
the status of the matter. 10
A closing attorney’s relationship with the real estate agent, particularly a real
estate agent without significant experience, may also trigger an attorney’s obligations
pursuant to RPC 4.3, which govern an attorney’s interface with an unrepresented
party. Due to the way the real estate agent refers clients to the closing attorney and
engages in ongoing communication throughout the closing process, the real estate
agent may form the erroneous perception that the real estate closing attorney
represents their interests independently. In dealing on behalf of a client with a
person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the
lawyer is disinterested. 11 When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the
unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer
shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. 12 Attorneys are
further prohibited from giving legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than
the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the
interests of such a person are, or have a reasonable possibility of being, in conflict
with the interests of the client. 13
In the context of a typical residential real estate closing, the interests of the
real estate agent and the closing attorney’s clients will normally not be adverse.
10

RPC 1.4(a)(2) and RPC 1.4(a)(3).

11

RPC 4.3

12

Id.

13

Id.

8

Consequently, the closing attorney’s only prohibition is to seek to correct the
misperception that an attorney-client relationship exists with the real estate agent if
the closing attorney perceives the real estate agent to be forming this understanding.
The closing attorney may answer legal questions raised by the real estate agent,
provided that the questions do not create a concurrent conflict of interest. Only where
the closing attorney perceives the relationship between the real estate agent and a
particular client to be adverse is the closing attorney required to refrain from the
provision of legal advice other than referral to private counsel.
Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege
Real estate agents, agents of financial institutions providing mortgage
products to the closing attorney’s clients, and the clients themselves will typically not
be conscious of the implications of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege during
the closing process. It is incumbent on the attorney to be aware of the information
and communications that are confidential to ensure the protection of such
information. Attorneys need to similarly ensure that privilege is not inadvertently
waived regarding client communications. Problems that implicate confidentiality
and privilege issues are not implicated in a typical closing, but in the anomalous
circumstance where civil litigation arises out of a real estate transaction, an
attorney’s failure to be cognizant of confidentiality and privilege issues could have a
deleterious impact on their client(s).
Real estate closing attorneys, like other members of the bar, are required to
take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure, or
unauthorized access to, confidential information. 14 Confidential information includes
any information obtained in connection with the representation, from any source. 15
The scope of RPC 1.6 also includes disclosures by a lawyer that do not in themselves
reveal protected information but could reasonably lead to the discovery of such
information by a third person. 16
The information protected by RPC 1.6 is much broader than attorney-client
privilege, which generally applies only to communications between the attorney and
client for the purpose of providing legal advice or advocacy. 17 Confidential
14

RPC 1.6(d). See also RPC 1.6, Comment [18].

15

RPC 1.6(a); RPC 1.6, Comment [3](“ The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to
matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the
representation, whatever its source”).
16

RPC 1.6, Comment [4].

17

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-105. See also State v. Buford, 216 S.W.3d 323 (Tenn. 2007); Boyd
v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
9

information within the scope of RPC 1.6 may not be disclosed absent a client’s
informed consent, where the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the
representation, or if one of the permissive grounds for disclosure exist pursuant to
RPC 1.6(b) or if one of the mandatory grounds for disclosure exist pursuant to RPC
1.6(c). 18
Any communications between the attorney and the real estate agent are
confidential, as they involve the subject matter of the representation of the client, but
are not privileged, as the real estate agent is not the client of the real estate closing
attorney.
Any communications between the attorney and the client(s) are
confidential regardless of whether the real estate agent is a party to the
communication. Any communication with the client(s) are likewise privileged, but if
the real estate agent is present, the privilege may be impacted. 19 The privilege is
generally not waived if the third-party is an agent of the client. 20 Closing attorneys
should be aware of whether privilege attaches to communications with clients where
the real estate agent is present and make commensurate review of applicable legal
authority on this subject to ensure that their clients are aware of whether privilege
attaches to specified communications.
There will typically be a need for the closing attorney to communicate with the
real estate agent and other third parties following the commencement of the
representation. Any information shared by the closing attorney with third parties in
this context is confidential, as it concerns the subject matter of the representation.
However, sharing such information would constitute disclosure impliedly authorized
to carry out the representation, and thereby permitted by RPC 1.6(a)(2) to the extent
that the dissemination of the information was reasonably necessary to effectuate the
purpose of the disclosure. However, it is recommended that a client’s prospective
confidentiality waiver be obtained at the commencement of the representation
permitting reasonably necessary disclosures to such third parties to avoid any
misunderstanding with the client and to provide additional protection for the
attorney regarding their compliance with their ethical responsibilities. 21

18

RPC 1.6.

19

Pagliara v. Pagliara, No. M2019-01397-COA-R9-CV, 2020 WL 3498490 (Ct. App. June 29,
2020). Smith Cty. Educ. Ass'n, 676 S.W.2d 328, 333 (Tenn. 1984); Culbertson v. Culbertson,
393 S.W.3d at 678, 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
20

Smith Cty. Educ. Ass'n, 676 S.W.2d at 333.

21

See RPC 1.0(e) and RPC 1.0, Comment [6] and [7], which provides a definition and guidance
for obtaining informed consent for waiver and other purposes.

10

Fee Agreements
A closing attorney discloses the amount of their fee and includes the fee in the
settlement statement included in the closing documentation. However, it is highly
recommended that the closing attorney also disclose the amount of their fee prior to
this time, preferably when the representation commences. RPC 1.5(b) requires that
an attorney communicate the basis and rate of their fee before or within a reasonable
amount of time after the commencement of the representation. When an attorney is
entering into an attorney-client relationship with a client with whom they have not
previously provided legal services, which will typically be the case for a residential
closing, the fee must be established “promptly” following the commencement of the
representation. 22 If the exact amount of the fee is not known at the commencement
of the representation, the closing attorney should provide an explanation of how the
fee will be calculated.
Closing attorneys will normally not be required to reduce their fee
arrangement to writing, but this is strongly recommended. A fee agreement must
only be reduced to writing if the attorney accepts a nonrefundable fee, 23 if the case is
taken on a contingency fee basis, 24 or if fees are shared between attorneys who do not
practice in the same firm. 25 Even when not required, reducing the fee arrangement
to writing will help prevent a client’s misunderstanding of the basis and rate of the
fee. In the context of real estate closings, the execution of a fee agreement or letter
of engagement will also help undergird the client’s understanding that an attorneyclient relationship has been formed.
Handling the Provision of Title Insurance in Connection with a Real Estate Closing
Real estate closing attorneys in Tennessee often handle the provision of title
insurance in connection with their overall closing work. The handling of the legal
work in connection with a closing, such as the preparation of the closing documents,
including a warranty deed and settlement statement, falls within the definition of
the practice of law in Tennessee. 26 In contrast, reviewing the status of title to real
22

RPC 1.5, Comment [2].

23

RPC 1.5(f).

24

RPC 1.5(c).

25

RPC 1.5(e).

Faerber v. Troutman & Troutman, P.C., et al., No. E2016-01378-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL
2691264 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2017)(finding Tennessee Consumer Protection Act violation
inapplicable to legal work in connection with a real estate transaction due to the inapplicable of
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act to fall within the definition of the practice of law);
26

11

property for the purpose of issuance of a title insurance policy, standing alone, does
not fall within the definition of the practice of law in Tennessee. 27 However, title
insurance work falls within the definition of “law related services,” pursuant to RPC
5.7. 28 “Law related services” are services that might reasonably be performed in
conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services, and
that are not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a
nonlawyer. 29
Attorneys who provide law related services in conjunction with legal services
will be subject to all of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to
their provision of law related services unless the services are provided in a manner
expressly distinct from their overall provision of closing services, and unless the
lawyer confirms that the protections of the attorney-client relationship do not exist. 30
This rule is designed to mitigate the danger that the person for whom the law related
services are performed will mistakenly assume that the services fall within the
protections of the attorney-client relationship, including confidentiality, attorneyclient privilege, and protections against conflicts of interest. 31
An individual who receives title insurance services at a law office designated
as such will very likely form such impression unless the attorney provides
clarification otherwise. On this basis, closing attorneys will be bound by all the
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct for their title insurance work if the provision
Flanary v. Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, LLC, No. E2007–01433–COA–R3–CV, 2008
WL 2434196 at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2008) (quoting Fifteenth Judicial Dist. Unified Bar
Ass'n v. Glasgow, No. M1996–00020–COA–R3–CV, 1999 WL 1128847 at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Dec. 10, 1999)). See also Spiegel v. Thomas, Mann & Smith, P.C., No. C/A 895, 1989 WL
128294 at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 1989) (determining the drafting of deeds of trust to be one
of many aspects of the practice of law), rev'd on other grounds by Spiegel, 811 S.W.2d 528
(Tenn. 1991).
27

Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Smith, 794 S.W.2d 734, 737 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990), citing Bar Ass'n. of
Tenn., Inc. v. Union Planters Title Guar. Co., 46 Tenn. App. 100, 326 S.W.2d 767 (1959); State
v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n., 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918 (1931).
28

The provision of title insurance is identified as an example of law related services in a nonexhaustive list contained in Comment [9] to RPC 5.7.
29

RPC 5.7(b).

30

RPC 5.7(a)(1)-(2); RPC 5.7, Comment [3].

31

RPC 5.7, Comment [1].

12

of title insurance services is not carefully delineated from the overall closing work.
This would require, at a minimum, adequate communication between the lawyer and
client confirming the distinction between their title insurance work and other closing
work, and the attorney’s demarcation in their case management, advertising, and
external communications between their title insurance work and overall closing
work. 32
Logistically, it is very likely the easiest course of action for attorneys handling
title insurance work incident to a real estate closing to simply accept the applicability
of all the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct for their title insurance work.
Given the significant interrelationship between the provision of title insurance and
the other work involved in the closing, it may not be feasible for attorneys to maintain
the delineation contemplated by RPC 5.7 while proceeding in a cost-effective manner.
Explaining to clients, particularly sellers and buyers who are not frequent purchasers
of legal services, that the protections of the attorney-client relationship exist
regarding the provision of the overall closing services but not the title insurance
component would present difficulties. This presents a danger that clients who do not
grasp this distinction may inadvertently make disclosures in communications
relating to the title insurance work believing that such communications are subject
to the attorney-client relationship. If attorneys accept the applicability of all the
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct for their title insurance work, they simply
need to remain fully conscious of this fact and ensure that their office protocols and
procedures are reflective of this.
The Role of Support Staff
Legal assistants employed by a law firm are often significantly involved in the
handling of real estate closings. This use of legal assistants is not improper.
However, attorneys need to take proper care to ensure that their legal assistants
refrain from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 33
The unauthorized practice of law can create criminal exposure for the legal
assistant and disciplinary action against the attorney(s) with supervisory authority.
It is a Class A misdemeanor in Tennessee for an individual to engage in the “practice
32

RPC 5.7, Comment [8].

33

See RPC 5.3, Comment [2](“ Lawyers generally employ assistants in their practice, including
secretaries, investigators, law student interns, and paraprofessionals. Such assistants, whether
employees or independent contractors, act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer’s professional
services. A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning
the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose
information relating to representation of the client and should be responsible for their work
product.”)

13

of law” or “law business” without an active law license. 34 The practice of law is defined
as follows:
The appearance as an advocate in a representative capacity or the drawing of
papers, pleadings or documents or the performance of any act in such capacity
in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before any court,
commissioner, referee or anybody, board, committee or commission constituted
by law or having authority to settle controversies, or the soliciting of clients
directly or indirectly to provide such services. 35
“Law business” is defined as:
The advising or counseling for valuable consideration of any person as to any
secular law, the drawing or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing for
valuable consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or
relating to secular rights, the doing of any act for valuable consideration in a
representative capacity, obtaining or tending to secure for any person any
property or property rights whatsoever, or the soliciting of clients directly or
indirectly to provide such services. 36
The work involved in the handling of real estate closings does not fall within the
definition of the “practice of law,” as it would not normally involve the appearance as
an advocate before a tribunal but does fall within the definition of “law business.” 37
Attorneys with managerial and supervisory authority over a nonlawyer are
required to create and maintain protocols to ensure that the nonlawyer acts in a
manner compatible with the lawyer’s ethical obligations. 38 Consequently, when a
legal assistant engages in the unauthorized practice of law in connection with a real
estate closing, the attorney with managerial or supervisor authority over the legal
assistant has breached their obligations defined at RPC 5.3(a) to the extent that the
legal assistant’s conduct arose out of a failure to provide proper training and

34

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-103(b).

35

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-101(3).

36

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-101(1).

37

See id. The definition of law business includes both the provision of legal advice, and the
drafting of documents “affecting or relating to secular rights” and engaging in acts to sure
“property or property rights.”
38

RPC 5.3(a).

14

instruction, or a failure to implement appropriate office protocols. 39 Attorneys will
be further responsible for the conduct of the legal assistant for engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law where the lawyer orders the conduct, ratifies the
conduct, or fails to take proper remedial action when the consequences could be
avoided or mitigated. 40
The principal circumstance where a legal assistant may inadvertently engage
in the unauthorized practice of law is in the provision of legal advice to clients. A
legal assistant generally may communicate with clients verbally and otherwise, such
as communications for purposes of scheduling and gathering information and
documentation. However, a legal assistant is prohibited from providing substantive
legal advice, as this would fall within the definition of “law business.” A legal
assistant may answer questions if the questions do not require the specialized
knowledge of an attorney.
The logistics of a residential real estate closing create the danger that legal
assistants will be in a position where they will intentionally or inadvertently provide
substantive legal advice. This is most likely true of interactions with the buyer and/or
seller, rather than agents of the lender. The legal assistant may be the primary
source of communication between the law office and the client(s). The legal assistant
will likely be the individual who meets with the buyer and/or seller to facilitate the
execution of the closing documents. The buyer/seller will thereby establish a rapport
with the legal assistant and will thereby be comfortable addressing questions to the
legal assistant. The client(s) will likely have questions about the closing process and
desire an answer promptly and the legal assistant will be in the best position to
quickly respond. The legal assistant will understandably want to be helpful to the
client(s) and be responsive to their questions.
To help obviate the danger that the legal assistant will provide substantive
legal advice, the supervising attorney should provide training and instruction to the
legal assistant about the appropriate scope of their duties and provide specific
examples of the types of questions that should be referred to the attorney for
response. Proper personnel action and additional instruction should be taken for
legal assistants who are found to have breached their obligations. If such violations
recur, the supervising attorney may need to consider terminating the firm’s
employment relationship with the legal assistant.
It may not be self-evident to the client(s) that the legal assistant is not a
lawyer, so this should be clarified by the legal assistant in their email signature and
the firm’s website and letterhead if such communications contain information for
nonlawyers. The legal assistant should provide additional confirmation of their role
if they meet in person with the client(s).
39

RPC 5.3, Comment [1].

40

RPC 5.3(c).
15

It is not per se improper for a legal assistant to be the only individual of the
law firm at closing. However, it is recommended that the supervising lawyer at least
be present when the closing meeting commences and be available in the office to
answer questions as needed. It is also not improper for the legal assistant to provide
a brief straightforward explanation of each document executed by the client(s) at the
closing, provided that such explanation is reviewed by the supervising attorney prior
to use in the firm’s closings.
Further Inquiry
If you have questions about the content of this article, you may contact the
author at schristopher@tbpr.org or (615) 361-7500, extension 203. Questions about
the article may also be directed to the Board’s Ethics Counsel, Laura Chastain, at
lchastain@tbpr.org, or (615) 361-7500, extension 212.

16

The Board of Professional Responsibility’s
2022 Ethics Workshop
The Board of Professional Responsibility is excited to present their 2022 Ethics
Workshop as a hybrid event, offering both in person and virtual attendance options.
In person attendance will be at the Nashville School of Law and is limited to
250 attendees. Each attendee has the opportunity to earn 6.5 hours of dual CLE
credit.
The workshop will be held on Friday, November 4 and tickets are $100.00.
Registration closes Friday, October 28. Reserve your ticket on Eventbrite.
8:00 – 8:30

8:30 – 9:30

Registration

Ethics and the New Practice of Law: Is the
Future Really Now?

The presentation will cover how our traditional
ethics rules measure up when it comes to addressing Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales
developments like nationwide mass tort advertising, Professor Tim Chinaris
nonlawyer-owned alternative business structures
that practice law, paying referral fees to nonlawyers,
and innovative uses of litigation funding.

View from the Bench

9:30 – 10:30
10:30 – 10:45

10:45 – 12:15
12:15 – 1:15
1:15 – 2:00

The lecture will give an interesting focus on what a Justice Holly Kirby and
judge reviews when a Board of Professional Senior Judge Don Ash
Responsibility ruling is appealed.
Break

Easiest Catch: Don’t Be Another Fish in the
Dark ‘Net

The session will examine recent high-profile Mark Lanterman
cybercrime events, including website breaches, and
discuss threats to organizations involving the Dark
Web, the Internet of Things, and phishing.
Lunch (on your own)

Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program

The presentation will go over best practices in
Buddy Stockwell
providing confidential, comprehensive mental health
assistance to lawyers, judges, and law students.

17

Neuroscience, Well-Being and Ethics

2:00 – 3:15

3:15 – 3:30

3:30 – 4:30

This CLE explores how advances in neuroscience can
help us thrive and achieve peak performance. Learn
about sleep strategies and the impact of short
sleeping on cognitive function and ethical decisionRobin Wolpert
making. Learn how to leverage oxytocin, the moral
molecule, to manage and design a culture of trust in
your organization. Learn how laughter, alone or in
groups, and poetry lower your heart rate and restore
cognitive function.
Break

Core Competency: Understanding the Basics of
Basics of Substance Use Disorders, Treatment
and Recovery

The session will provide the audience with basic Judge Duane Slone
knowledge of addiction, treatment and recovery
including the essential components of successful
recovery compliance strategies utilized in criminal
and civil courts.

Board of Professional Responsibility
New Disciplinary Counsel
Michael C. Brett joined the Board of Professional Responsibility in the Investigations
Division in October 2022. Before joining the Board, he was a Senior Associate at Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis in Nashville where he litigated contracts, complex commercial cases and alternative
dispute resolutions.
Mr. Brett served as a summer Law Clerk in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice before becoming a litigation associate at Shearman & Sterling in New York, where he focused
on white-collar investigation and complex commercial cases.
Mr. Brett received his Juris Doctorate from Duke University of Law.

18

Board of Professional Responsibility
41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Board of Professional Responsibility
Organization and Composition
The Tennessee Supreme Court regulates and supervises the practice of law in Tennessee
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. The Court appoints twelve members to the Board
of Professional Responsibility (the Board) to effectuate Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 and the Court’s
disciplinary enforcement.
The Board consists of nine (9) attorneys and three (3) public (non-attorney) members who
serve three-year terms and geographically represent the entire state. In 2021-2022, Board members
volunteered 529 hours and received no compensation for their service. Members of the Board
include:
Floyd Flippin (Chair)
Jennifer S. Hagerman (Vice-Chair)
Sheriff Floyd Bonner (Lay Member)
Richard Briggs (Lay Member)
Jimmy Dunn
Stacey B. Edmonson
Ruth Thompson Ellis
Charles K. Grant
Barbara Medley
Juanita Patton (Lay Member)
Jody Pickens
Bridget Willhite
The Court appoints a Chief Disciplinary Counsel who reports to the Board. The Board
also employs attorneys as Disciplinary Counsel and support staff to assist with attorney
registration; consumer assistance; investigation and litigation. A staff directory is attached as
Exhibit A.
District Committee Members
The Tennessee Supreme Court appoints attorneys to serve as district committee members
from each disciplinary district in the state. In 2021-2022, 182 attorneys assisted the Court and the
Board as district committee members reviewing Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendations on
investigative files and sitting on hearing panels conducting formal disciplinary charges. Of the 182
members, 138 reported volunteering 3,017 hours in 2021-2022 for which they received no
compensation for their services. A roster of current district committee members is attached as
Exhibit B.

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Tennessee Attorney Information
The Board of Professional Responsibility provides an easy-to-use online registration
system that allows lawyers to fulfill their annual registration requirements. Public registration
information is displayed on the Board’s website to allow the judiciary, lawyers and the public to
access licensing, registration and contact information about lawyers.

Active Attorneys by Disciplinary District: 23,600*

Disciplinary District 1: 1,076 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 2: 2,656 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 3: 1,590 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 4: 1,385 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 5: 5,980 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 6: 2,493 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 7: 494 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 8: 275 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 9: 3,488 Active TN attorneys
*4,163 Out of State Active TN attorneys

Active Attorney Statistics:


Years Licensed:

<5 yrs:
6-15 yrs:
16-25 yrs:
26-35 yrs:
36-45 yrs:
46+ yrs:

16%
30%
22%
15%
11%
6%

●

Age:

21-29 yrs:
30-39 yrs:
40-49 yrs:
50-59 yrs:
60-69 yrs:
70+ yrs:

5%
22%
24%
21%
17%
11%

---

Gender:

Male:
Female:
Unreported:

62%
37%
1%

●

In-state Attorneys:
Out-of-state Attorneys:

82%
18%

●

20

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Inactive Attorneys
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 10.3, inactive attorneys
include attorneys serving as justice, judge or magistrate of a court of the United States of
America or who serve in any federal office in which the attorney is prohibited by federal
law from engaging in the practice of law; retired attorneys; attorneys on temporary duty
with the armed forces; faculty members of Tennessee law schools who do not practice law;
and attorneys not engaged in the practice of law in Tennessee. In 2021-2022, 5,800
attorneys on inactive status were registered with the Board of Professional Responsibility.
 Non-disciplinary/Administrative Suspensions:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court suspends attorneys who fail
to pay their annual fee (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 10.6); fail to complete annual continuing
legal education requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 21 § 7); fail to comply with Interest on
Lawyers Trust Account requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 43 § 15); fail to pay the Tennessee
professional privilege tax (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 26); or default on student loans (Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 37). No attorney suspended pursuant to these Rules may resume practice
until reinstated by Order of the Supreme Court. Attorneys were administratively suspended
during fiscal year 2021-2022 as follows:

Non-payment of Annual Fee:
Continuing Legal Education non-compliance:
Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts non-compliance:
Professional Privilege Tax non-compliance:
Default on a Student Loan:
Total:

21

236
149
109
32
0
526

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Assistance, Investigation and Prosecution
 Consumer Assistance Program (CAP)
Non-frivolous complaints against attorneys submitted by clients, lawyers, judges and the
public are referred to the Board’s Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) for assistance or opened
and assigned to Disciplinary Counsel for investigation. CAP answers questions, provides
information, informally mediates disputes, and refers matters to Disciplinary Counsel for
investigation.
Caseload
Number of Cases Opened

2,111

Timeliness of Resolution
0 to 15 days
16 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 or more days

72.4%
16.8%
8.5%
2.3%

Mediate
Advise
Referrals
Provide Information

35.5 %
42.8%
14.8%
6.9%

Actions Taken

 Trust Account Overdraft Notifications
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 35.1(b), financial institutions report
to the Board whenever any properly payable instrument is presented against an attorney trust
account containing insufficient funds. After receiving notification of an overdraft, Board Staff
request financial information and explanation from the attorney.
Total Notifications:

76

Actions Taken
Referred to Investigations:
Resolved without Investigation:
22

37
39

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
 Investigation
Disciplinary Counsel investigate complaints alleging unethical conduct.
After
investigation, Disciplinary Counsel recommend dismissal of the complaint if there is insufficient
proof of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the investigated complaint reflects a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Disciplinary Counsel recommend diversion,
private informal admonition, private reprimand, public censure, or the filing of formal disciplinary
charges. A district committee member reviews and approves or disapproves Disciplinary
Counsel’s recommendation for dismissal, diversion, and private informal admonition. The Board
of Professional Responsibility reviews and approves or disapproves Disciplinary Counsel’s
recommendation for private reprimand, public censure, and the filing of formal disciplinary
charges.
A.

Nature of Complaints

Trust Violations
6%

Conflict of Interest 5% Criminal Convictions 1%
Fees 6%

Relationship with Client or
Court 13%
Personal
Behavior 2%

Improper
Communications
9%
Misrepresentation
or Fraud 7%

Other 1%

Neglect or Failure to Communicate 50%

23

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
B.

Investigative Complaint Caseload

Complaints Received:
Complaints Pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

1,101
482

Total Complaints:

1,583

C.

Investigative Complaint Disposition:
Administrative Dismissals:
Investigative Dismissals:
Diversions:
Private Informal Admonitions:
Private Reprimands:
Informal Public Censures:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Transferred to Litigation
Placed on Retired Status:
Other: 1
Total:

1

459
436
51
20
19
22
11
84
21
34
1,157

Abated by death; complaint withdrawn; duplicate file.
24

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
 Formal Disciplinary Proceedings:
After the Board of Professional Responsibility authorizes Disciplinary Counsel to file
formal disciplinary charges (i.e., a petition for discipline) against an attorney, the matter is assigned
to three district committee members who constitute a hearing panel. The Hearing Panel sets the
disciplinary proceeding for a hearing which is open to the public unless a protective order has been
entered. The Tennessee Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9 provides otherwise.
The Board of Professional Responsibility must prove an attorney’s ethical misconduct by
a preponderance of the evidence. Hearing Panels may recommend dismissal, public censure,
suspension or disbarment.

A.

Formal cases filed during Fiscal Year:
Formal cases pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

71
88

Total formal proceedings:

159

Public hearings conducted in Fiscal Year:

41

B.

2

Caseload

Formal Disciplinary Proceedings Disposition:
Dismissals:
Public Censures:
Suspensions:
Disbarments:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Temporary Suspensions:
Reinstatements:
Other 2:

1
6
15
8
9
9
11
2

Total:

61

Abated by death; voluntary non-suited; denied; withdrawn; nonserious crime.

25

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022

Resolution of Formal Disciplinary Proceedings
15

11
8

9

9

6
2

1
Dismissals

Public Censures Suspensions

Disbarments

26

Transfer to
Disability
Inactive

Temporary Reinstatements
Suspensions

Other

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
 Education and Information
The Board issues Formal Ethics Opinions and staff respond to informal ethics questions by phone
and internet. Disciplinary Counsel present continuing legal education seminars and workshops,
publish Board Notes, a bi-annual newsletter, and update the Board’s website with rule changes,
disciplinary decisions and news for attorneys, judges and the public.
A.

Ethics Opinions
i.

Informal Opinions
Ethics Counsel and Disciplinary Counsel responded to a total of 2,198 phone and
internet inquiries from attorneys seeking ethical guidance. 3

ii.

Formal Opinions
The Board did not issue any formal ethics opinions this fiscal year.

B.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Presentations:
Between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022, Disciplinary Counsel presented forty (40) CLE
seminars, attended by approximately 2,913 attorneys.

C.

Board Notes:
In 2021-2022, the Board emailed both Fall and Spring issues of Board Notes, the Board’s
semi-annual newsletter to all attorneys and judges and published it on the Board’s website.

3

Tennessee attorneys may submit ethics inquiries to the Board by calling 615-361-7500, ext. 212, or via the Board’s
website at www.tbpr.org.

27

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
D.

Workshops
a. The Board of Professional Responsibility hosted its annual Ethics Workshop on
November 12, 2021 with over 900 attorneys attending virtually. This year’s Ethics
Workshop is scheduled for November 4, 2022.
b. The Board of Professional Responsibility has offered two trust account workshops in
2021/2022. The next trust account workshop is scheduled for September 14, 2022.

28

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Board of Professional Responsibility
Staff Directory
Name

Title

Extension

Doug Bergeron
Melissa Boyd
Julie Brown
Shilina Brown
Andrew B. Campbell
Laura Chastain
Steve Christopher
Jesús Del Campo
Dana Dunn
Eric Fuller
Sandy Garrett
Reynold Gaulden, Jr.
Elizabeth Gray
Kelly Heflin
McKenzie Hollars
Katherine Jennings
Molly Liens
Carol Marsh
Mary McKnight
Jim W. Milam
Diane M. Nisbet
Tony Pros
Liz Radford
Beverly Rooks
Beverly Sharpe
Pennye Sisk
Eileen Burkhalter Smith
Candis Story
Giselle Sutherland
Suzie Thurber
Cheri Weaver
Lani White
Russ Willis

Disciplinary Counsel
Executive Assistant
Administrative Payables Clerk
Disciplinary Counsel
Disciplinary Counsel
Ethics Counsel
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel - Investigations
Legal Assistant - Litigation
Assistant Director
Disciplinary Counsel
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Registration Assistant II
Administrative Assistant-Registration/ Scanning
Legal Assistant - Investigations
CAP Legal Assistant
Executive Secretary
CAP Legal Assistant
Receptionist
Registration Manager
Disciplinary Counsel
Disciplinary Counsel
Network Administrator
Legal Assistant – Investigations and Litigation
Lead Legal Assistant – Investigations
Director of Consumer Assistance Program
Lead Legal Assistant - Litigation
Disciplinary Counsel
Case Manager
Paralegal
Administrative Receivables Clerk
CAP Paralegal
Registration Assistant II
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel - Litigation

247
204
215
232
246
212
203
249
209
243
211
244
202
242
228
206
252
200
213
245
231
205
238
233
226
248
210
229
224
241
208
227
236

29

Exhibit A

41st Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
District Committee Member Roster
District

First Name

Last Name

District

1

Dan E.

Armstrong

4

1

Jeremy D.

Ball

1

Melissia

Ball

1
1

Guy W.
Jeffrey A.

Blackwell
Cobble

1

McKenna L. (Ms.) Cox

4

1

Erwin (Lynn)

Dougherty

1

Andrew E.

1

Jeffery S.

First Name

Last Name

District

First Name

Last Name

Burnett
Corley

6

Clint

Kelly

4

Philip Duane
Michael

6

Eric

Larsen

4

Christina

Duncan

6

Tracy (Mr.)

Moore

4

Michael R.
Joy

Giaimo
Gothard

6

James Y.

Ross, Sr.

6

Raymond

Runyon

Henegar
Newman

6

Michael L.

Russell

4

Trisha L.
Robert W.

6

M. Stuart

Saylor

Farmer

4

Lynn (Ms.)

Omohundro

6

Liz

Sitgreaves

Greene

4

Daniel

Rader, IV

6

Rodger D.

Waynick

4

1

Scott D.

Hall

4

Thomas S.

Santel

6

Beverly

White

1

William B.

Harper

4

Donna S.

Simpson

6

Jake

Wolaver
Anderson

1

Richard E.

Ladd, Jr.

4

Marsh

4

Trott
York

Andy

William B.

Megan K.
Randall

7

1

7

Shaun

Brown

1

Cecil

Mills

5

Adam

Barber

7

Lisa

Houston

1

Polly A.

Peterson

5

Keene W.

Bartley

7

Robert A.

Jowers

1

William O.

Shults

5

Lisa

Miller

Mark A.

Skelton

5

Boston
Bryant

7

1

Robert E.
Kenneth

7

William J.

Milam

1

Jeffrey L.

Stern

5

Jad A.

Duncan

7

(William) Josh

Morrow

2

Wm. Dale

Amburn

5

Johnny

Ellis

7

Vincent

Seiler

2

Robyn J.

Askew

5

Christopher B.

Fowler

7

Michelle

Shirley

2

Maha (Ms.)

Ayesh

5

Matthew

Harris

7

Terica

Smith

2

Heidi

Barcus

5

William J.

Haynes

7

2

Busby
Butler

5

Candi R.

Henry

8

Joe
Bill

VanDyke
Bowen

2

Amanda M.
John W.

5

Adam

Hill

8

Dean

Dedmon

2

R. Scott

Carpenter

5

Lucas

Jerkins

8

Jeff

Lay

2

Loretta G.

Cravens

5

Raymond

Leathers

8

Amber

Shaw

2

Shannon (Ms.)

Egle

5

Russell B.

Morgan

8

David A.

Stowers

2

Steve

Erdely

5

Anthony (Tony)

Orlandi

8

2

Matthew A.

Grossman

5

Steven D.

Parman

8

Joseph E.
John (Jack)

Tubbs
Warner, III

2

Lisa J.

Hall

5

Barbara

Perutelli

8

Vanedda

Webb

2

Hedrick
Jackson

5

Brant

Phillips

8

2

Josh
Howard B.

5

Lee (Mr.)

Pope

9

Allison S.
Imad (Mr.)

Whitledge
Abdullah

2

Michael S

Kelley

5

Raymond G.

Prince

9

Jeremy G.

Alpert

2

Michael J.

King

5

Daniel H.

Puryear

9

S. Keenan

Carter

Robison
Rubenfeld

9
9

Margaret
Frank

Chesney
Childress
Coleman

2

Mary Elizabeth

Maddox

5

2

Marcum
McCarty

5

Peter C.
Abby R.

2

Stephen A.
Chris

5

Christopher C.

Sabis

9

Brian

2

Carl P.

McDonald

5

(Denise) Billye

Sanders

9

David M.

Cook

2

Ben

Mullins

5

Michael J.

Sandler, Sr.

9

Anne B.

Davis

2

Marshall H.

Peterson

5

Jennifer Lynne

Sheppard

9

Laura

Deakins

2

Ritchie, II
Teeters

5

Lesa

Skoney

9

Nicole

Grida

2

Wayne A.
Kevin

5

Jeffrey

Spark

9

Greg

Grisham

2

Victoria B.

Tillman

5

M. Clark

Spoden

9

Rebecca

Hinds

2

Hanson R.

Tipton

5

Taylor C. (Mr.)

Sutherland

9

Lauren

Holloway

2

Brian

Wanamaker

5

David J.

Tarpley

9

Earl W.

Houston, II

2

Shelly

Wilson

5

James Patrick

Warfield

9

Robbin (Ms.)

Hutton

3

Peter

Alliman

5

Luther

Wright, Jr.

9

Adam

Johnson

3

Ariel

Anthony

6

Evan P.

Baddour

9

3

John H. (Cam)

Cameron, Jr.

6

Richard

Boehms

9

Tressa V.
Julia

Johnson
Kavanagh

3

John M.

Carson III

6

E. Patrick (Pat) Lancaster

Larry

Cash

6

Borne
Brown

9

3

Jessica N.
Nathan

9

Melisa

Moore

3

Sam D.

Elliott

6

Jim

Catalano

9

3

Rachel

Fisher-Queen

6

Thomas B.

Dean

9

Zachary
Charles "Chip"

Moore
Morrow

3

John F.

Kimball

6

Hilary

Duke

9

Ashley (Ms.)

Patterson

3

Jeffrey

Maddux

6

Nichole

Dusché

9

Steve

Ragland

3

Lance W.

Pope

6

Mary Katharine

Evins

9

Marc

Reisman

3

H. Chris

Trew

6

Rebekah

Fisher

9

Holly J.

Renken

3

Carmen (Ms.)

Ware

6

Jennifer F.

Franks

9

Zayid

Saleem

3

Ronald D.

Wells

6

Robert H.

Hassell, II

9

3

Elizabeth L

Williams

6

Cameron R.

Hoffmeyer

9

Emmett L.
Leslie (Ms.)

Whitwell
Yohey (Isaacman)

4

William "Howie"

Acuff

6

Patricia

Holder

30
Exhibit B

Disciplinary and Licensure Actions
(April, 2022 – September, 2022)

PERMANENT DISBARMENTS
MICHAEL GLEN HATMAKER, BPR #005391
CAMPBELL COUNTY
Effective April 7, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Michael
Glen Hatmaker from the practice of law.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr.
Hatmaker containing two (2) complaints of misconduct. In the first complaint, Mr. Hatmaker was
retained to represent his client in a criminal matter and received a $7,500.00 fee. After being
suspended from the practice of law, Mr. Hatmaker failed to refund the unearned balance of the
retainer to his client and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Order of
Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court. In the second complaint, Mr. Hatmaker set aside a
default judgment without the knowledge or authorization of his client and took no action thereafter
to prosecute his client’s action or reasonably communicate with his client about the status of her
case. In addition, Mr. Hatmaker failed to respond to the Board about either disciplinary complaint.
Mr. Hatmaker executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his misconduct violated
RPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (termination of representation), 3.2
(expediting litigation), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters) and 8.4(d) and (g) (prejudice to the
administration of justice).
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Mr. Hatmaker is not eligible for
reinstatement to the practice of law in this state.
Mr. Hatmaker must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

31

JASON R. McLELLAN, BPR #024596
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Effective July 6, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court permanently disbarred Jason R.
McLellan from the practice of law. Mr. McLellan consented to permanent disbarment because he
could not successfully defend the charges alleged in the Petition for Discipline, Supplemental
Petition for Discipline, and complaints filed against him in File Nos. 69211-1-DN and 67826c-1DN.
In the pending disciplinary matters, Mr. McLellan misappropriated estate funds in the
representation of a client and attempted to conceal the misappropriation, made misrepresentations
to a court, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, failed to
abide by a client’s decision regarding the dismissal of a pending lawsuit, failed to reasonably
consult with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives were to be accomplished,
and failed to obtain the client’s informed consent before taking action. He also failed to keep
client information confidential, failed to withdraw after a conflict of interest developed, allowed a
third person to direct his professional judgment, failed to comply with his ethical requirements
upon discharge from representation, and failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended
attorney. Finally, he failed to comply with court orders, and failed to respond to disciplinary
complaints.
Mr. McLellan’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of
representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality of
information), 1.7(a) (conflict of interest), 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 1.16 (declining
or terminating employment), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal), 3.4(c)
(fairness to opposing party and counsel), 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer), 5.5(a) and
(b)(2) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(a) and (b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters),
8.4(a) (misconduct), 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, or deceit), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g)
(knowing failure to comply with a final court order).
Mr. McLellan must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and is not eligible
for reinstatement to the practice of law in this state.

32

PHILIP JOSEPH PEREZ, BPR #021920
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective June 20, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Philip
Joseph Perez from the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.1,
and ordered Mr. Perez to pay $2,258.33 in costs incurred to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
The Hearing Panel determined Mr. Perez received retainer fees but failed to provide
services; failed to file complaints; misled clients to believe their complaints had been filed; failed
to appear for scheduled hearings and motions; failed to return unearned retainer fees; failed to
notify clients of his suspension from the practice of law, and that the actions of Mr. Perez were
done knowingly and warranted permanent disbarment.
The Hearing Panel found Mr. Perez’s actions and omissions violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality of information), 1.15
(safekeeping of property and funds), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary
matters), and 8.4 (misconduct).

JOHN TERENCE TENNYSON, BPR #032777
WILSON COUNTY
Effective June 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred John
Terence Tennyson from the practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to his client in the
amount of $10,000.00 and pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined Mr. Tennyson
knowingly and wrongfully retained funds belonging to his client in the amount of $10,000.00 for
his own financial benefit, knowingly refused to refund that amount to his client despite a written
fee agreement requiring that the funds be immediately refunded, and knowingly deceived his client
as to the process whereby she could receive payment of the misappropriated funds, thereby causing
harm to his client.
Mr. Tennyson’s actions and omissions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees),
1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), and 8.4
(misconduct).
33

KYLE DOUGLAS VAUGHAN, BPR #032416
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Effective April 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Kyle
Douglas Vaughan from the practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to his former law
partners in the amount of $223,452.20 and pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
Mr. Vaughan was convicted in the Criminal Court of Washington County, Tennessee, in
the matter of State of Tennessee v. Kyle D. Vaughan, Case No. 46339, of theft of property from
his law firm partners, a Class B Felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated, Sections 3914-103. After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined Mr. Vaughan’s
conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (misconduct) and warranted
disbarment.
Mr. Vaughan was ordered to comply in all aspects with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

SUSPENSIONS
GLENDA ANN ADAMS BPR #019948
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 14, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Glenda Ann Adams from the
practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 22.3. Ms. Adams pled guilty and was convicted in state court of bribery of a public servant
and official misconduct. Ms. Adams also pled guilty and was convicted in federal court of
conspiracy to violate the travel act.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to
institute formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Ms.
Adams as a result of her conduct constituting a serious crime as defined by Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 2.
Ms. Adams must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
34

CHARLES MARTIN DUKE, BPR #023607
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On May 9, 2022, Charles Martin Duke, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
was suspended from the practice of law for three years with one-year active suspension. Mr. Duke
is required to engage a practice monitor and must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility the
costs incurred in the proceeding and the court costs.
On February 1, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Duke. Mr. Duke was
retained by his client to prosecute a personal injury action. Mr. Duke failed to file an action within
the statute of limitations and falsified a tolling agreement in an effort to mislead his client. Mr.
Duke entered a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 3.1 (meritorious claims and
contentions), 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal), 3.4(b) (fairness to opposing counsel and
others), 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Duke must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 20, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may
not return to the active practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the
Supreme Court.

DAVID DWAYNE HARRIS, BPR #032607
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective April 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended David Dwayne
Harris from the practice of law for two (2) years, less seventy-five (75) days that Mr. Harris had
already been suspended.
On May 1, 2020, Mr. Harris was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years with
sixty (60) days active suspension and the remainder to be probated contingent upon Mr. Harris
meeting certain conditions, including a restitution requirement within the first year of his
suspension. Mr. Harris failed to pay restitution as ordered, and on June 28, 2021, the Board of
Professional Responsibility filed a Petition to Revoke Probation. A Hearing Panel revoked Mr.
Harris’s probation and imposed a two (2) year suspension as originally ordered with credit of
seventy-five (75) days previously served.
35

Mr. Harris must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the
procedure for reinstatement.

TYREE BRYSON HARRIS, IV, BPR #002367
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 29, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Tyree
Bryson Harris, IV, from the practice of law in Tennessee for a period of one (1) year.
The Supreme Court found that Mr. Harris had violated the Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in
violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). The Court cited evidence that Mr. Harris had
testified under oath in a juvenile court proceeding for modification of his child support obligation
and ruled that he had given answers designed to conceal relevant information fairly called for in
the questions. Mr. Harris effectively deceived the juvenile court regarding his current level of
income, which inured to the detriment of his minor child and her mother.
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28.1, the suspension is effective
upon entry of the order by the Court. Mr. Harris must comply with the requirements of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of
suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

CHARLES SAMUEL KELLY, JR., BPR #017094
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 22, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Charles Samuel Kelly, Jr., from
the practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 22.3. Mr. Kelly was tried and convicted in the Criminal Circuit Court for Dyer County,
Tennessee, Twenty-Ninth Judicial District, for felony theft, criminal conspiracy to commit theft,
extortion, and criminal conspiracy to commit extortion.
Pursuant to the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court, the matter has been
referred to the Board to institute formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline
to be imposed upon Mr. Kelly as a result of his felony criminal convictions.

36

Mr. Kelly must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

AARON ANTHONY NEGLIA, BPR #033816
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 9, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Aaron Anthony Neglia from
the practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 22.3. Mr. Neglia pled guilty and was convicted in state court of bribery of a public servant
and in federal court to conspiracy to violate the travel act.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to
institute formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Mr.
Neglia as a result of his conduct constituting a serious crime as defined by Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 2.
Mr. Neglia must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

CANDES VONNIEST PREWITT, BPR #031269
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Candes
Vonniest Prewitt from the practice of law in Tennessee for a period of thirty (30) days, with
conditions for reinstatement.
The Supreme Court found Ms. Prewitt failed to make proper expert disclosures under the
discovery rules; withdrew from the representation without filing a response to opposing counsel’s
motion for summary judgment or advising her client of the filing of the motion; failed to advise
her client of the conflict of interest created by their personal relationship and obtain a written
waiver of the conflict from her client; put her personal interest ahead of her client’s interest by
asserting a lien against any future recovery after withdrawing from representation; failed to timely
advise her client of the filing of her motion to withdraw and failed to cooperate with her client’s
new attorney.

37

The Supreme Court found Ms. Pruitt’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.7 (a)(2) (conflict of interest),
1.16 declining or terminating representation) and 8.4 (a) (misconduct).
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28.1, the suspension is effective
upon entry of the order by the Court. Ms. Prewitt must comply with the requirements of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of
suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

CONNIE LYNN REGULI, BPR #016867
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On April 22, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Connie Lynn Reguli from the
practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 22.3. Ms. Reguli was found guilty in the Circuit Criminal Court for Williamson County
in State of Tennessee v. Connie Reguli, Docket No. W-CR190482, of Facilitation of Felony –
Custodial Interference; Accessory After the Fact – Aiding; and Accessory After the Fact –
Harboring.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to
institute formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Ms.
Reguli as a result of her conviction of a serious crime.
Ms. Reguli must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

C. LEANN SMITH, BPR #018899
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective August 17, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended C. LeAnn Smith
from the practice of law for two (2) years and six (6) months of active suspension pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2. As a condition of seeking any reinstatement, Ms.
Smith shall enter into a TLAP Monitoring Agreement and shall authorize Permitted Disclosures
from TLAP to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

38

A Petition for Discipline containing one (1) complaint was filed by the Board alleging Ms.
Smith testified falsely under oath as a party to a lawsuit. The disciplinary complaint was tried
before a Hearing Panel, which found Ms. Smith’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct).
Ms. Smith must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the
procedure for reinstatement.

THOMAS A. TANSIL, JR., BPR#017582
TENNESSEE LAWYER
On September 15, 2021, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Thomas A. Tansil, Jr.
from the practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Tansil entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to three (3) felonies involving
theft of property, tampering with government records and computer offenses.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to
institute formal proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Mr.
Tansil as a result of his plea of Nolo Contendere to conduct constituting a serious crime as defined
by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 2.
Mr. Tansil must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

JODY RODENBORN TROUTMAN, BPR #018868
CAMPBELL COUNTY
Effective February 3, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Jody Rodenborn
Troutman from the practice of law for four (4) years with one (1) year active suspension pursuant
to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder served on probation
conditioned upon compliance with any monitoring agreement recommended by the Tennessee
Lawyers Assistance Program and incurring no new complaints of misconduct that relate to conduct
occurring during the period of suspension and probation and which result in the recommendation
by the Board that discipline be imposed.

39

Ms. Troutman executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging her criminal
misdemeanor convictions for theft of property and driving under the influence 1st and 2nd and her
appearance in open court while under the influence violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and 8.4(b) and (d) (misconduct).
Ms. Troutman must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30.4 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the
procedure for reinstatement.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
MARK STEVEN GRAHAM, BPR #011505
KNOX COUNTY
On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Mark Steven
Graham from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Graham was in substantial noncompliance
with his Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring agreement.

Mr. Graham was

previously reinstated to the practice of law conditioned upon his continued substantial compliance
with his TLAP monitoring agreement. Section 12.3(a) of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the
immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases where an attorney
fails to substantially comply with his monitoring agreement.
Mr. Graham is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients. Mr. Graham must notify all clients being represented in pending
matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his
law license. Mr. Graham is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they
are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Graham may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition
to the Supreme Court.

40

STEPHANIE BRANAM JOHNSON, BPR #030782
WHITE COUNTY
On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Stephanie
Branam Johnson from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Johnson failed to respond to the
Board concerning complaints of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for
the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases where the
attorney fails to respond to the Board concerning complaints of misconduct.
Ms. Johnson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease
representing existing clients by July 13, 2022. After July 13, 2022, Ms. Johnson shall not use any
indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is
conducted.
Ms. Johnson must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as cocounsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms.
Johnson is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Ms. Johnson must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended
attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Ms. Johnson may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition
to the Supreme Court.

ERIC JOHN MONTIERTH, BPR #031679
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On September 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Eric John
Montierth from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Montierth failed to respond to the Board
of Professional Responsibility concerning three (3) complaints of professional misconduct.
Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate suspension of an attorney’s
license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s misappropriation of funds, failure to respond to a
complaint of misconduct, failure to substantially comply with a Tennessee Lawyer Assistance
Program monitoring agreement or otherwise posing a threat of substantial harm to the public.

41

Mr. Montierth is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by October 23, 2022. After October 23, 2022, Mr. Montierth shall
not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence wherein the
practice of law is conducted. Mr. Montierth must notify all clients being represented in pending
matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his
law license, and is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Montierth must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended
attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Montierth may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by
petition to the Supreme Court.

JENNIFER M. PORTH, BPR #026537
WILSON COUNTY
On August 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Jennifer M.
Porth from the practice of law upon finding Ms. Porth misappropriated client funds, failed to
respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct and posed a threat of substantial harm
to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary
suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney misappropriating client
funds, posing a threat of substantial harm to the public, or failing to respond to the Board regarding
a complaint of misconduct.
Ms. Porth is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and shall cease
representing existing clients by September 10, 2022. After September 10, 2022, Ms. Porth shall
not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the
practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Porth must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as cocounsel and opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms.
Porth is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

42

Ms. Porth must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended
attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Ms. Porth may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition
to the Supreme Court.

ELLIOTT JAMES SCHUCHARDT, #027016
KNOX COUNTY
On September 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Elliott
James Schuchardt from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Schuchardt poses a threat of
substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate
summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases where an attorney poses a
threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Schuchardt is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by October 21, 2022. After October 21, 2022, Mr. Schuchardt shall
not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the
practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Schuchardt must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as cocounsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr.
Schuchardt is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Schuchardt must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended
attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Schuchardt may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by
petition to the Supreme Court.

43

DANIEL FORREST WILKINS, BPR #025753
KNOX COUNTY LAWYER
On September 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Daniel
Forrest Wilkins from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Wilkins failed to respond to the
Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for
the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s
failure to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.
Mr. Wilkins is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by October 15, 2022. After October 15, 2022, Mr. Wilkins shall not
use any indicia of a lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice
of law is conducted.
Mr. Wilkins must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as cocounsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his license to practice
law. Mr. Wilkins is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are
entitled.
Mr. Wilkins must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, §§
28 and 12.3(d) regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended attorneys
and the procedure for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Wilkins may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition
to the Supreme Court.

PUBLIC CENSURES
STANLEY DOUGLAS DARNELL, BPR #009765
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
On June 17, 2022, Stanley Douglas Darnell, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.

44

During his representation of a client, Mr. Darnell failed to provide sufficient oversight of
his legal assistant, who prepared a forged final decree and letter without Mr. Darnell’s knowledge.
Further, Mr. Darnell did not have protocols in place sufficient to reveal that the client’s divorce
petition had not been filed. In addition, Mr. Darnell received a flat fee for the representation and
failed to place the unearned funds in his trust account at the beginning of the representation.
By these acts, Mr. Darnell has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.15
(safekeeping property and funds), and 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

TRAVIS RANDALL DUFFER, BPR #034087
ROBERTSON COUNTY
On June 16, 2022, Travis Randall Duffer, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Duffer left the employment of a law firm in December 2020 and took some clients
with him. For three clients, Mr. Duffer thereafter failed to respond to requests for information
from them, and he failed to complete the matters for which he was hired. The three clients at issue
hired new counsel to complete their matters. For one client, Mr. Duffer’s former law firm
transferred $900 of client funds to Mr. Duffer for the completion of the client’s case. Mr. Duffer
did not complete the representation. In response to an inquiry in the disciplinary investigation,
Mr. Duffer falsely stated that the representations in the three client matters had been “completed.”
By these acts, Travis Randall Duffer has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3
(diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16 (termination of representation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters)
and 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations with the condition that he refund to his former client $900 within 90 days.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

45

GERALD TODD EIDSON, BPR #017342
HAWKINS COUNTY
On May 13, 2022, Gerald Todd Eidson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Eidson was appointed to represent a client in a dependency and neglect matter in
juvenile court on June 7, 2021, and the adjudicatory hearing was set for June 29, 2021. Mr. Eidson
failed to speak with the client until the day before the hearing, despite the client leaving multiple
messages to speak with him. Mr. Eidson failed to seek a continuance until he was in court on June
29, and he withdrew his request for a continuance upon the objection by other parties. The client
suffered potential harm.
By these acts, Mr. Eidson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and
1.1 (competence) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

HARVEY RANDOLPH FALLIN, BPR #015127
JOHNSON COUNTY
On July 13, 2022, Harvey Randolph Fallin, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Fallin represented a man charged with first degree murder, and he also represented the
man’s wife who was charged with conspiracy to commit the same murder. Mr. Fallin did not have
a written fee agreement with his two clients, and he did not otherwise discuss with them the
potential conflict of interest in representing both of them. There was a significant risk that Mr.
Fallin’s representation of the wife would be materially limited by his representation of the man
charged with the murder.
Mr. Fallin’s daughter worked in his law office, and she agreed to act as the legal
representative under a power of attorney for the two clients in exchange for payment. In her
position as the power of attorney, Mr. Fallin’s daughter made at least one payment to Mr. Fallin

46

for legal expenses. At no time did Mr. Fallin discuss with his clients the business relationship they
entered with his daughter as power of attorney. Mr. Fallin was aware of his daughter’s conduct as
addressed in Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance).
By the aforementioned acts, Harvey Randolph Fallin has violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.7(c)(2) (conflict of interest), 1.8(a) (conflict of interest, business relationship), and
8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

BRETTE BALDINI HEALY, BPR #030177
TENNESSEE LAWYER
On July 14, 2022, Brette Baldini Healy, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Ms. Healy was employed as an in-house attorney in Georgia for a seven-year period while
her Tennessee law license was administratively suspended. During this time, Ms. Healy was not
licensed in any other jurisdiction.
By these acts, Ms. Healy has violated Rule of Professional 5.5 (unauthorized practice of
law) and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

MARCUS ALLEN LIPHAM, BPR #036403
MADISON COUNTY
On July 25, 2022, Marcus Allen Lipham, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from Supreme Court of Tennessee conditioned upon payment of fees to
the Board of Professional Responsibility.
Mr. Lipham agreed to represent a client in pursuing claims against his homeowner’s
association board.

Mr. Lipham’s fee agreement did not adequately specify the scope of

47

representation. Mr. Lipham also failed to deposit his client’s unearned fee into his trust account.
After undertaking the representation, Mr. Lipham failed to timely investigate the merits of his
client’s claims or respond promptly to his client’s requests for information. Mr. Lipham further
delayed in notifying his client that he was declining to file suit. Mr. Lipham entered a Conditional
Guilty Plea admitting his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5(b) (fees), and 1.15 (safekeeping property
and funds).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

KEITH ALLEN POPE, #014146
KNOX COUNTY
On July 5, 2022, Keith Allen Pope, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Pope engaged in criminal conduct, pled guilty to a violation of an Order of Protection
and violated his bond conditions, which reflects adversely upon his fitness as a lawyer in other
respects.
By these acts, Mr. Pope has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) (disobeying an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal), and 8.4(b) (misconduct), and is hereby Publicly Censured
for these violations. This Public Censure is conditioned on Mr. Pope complying with a Tennessee
Lawyer Assistance Program monitoring agreement, with mandatory reporting to Disciplinary
Counsel every six (6) months.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

48

KARL EMMANUEL PULLEY, BPR #012761
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On August 4, 2022, Karl Emmanuel Pulley, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Pulley was engaged to represent a client on criminal charges and received a fee in the
amount of $7,500. Thereafter, Mr. Pulley’s license was suspended in an unrelated manner, and he
had to withdraw from the representation. Mr. Pulley told the client he would resume the
representation after he was reinstated, but he did not do so. Mr. Pulley’s fee was not fully earned
during the representation.
By these acts, Mr. Pulley has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication),
1.5 (fees), 1.16 (termination of representation) and Section 28 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9 and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations, with the condition that he make a partial
refund to the client of $3,750 within 90 days.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

ANDRE CHASE RABIDEAU, #036907
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On April 11, 2022, Andre Chase Rabideau, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Rabideau agreed to represent a client in pursuing civil claims arising out of a fire that
occurred at the client’s leased dwelling. Mr. Rabideau failed to take any action to pursue his
client’s claims and did not maintain good communication with his client after undertaking the
representation. When Mr. Rabideau’s client inquired about the status of the representation, Mr.
Rabideau falsely implied that a lawsuit had been filed. Mr. Rabideau also failed to return the
client’s file materials.
By these acts, Mr. Rabideau has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligent
representation), 1.4(a) (communication), and 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation) and
is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. As a condition of the Public Censure, Mr.
49

Rabideau shall refund $750.00 in attorney’s fees to his former client within ninety (90) days of
issuance of the Public Censure.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

JIMMY LEO RICHARDSON, BPR #032500
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On July 13, 2022, Jimmy Leo Richardson, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Richardson was hired to represent a client on a car accident matter. He sent a letter of
representation to the potential defendant’s insurance company and responded to a request for
information from the insurance company. Mr. Richardson thereafter took no action on the client’s
case. Mr. Richardson failed to respond to four subsequent letters from the insurance company,
and he failed to inform the client of these letters. Mr. Richardson failed to respond to multiple
communications from his client.
By the aforementioned acts, Jimmy Leo Richardson has violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.16 (termination of representation), 1.4 (communication), and 1.3 (diligence) and is
hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

BRETT B. STEIN, BPR #004800
SHELBY COUNTY
On May 16, 2022, Brett B. Stein, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Stein was hired to file a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court in Mississippi,
in a court in which he is not admitted to practice law. Mr. Stein failed to adequately supervise a
junior attorney’s preparation of the habeas corpus petition and an accompanying motion for pro

50

hac vice admission. Mr. Stein failed to discover that the motion for pro hac vice was denied the
day after it was filed for failure to comply with court requirements, and Mr. Stein failed to inform
the client of the status of the matter. The client suffered potential harm.
By these acts, Mr. Stein, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 5.1 (responsibilities of supervisory lawyers) and is hereby Publicly
Censured for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

JOHN SCOTT WESSON, #020555
HAMILTON COUNTY
On April 19, 2022, John Scott Wesson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Wesson failed to appear at a deposition, failed to file a response to opposing counsel’s
motion for summary judgment, and failed to appear at several court hearings. Mr. Wesson failed
to maintain good communication with his client during the representation. Moreover, Mr. Wesson
was named as a party in a show cause proceeding, and the court found him in civil contempt.
By these acts, Mr. Wesson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 8.4(g) (misconduct), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the
attorney’s ability to practice law.

REINSTATEMENTS
JOHN STEPHEN ANDERSON, BPR #012367
HAWKINS COUNTY
On May 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated John Stephen Anderson
to the practice of law, effective immediately. Mr. Anderson was suspended by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee for six (6) years on December 22, 2015.
51

On October 22, 2021, Mr.

Anderson filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4.
A Hearing Panel found that Mr. Anderson complied with the terms and conditions of
his suspension and further found that he demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency
and learning in the law required for the practice of law and that his resumption of the practice
of law will not be detrimental to the integrity or standing of the bar or administration of justice,
or subversive to the public interest. As conditions of his reinstatement, Mr. Anderson must
engage a practice monitor for two (2) years, enroll in the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance
Program to undergo an evaluation and comply with the terms of any recommended monitoring
agreement and complete three (3) additional hours of CLE on ethics and professionalism during
2022.

JOHN LOUIS DOLAN, JR., BPR #009158
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 2, 2022, John Louis Dolan, Jr.,
was reinstated to the active practice of law conditioned upon engagement of a Practice Monitor.
On March 24, 2022, Mr. Dolan was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for one
(1) year with thirty (30) days active suspension. Mr. Dolan filed a Petition for Reinstatement to
the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on April 26,
2022. The Board found the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to
the Court.

JOHN MARTIN DRAKE, BPR #030532
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 23, 2022, John Martin Drake
was reinstated to the active practice of law.
On April 28, 2017, John Martin Drake was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee
for two (2) years. Mr. Drake filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d), on March 15, 2022. After a final hearing on
the merits, a Hearing Panel found Mr. Drake had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence

52

that he had the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission to
practice law in this state, and his resumption of the practice of law within the state would not be
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive
to the public interest.
The Hearing Panel conditioned Mr. Drake’s reinstatement to the active practice of law
upon serving a two (2) year period of probation during which he completes five (5) additional CLE
hours per year applicable to the area of law in which he intends to practice and engage a mentor in
the area of law who shall provide a written report to the Board every six (6) months.

STEPHANIE DERRICK GRAY, BPR #025929
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 13, 2022, Stephanie Derrick Gray
was reinstated to the active practice of law.
On June 2, 2014, Ms. Gray was placed on disability inactive status by the Supreme Court
of Tennessee. Ms. Gray filed a Petition for Reinstatement to Active Status to the practice of law
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.7(b). The Board found the Petition was
satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

DARRYL WAYNE HUMPHREY, BPR #016471
SHELBY COUNTY
On April 8, 2022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Darryl Wayne Humphrey to
the practice of law, effective immediately. Mr. Humphrey was suspended by the Supreme Court
of Tennessee for six (6) months on September 25, 2017. Mr. Humphrey, on June 2, 2021, filed a
Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 30.4.
A Hearing Panel found that Mr. Humphrey complied with the terms and conditions of his
suspension and further found that he had demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency, and
learning in the law required for the practice of law and that his resumption of the practice of law
will not be detrimental to the integrity or standing of the bar or administration of justice, or
subversive to the public interest. As conditions of his reinstatement, Mr. Humphrey must engage

53

a practice monitor for one year and complete a practice and professionalism enhancement program
in the first forty-five (45) days of his reinstatement.

TENNESSEE LAWYERS’ FUND PAYMENT
JASON R. McLELLAN, BPR #024596
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On September 22, 2022, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’
Fund) paid a claim filed against Jason R. McLellan, in the amount of $28,885.96.
Lawyers’ Fund is paid for by Tennessee lawyers and judges to reimburse losses caused by
the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. Lawyers’ Fund operates under the authority
of the Tennessee Supreme Court, and a Board appointed by the Court, consisting of six lawyers
and three non-attorney members, who serve without compensation. The Board considers and pays
claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25.
Mr. McLellan is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered
by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

54

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Creator	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Description	empty
Keywords	empty
ModifyDate	Monday, October 10, 2022 8:35 AM -05:00
PageCount	54
PDFVersion	1.6
Subject	empty
Title	empty

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Category	empty
Comments	empty
Company	empty
CreateDate	Monday, October 10, 2022 8:31 AM -05:00
CreatorTool	Acrobat PDFMaker 22 for Word
DocumentID	uuid:150701c9-5679-4cd5-a266-91de8565a3b1
FileName	board-notes-fall-2022.pdf
FileSize	978 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Format	application/pdf
InstanceID	uuid:dc340aea-c673-466c-bfc3-832f43be6e3b
Language	EN-US
Linearized	No
Manager	empty
MetadataDate	Monday, October 10, 2022 8:35 AM -05:00
MIMEType	application/pdf
PageLayout	OneColumn
Producer	Adobe PDF Library 22.2.244
SourceFile	board-notes-fall-2022.pdf
SourceModified	Monday, October 10, 2022 1:31 PM +00:00
TaggedPDF	Yes
XMPToolkit	Adobe XMP Core 7.1-c000 79.cb7c5a1, 2022/04/14-05:22:35

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top