Microsoft Word - ebb_73700765_1562629346_0 (2021)
Note: This document was published in 2021. Information in older documents may not reflect current board procedures or policies.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
10 CADILLAC DRIVE, SUITE 220
BRENTWOOD, TENNESSEE 37027
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500
(800) 486-5714
FA24: (615) 367-2480
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
Website: www.tbpr.org
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: LARRY EDWARD PARRISH, BPR #008464
CONTACT: A. RUSSELL WILLIS
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
March 8, 2021
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS JUDGMENT ASSESSING COSTS
AGAINST SHELBY COUNTY LAWYER
On March 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Memorandum Opinion in In Re Larry E.
Parrish, No. W2020-00907-SC-R3-BP, affirming the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibilityâs
assessment of costs from a disciplinary proceeding to Memphis attorney Larry E. Parrish and ordered him to
pay the costs within 45 days.
Mr. Parrish was suspended previously by Tennessee Supreme Court from practicing law for six months,
with 30 days to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation. Mr. Parrish agreed to a
payment plan for the Boardâs costs and, after serving his 30-day suspension, was reinstated by the Supreme
Court to the practice of law. Shortly after reinstatement, Mr. Parrish petitioned the Board to revoke the costs
assessed against him, claiming the Board should have assessed costs based on the revised version of Rule 9 in
effect when he was reinstated rather than Rule 9 in effect in 2013 when his disciplinary proceeding was
initiated.
The Supreme Court affirmed the hearing panelâs decision, holding that the version of Rule 9 that applies
in the assessment of costs depends on when the disciplinary case was filed or initiated, not when the attorney
was reinstated, and the costs were properly assessed against Mr. Parrish under the version of Rule 9 in effect
when his misconduct was reported to the Board in 2013. Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion of the Supreme
Court, Mr. Parrish is required to pay the assessed costs to the Board within 45 days, and failure to timely pay
the costs may serve as a ground for revocation of his reinstatement to practice law.
Parrish 2929-9 rel.doc