Board Notes Spring 2026 - FINAL (2026)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (Board Notes Spring 2026.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
SPRING 2026
Published by: The Board of Professional Responsibility
of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

GREETING FROM D I S C I PL I NA RY A C T I ONS
A T A G L A NC E
CHIEF SANDY GARRETT October 2025 - March 2026
27
The Board of Professional Responsibility (the Board) is proud to
celebrate 50 years of administering the attorney disciplinary
process, protecting the public, and supporting lawyers. In 1976, the 9 8
4
Tennessee Supreme Court created the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee, finding that the best efforts of
volunteer bar associations were insufficient to perform attorney Disbarments Suspensions Temp. Public
Suspensions Censures
disciplinary functions. Over the past 50 years, the number of active
attorneys licensed in Tennessee has increased from 7,004 in 1976
to 25,019 in 2026. The twelve volunteer members of the Board,
assisted by staff and 221 volunteer hearing committee members,
WHAT’S INSIDE
investigate and prosecute attorneys. In the last year, the Board
investigated 1,418 complaints and filed 172 formal proceedings.
(2) Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of The
The Board also assisted attorneys by providing 1,820 informal Board of Professional Responsibility
ethics opinions, issuing one formal ethics opinion, presenting 40
continuing legal education (CLE) programs, publishing a biannual
(6) Welcome New Board Members
newsletter, and offering two free CLEs on the Board’s website.
The Board served the public by reviewing 74 trust overdraft
notifications on attorney trust accounts and responding to 1,952 (9) Article: The Provision of Pro Bono Legal
requests for assistance submitted to the Board’s Consumer Services
Assistance Program.

The Board and staff continue to offer innovative ways to meet the (20) The Board of Professional
needs of judges, attorneys, and the public. The Board’s website Responsibility’s Succession Planning CLE
provides online attorney registration and forms to submit
complaints and requests for assistance. The website also includes
frequently asked questions and responses for attorneys and the (21) The Board of Professional
public, in addition to free CLEs on Proactive Management Based Responsibility’s Trust Account Workshop
Regulation and Succession Planning. Electronic bar cards for
attorneys are coming soon.
(22) Disciplinary and Licensure Actions
The leadership of Board Chairs and Supreme Court Liaisons, October 2025 – March 2026
including the wisdom and vision currently provided by Tennessee
Supreme Court Justice and Liaison Holly Kirby and Board Chair (48) Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Culver Schmid, has assisted the Board in fulfilling its mission. I am
honored to serve the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the Board, Protection Payments
hearing committee members, and Tennessee attorneys.

1|Page
THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY

Years
2|Page
WELCOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS

Jef Feibelman engages principally in the litigation, arbitration or
mediation of complex commercial matters. He has litigated substantial
claims involving fraud, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of non-compete and confidentiality agreements,
shareholder and partnership disputes, and business dissolution and
valuation controversies. He has also been retained or appointed in
numerous matters of public interest involving state and federal
constitutional law and statutory interpretation.
Mr. Feibelman regularly counsels boards and governing bodies of
corporations on fiduciary issues, director/officer liability, and corporate
governance/ethics. An experienced trial lawyer with extensive jury and
bench trial experience in both federal and state courts, from 2014 to
2016 he was the Tennessee State Chair of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He, with Joel
Porter, served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs in one of the largest commercial recoveries in state
history. He serves as Special Master by court appointment on pending litigation and as a special
litigation committee in corporate disputes. He also regularly serves as a mediator or arbitrator in
complex commercial and business disputes.
In 2006, he was awarded the Lawyer’s Lawyer Award by the Memphis Bar Association, its highest
honor. In 2016, Mr. Feibelman was selected by the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys
School of Law Alumni Chapter as a Pillars of Excellence honoree. He is ranked by Chambers USA:
America’s Leading Lawyers for Business in Band 1 of General Commercial Litigators and Band 1 for
Litigation: Mediators in Tennessee. Mr. Feibelman began his law practice in 1970 after a clerkship
with Hon. Bailey Brown, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. He joined the
firm as a member in 1977 and served as its managing partner from 2007-2010.
Named one of the Pillars of Excellence by the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School
of Law, Mr. Feibelman has also been recognized by distinguished organizations including Chambers,
Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers in America®, including being named “Lawyer of the Year”.

3|Page
WELCOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS

Christopher Jay Ingrum is an attorney and the managing partner of
the Ingrum Law Firm, PLLC, in Gallatin, Tennessee. He has been
practicing law in the areas of criminal defense, domestic
relations/family law, civil litigation, juvenile law, and probate for
twenty-five plus years.

Jay was born in Quantico, VA, but raised in Gallatin, TN. Jay
moved to Gallatin in 1976 when he was in kindergarten. He earned
his bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville
in 1994 and his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the Nashville School
of Law in 2000.

Jay is a Rule 31 Listed Family Law Mediator. Jay is a 2016 graduate
of the Tennessee Bar Association's Leadership Law program, and he was awarded the Larry Dean
Wilk's Leadership Award for his 2016 class. Jay has been a volunteer Peer Monitor for the
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) throughout most of his law practice. Jay is also a
2017 graduate of Leadership Middle Tennessee, a 2004 graduate of Leadership Sumner, and is the
former president of the following organizations: the Sumner County Bar Association (2011-2012),
the Gallatin Lion's Club (2005-2006), Lion of the Year in 2003, the Gallatin Green Wave
Quarterback Club (2003 & 2023-2024), Historic Downtown Gallatin (formerly Greater Gallatin, Inc.
for three years), and Compass. Jay was voted Best Attorney in Sumner County in 2016 and 2017 in
the Readers’ Choice Awards of Main Street Media of Tennessee. Jay has served on the board of
Ashley’s Place, and has served as a fundraiser, and pro bono attorney for Ashley’s Place.

While in college at UTK, Jay received the Stephen C. Boyd 110% Award from his college fraternity,
Lambda Chi Alpha. In the fraternity, Jay served the High Iota or Risk Manager, and as the High
Beta or Vice President. He also directed Homecoming, All Sign, and Carnicus during his time in
Lambda Chi Alpha. He also served as Peer Mentor to fellow students at UTK.

Jay has been married to Julie Nix Ingrum for over twenty-five years, and they have two children,
Ben and Jennifer Kate. Jay’s family means more to him than anything else in his life.

Jay spends his free time listening to music, following the Vols, Titans, and Gallatin Green Wave
football teams, spending time on the lake, exercising and exploring the outdoors. Jay is also the
color commentor for the Gallatin Green Wave football radios broadcasts on WHIN Radio, 1010
AM, 100.7 FM, and worldwide on www.whinradio.com.

4|Page
The Provision of Pro Bono Legal Services

By: Steven J. Christopher
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
The Board of Professional Responsibility

The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct RPC 6.1(a) provides that a “substantial
strongly encourage attorneys to provide pro portion” of this fifty (50) hour yearly
bono legal services. The term “pro bono” is requirement should be provided to persons of
short for “pro bono publico,” a Latin phrase limited means, or to charitable, religious, civic,
that means “for the public good.” In a legal community, governmental, and educational
context, pro bono representation refers to the organizations in matters designed primarily to
provision of legal services without payment of address the needs of persons of limited means.4
a fee. This article will provide some suggestions The rule indicates that any “additional
about how Tennessee attorneys can services” towards completion of an attorney’s
incorporate pro bono legal services into their pro bono requirement beyond the services
law practice in a manner that complies with identified at RPC 6.1(a) may be provided
their ethical responsibilities. through delivery of legal services at no fee or a
substantially reduced fee to individuals, groups,
Pro Bono Work Is Encouraged but Not or organizations seeking to secure or protect
Required civil rights, civil liberties, public rights, or
The Tennessee Rules of Professional charitable religious, civic, community,
Conduct do not require lawyers to provide pro governmental, and educational organizations
bono legal services, but pro bono work is in matters in furtherance of their organizational
strongly encouraged.1 RPC 6.1 contains an purposes, where the payment of standard legal
aspirational rule urging Tennessee lawyers to fees would significantly deplete the
provide at least fifty (50) hours of pro bono organization’s economic resources or would be
services per year.2 As the rule is aspirational otherwise inappropriate.5 Such additional
rather than a mandatory ethical duty, services may also be provided through the
compliance with RPC 6.1 is not enforced delivery of legal services at a substantially
through any disciplinary process.3 reduced fee to persons of limited means, or
participation in activities for improving the law,

1 TENN. SUP. CT. R. 8, 6.1.The Tennessee Rules provides that lawyers have an ethical responsibility
of Professional Conduct, codified at Rule 8 of the to provide legal services to those unable to pay.
Tennessee Supreme Court Rules, will be cited as
RPC _._. 3 RPC 6.1, Comment [12].
4 RPC 6.1(a)(1)-(2).
2 Id.
The importance of pro bono work is also
emphasized at RPC 6.1, Comment [1], which 5 RPC 6.1(b)(1).

5|Page
the legal system, or the legal profession.6 the ongoing crisis in unmet legal needs to the
Tennessee’s ethical rules additionally indigent.10
encourage lawyers to voluntarily contribute Most state jurisdictions follow Model
financial support to organizations that provide Rule 6.1 or otherwise codify the importance of
legal services to persons of limited means.7 pro bono work in their ethical rules. Research
The importance of pro bono work revealed that in addition to Tennessee, thirty-
codified in Tennessee’s RPC 6.1 mirrors the seven (37) state jurisdictions have adopted
American Bar Association’s Model Rules and Model 6.1 rule, either verbatim or with minor
other state jurisdictions. Tennessee’s RPC 6.1 variations.11 An additional sixteen (16) state
follows Model Rule 6.1 of the American Bar jurisdictions have adopted a Rule 6.1 that
Association’s Model Rules of Professional generally affirms the importance of pro bono
Conduct.8 Model Rule 6.1 was codified in legal services without using language mirroring
August 1983 with the original adoption of the the Model Rule.12 While pro bono work is
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, encouraged in state jurisdictional rules,
reflecting a strong statement of the ABA’s research did not reveal any state jurisdictions
position on the significance of pro bono work.9 mandating pro bono work.13
The ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers’
Public Service Responsibility, in its 1993
Report to the House of Delegates, confirms
that Model Rule 6.1 was intended to address

6 RPC 6.1(b)(2)-(3).
10 Id.
7 RPC 6.1(c).
11 See The American Bar Association
8 The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Jurisdictional Rules Comparison Charts, located at
Professional Conduct will be cited as Model Rule https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
_._. While Tennessee follows Model Rule 6.1, administrative/professional_responsibility/mrpc-
there are several very minor variations between 6-1.pdf.
Model Rule 6.1 and Tennessee’s RPC 6.1. For
example, the first sentence of Model Rule 6.1 12 Id.

states that “Every lawyer has a professional
responsibility to provide legal services to those 13 There have been unsuccessful efforts made on a

unable to pay.” Tennessee omits this sentence, but national level and in state jurisdictions to require
includes the following sentence with similar pro bono work as a condition of law licensure.
language in Comment [1] to its Rule 6.1: “Every See Natalia C. Ortiz, The Justice Gap:
lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or Confronting Complicity in the Legal Profession to
professional work load, as a responsibility to Better Reimagine Reform, 34 Geo. J. Legal Ethics
provide legal services for those unable to pay, and 1167 (2021); David J. Dreyer, Culture, Structure,
personal involvement in the problems of the and Pro Bono Practice, 33 J. Legal Prof. 185
disadvantaged can be one of the most rewarding (2009); Daniel M. Taubman, Has the Time Come
experiences in the life of a lawyer.” This sentence to Revise Our Pro Bono Rules?, 97 Denver L.
is also included in Model Rule 6.1, Comment [1]. Rev. 395 (2020).

9 See ABA Formal Op. 470 (May 20, 2015).

6|Page
Tennessee’s Ethical Rules Apply Equally former clients,15 and imputed disqualification.16
to Fee Generating and Pro Bono On this basis, prior to undergoing a pro bono
Representation case, an attorney should apply their office’s
Attorneys that choose to incorporate a usual conflict of interest checking protocols.
pro bono element to their law practice should Attorneys should also be mindful of the
proceed with the fundamental understanding protections afforded to prospective clients in
that their ethical responsibilities are the same any communication with a prospective pro
whether a case is taken on a fee generating basis bono client prior to deciding whether to
or a pro bono basis. There may be a tendency undertake the representation.17
to assume that when a case is taken without a While Tennessee’s conflict rules
fee, the attorney’s ethical responsibilities are normally apply to pro bono representation,
mitigated. For example, if an attorney agrees RPC 6.5 creates an exception for attorneys that
to accept a pro bono referral from a legal provide limited scope pro bono legal services
services organization, the attorney may assume under the auspices of a program sponsored by
that they are not required to act with the same a nonprofit organization or court. This rule is
diligence normally employed for their fee intended to encompass programs such as
generating cases, or to respond to the client’s clinics for the provision of legal advice and
communications in as timely a manner. completion of legal forms, legal advice
Contrary to this understanding, hotlines, and similar programs where there is
Tennessee’s ethical rules do not recognize any no further representation.18
distinction between an attorney’s ethical Lawyers who participate in such
responsibilities when handling fee generating programs are not required to employ their
or pro bono cases. Attorneys may likewise be usual conflict of interest protocols. Instead,
subject to a legal malpractice claim or other lawyers are only subject to RPC 1.7 (concurrent
civil exposure regardless of whether the case is conflicts) and RPC 1.9(a)(conflicts involving
taken for a fee. The fact that a legal matter is former clients) where the lawyer knows that
handled pro bono does not exempt attorneys the representation of the client involves a
from disciplinary action by the Board of conflict of interest.19 Imputed conflict pursuant
Professional Responsibility. to RPC 1.10 only applies if the lawyer knows
that another lawyer associated with their firm
is disqualified.20 The inapplicability of
Checking Conflicts of Interest Tennessee’s conflict rules in this context is
Tennessee’s conflict of interest rules premised on the fact that the circumstances of
generally apply to pro bono representation, these programs make it infeasible for a lawyer
including concurrent conflicts,14 conflicts for to engage in their usual conflicts screening

14 RPC 1.7
18 RPC 6.5, Comment [1].
15 RPC 1.9
19 RPC 6.5(a)(1).
16 RPC 1.10. See also RPC 6.5, Comment [4].
20 RPC 6.5(a)(2).
17 RPC 1.18.

7|Page
process, as well as the unlikelihood that a Attorneys that choose to incorporate
conflict will result with other matters being pro bono services into their law practice may
handled by the lawyer or their firm.21 not have any prior experience in handling the
There are circumstances where a legal matter(s) that will be undertaken.
lawyer providing legal advice at a pro bono Consider an attorney that exclusively handles
clinic or similar services within the scope of transactional matters for corporate entities that
RPC 6.5 chooses to provide ongoing chooses to begin accepting referrals from a
representation for the client after the provision legal services organization. The legal services
of the limited scope representation. For organization may not have any legal matters for
example, an attorney that provides advice to a referral that fall within the scope of the
client concerning their eligibility for social attorney’s law practice, requiring the attorney
security disability at a clinic sponsored by a to begin handling cases in an area where they
legal services program agrees to represent the have no prior experience.
client in pursuing their disability claim. If such There is nothing per se problematic for
ongoing representation is initiated, Tennessee’s an attorney to begin taking pro bono cases in
conflict rules will fully apply, even when the matters where they have no prior experience,
representation arises out of the limited scope in the same fashion that an attorney may
services pursuant to RPC 6.5.22 In this establish a fee generating practice in an
circumstance, the attorney should run their unfamiliar legal area. However, RPC 1.1
usual conflicts checking protocol before requires that lawyers undertaking a matter in an
agreeing to the ongoing representation. unfamiliar substantive area invest requisite
time to become sufficiently knowledgeable
The Duty to Provide Competent about applicable law to ensure that they can
Representation proceed competently.24 In addition to review of
Attorneys that choose to undertake a substantive law, the preparation required to
pro bono case in a legal area where they have comply with RPC 1.1 may require consultation
no prior experience should be particularly with experienced practitioners. Prior to
conscious of their obligation to provide undertaking a pro bono matter in an unfamiliar
competent representation, as required by RPC area, attorneys should consider the anticipated
1.1. Competent representation requires that time required to become sufficiently informed
the attorney demonstrate the legal knowledge, about the applicable law of the legal matter at
skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably issue, and the feasibility of investing this time
necessary to carry out the representation.23 considering their other responsibilities.

21 RPC 6.5, Comments [3]-[4]. which the lawyer is unfamiliar.” Comment [2]
further provides that “a lawyer can provide
22 RPC 6.5, Comment [5]. adequate representation in a wholly novel field
through necessary study. Competent
23 RPC 1.1. representation can also be provided through the
association of a lawyer of established competence
24 RPC 1.1, Comment [2] confirms that “a lawyer in a field in question.
need not necessarily have special training or prior
experience to handle legal problems of a type with
8|Page
Attorneys that are considering ethical requirements are applicable despite the
establishing a pro bono practice in an fact that the matter will be handled without
unfamiliar legal area might consider receiving payment of a fee.
referrals from their local legal services program The attorney should confirm the extent
or other nonprofit law firm rather than of the legal work that will be completed. If the
accepting pro bono cases independently. The matter is litigation based, the attorney should
referring organization may have training indicate whether the representation will include
opportunities available, as well as opportunities appeals or post-trial motions. If the
to co-counsel with an experienced in-house representation involves a civil proceeding
practitioner employed by the organization or where a money judgment is sought, the
an experienced attorney in the private bar. attorney should confirm whether the scope of
Accepting referrals from a nonprofit representation includes execution or
organization will also help ensure that referred enforcement of any judgment.
clients are vetted for purposes of establishing It is recommended that a written
their financial need for pro bono services, and representation agreement be signed by the
that the client has a meritorious basis to client, confirming that the matter will be
proceed. undertaken on a pro bono basis with no fee
charged, and specifying the legal work that will
Defining the Scope of Representation be completed.26 A well-drafted representation
Attorneys handling pro bono cases agreement will mitigate client confusion and
should give consideration to their obligation to misunderstanding. A written agreement will
define the scope of the representation of the additionally protect the attorney if a dispute
client.25 RPC 1.5(b) requires the attorney to arises about the nature and extent of the work
establish the scope of the representation and agreed upon.
the basis or rate of the fee at or soon after the Distinguishing between the legal work
commencement of the representation. that will be completed and the legal work that
Clients that receive pro bono legal is outside the scope of representation is
representation may be unfamiliar with the particularly crucial when representing indigent
nature of pro bono representation as clients, due to the likelihood that the client will
distinguished from representation in fee not have the resources to retain successor
generating cases. The attorney should confirm counsel from the private bar on a fee
with the client that no fee will be charged generating basis for any additional legal work
regardless of the results obtained. The client that is needed. Consider the circumstance
should be advised that the attorney’s usual where an attorney agrees to provide pro bono

25 RPC 1.5(b). memorandum or copy of the lawyer's customary
26 RPC 1.5(b) recommends but does not require fee arrangements that states the general nature of
that the scope of representation be reduced to the legal services to be provided, the basis, rate or
writing. See also RPC 1.5(b), Comment [2] (“in a total amount of the fee and whether and to what
new client-lawyer relationship, however, an extent the client will be responsible for any costs,
understanding as to fees and expenses must be expenses, or disbursements in the course of the
promptly established. Generally, it is desirable to representation.”)
furnish the client with at least a simple
9|Page
representation to a client seeking money Payment of Litigation Expenses
damages and injunctive relief. At the outset of When an attorney agrees to represent
the representation, the client will very likely not an indigent client in a pro bono matter where
be cognizant of the distinction between litigation expenses are anticipated, the attorney
obtaining a money judgment and the should consider how to best proceed regarding
subsequent collection of the civil judgment, or the payment of these expenses. This is
the distinction between entry of an injunctive particularly the case where litigation expenses
order and the mechanism for enforcement due are expected to be significant. However, even
to any noncompliance. If the scope of an expense as minimal as a filing fee may be
representation does not include collection of beyond the financial capacity of an indigent
any money judgment or enforcement of an client.
injunction obtained through litigation, a client Attorneys normally have two options
that obtains a favorable outcome could be left concerning the payment of litigation expenses.
in the position of having no means of The first option is to advance the payment of
execution or enforcement, due to the inability court costs, the repayment of which may be
to retain successor counsel. contingent on the outcome of the matter.30
Pro bono clients should also be advised This arrangement is typically employed by
at the commencement of the representation of attorneys that handle matters on a contingency
the circumstances that might result in the fee basis, pursuant to RPC 1.5(c). In the usual
attorney seeking leave to withdraw from the arrangement, the attorney recoups any prepaid
representation, due to the difficulties involved expenses only if sufficient monetary recovery
in retainer successor counsel.27 The pro bono is obtained for the client through settlement or
client should be particularly advised of judgment. Otherwise, these expenses are
circumstances mandating or permitting incurred by the attorney. If this option is
withdrawal outside the client’s control, such as chosen, the fee agreement must clearly notify
where withdrawal is mandated by an attorney’s the client of any expenses for which the client
incapacity28 or where an unanticipated conflict will be liable.31 As a second option, attorneys
of interest arises.29 Absent legal assistance from may simply require the client to be responsible
a nonprofit law firm or financial assistance for any litigation expenses as they accrue.
from a third-party, the indigent client would be Attorneys representing indigent clients
a position of being required to proceed pro se have the additional option of paying any
in the event of the attorney’s withdrawal. expenses in connection with pending or

27 The circumstances for an attorney’s withdrawal

are itemized at RPC 1.16. The grounds for 29 If a conflict of interest arises that is not

mandatory withdrawal are found at RPC 1.16(a) waivable, this would require withdrawal, as
and RPC 1.16(b) defines the circumstances for continuing the representation would result in a
permissive withdrawal. violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
RPC 1.16(a)(1).
28 An attorney is required to withdraw from the 30 RPC 1.8(e)(1).

representation of a client if the attorney’s physical
or mental condition materially impairs their ability 31 RPC 1.5(c).

to represent the client. RPC 1.16(a)(2).
10 | P a g e
prospective litigation without any context whether a criminal defendant is indigent: (1)
where the client will be required to repay.32 whether the defendant receives public
Payment may be made by the attorney or a assistance; (2) whether the defendant’s
referring organization or other third-party. liabilities exceed their assets; or (3) whether a
The term “indigency” is not defined in defendant would be able to afford the cost of
the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, hiring private counsel.35 For purposes of
and the fact that the client is represented pro appointment of indigency counsel in criminal
bono does not per se establish indigency. proceedings in Tennessee pursuant to TENN.
Indigency does not have a single legal CODE ANN. § 40-14-202, an indigent person is
definition and is instead conceptualized defined as “any person who does not possess
differently depending upon the legal context. sufficient means to pay reasonable
Attorneys seeking to interpret compensation for the services of a competent
indigency for purposes of considering the attorney.”36
applicability of RPC 1.8(e)(2) can look for If a pro bono case involving an
guidance in other contexts where indigency is indigent client is taken through referral from a
considered, such as for purposes of the Sixth legal services organization or other nonprofit
Amendment right to counsel. The United law firm, the attorney should check with the
States Supreme Court did not provide a organization to see if funding is available for
definition of indigency in Gideon v. litigation expenses. If such funding is
Wainright,33 where the right to counsel was unavailable through the organization, inquiry
established, and no definition is found in may be made with other potential sources of
Gideon’s progeny.34 However, states financial assistance.37 If there are anticipated
interpreting Gideon’s requirement have expenses where funding is not available, the
created three main methods of determining attorney could choose to independently

32 RPC 1.8(e)(2). See also RPC 1.8, Comment compensation; (2) real and personal property; (3)
[10]. number of dependents; (4) outstanding debts; (5)
seriousness of the charge (which suggests the
33 372 U.S. 335 (1963). likely fee of a retained attorney); and (6) other
legal expenses (such as bail bond)).”
34 See Allison D. Kuhns, If You Cannot Afford

An Attorney, Will One Be Appointed for You?, 36 See State of Tennessee, Department of

Iowa Law Rev. 1787, 1798-1799 (July 2012). Children’s Services v. RDV, No. E2004-01216-
COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 623246, at *4 (Tenn. Ct.
35 See id.See also Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. App. March 17, 2005).
Israel, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 11.3(g) at 544 (2d
ed. 1992)(“[s]upreme Court opinions speak 37 If funding for litigation expenses is sought from

generally of the rights of an ‘indigent defendant’ a third-party individual or entity other than a
without offering any specific definition of referring legal services organization or other
‘indigency.’ … The appellate courts agree that nonprofit law firm, informed consent to waiver of
indigency is not a synonym for ‘destitute.’ … the client’s confidentiality should be obtained
Among the factors to be considered in evaluating form the client, as information relating to the
the individual's financial capacity are: (1) income representation of the client will be shared with the
from employment and such governmental third-party. See RPC 1.6.
programs as social security and unemployment
11 | P a g e
finance the expenses for an indigent client and management practices. For example, if an
not seek recoupment, or in the alternative, attorney’s present practice is litigation based, it
choose to exercise the option of requiring the may be feasible to incorporate pro bono
client to repay these expenses to the attorney if litigation matters into the existing case
sufficient monetary recovery is made through management system, even if the area of law is
settlement or judgment, as permitted by RPC different. In contrast, if an attorney’s existing
1.8(e)(1). legal practice is transaction based and they wish
If funding is not available through a to begin handling litigation based pro bono
referring organization or third-party entity or matters, utilizing the existing case management
individual, and the attorney chooses not to system for the pro bono cases could create
independently finance or prepay case related confusion, resulting in delay and potential
expenses, the attorney should consider errors in the representation of the client. In
whether it is feasible for the representation to this circumstance, it may be necessary to create
proceed. For example, if applicable law a new case management system for the pro
requires expert testimony to establish a bono matters that will be undertaken.
standard of care and there are no viable means The incorporation of a pro bono
of retaining a credentialed expert, a decision element into a law practice will also require the
would need to be made whether there are training of attorneys and support staff. In
meritorious grounds to pursue the client’s legal addition to training in the applicable law and
objectives. procedure of any new substantive areas that are
unfamiliar to attorney and non-attorney staff,
Compliance with Managerial Obligations confirmation will need to be provided to staff
When a pro bono element is that their ethical responsibilities apply equally
incorporated into a law practice, attorneys with to pro bono and fee generating cases.
managerial responsibilities will be required to
create and implement office protocols to Further Inquiry
ensure that the pro bono cases are handled in If you have questions about the
a manner consistent with the Tennessee Rules content of this article, you may contact the
of Professional Conduct.38 Among these author at schristopher@tbpr.org or (615) 361-
managerial obligations is the need to create a 7500, extension 203. Questions about the
case management process. article may also be directed to the Board’s
Depending upon the substantive legal Ethics Counsel, Laura Chastain, at
matters already handled by the law office, it lchastain@tbpr.org, or (615) 361-7500,
may be feasible to incorporate the pro bono extension 212.
cases into the law office’s existing case

38 RPC 5.1 provides that attorneys in a firm that that the firm has in effect measures giving
individually or collectively possess managerial reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm
authority shall make reasonable efforts to ensure conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
12 | P a g e
The Board of Professional Responsibility’s
Succession Planning CLE

The Board of Professional Responsibility has developed and made available on the Board’s website
a one-hour succession planning continuing legal education (CLE) presentation. Available to all
attorneys at no cost, this one hour CLE, presented by Disciplinary Counsel Eileen Burkhalter
Smith, addresses how an attorney protects their own interests as well as interests of their clients
and the profession by proactively planning for the transition, closing, or selling of a law practice.
The Board’s CLE emphasizes the importance of planning ahead by designating in advance a
receiver or successor attorney and provides checklists for closing one’s own office or someone else's
practice. John Dupree, a Knoxville attorney who has previously served as a receiver, outlines best
practices for successfully closing a practice. This succession planning CLE joins the Board’s Proactive
Management Based Regulation (PMBR) self-assessment as the second online CLE offered on the
Board’s website at no charge to Tennessee attorneys. Attorneys completing the succession planning
CLE will receive a confirmation email that the attorney submits to the Tennessee Commission on
Continuing Legal Education and Specialization to receive one-hour dual credit.

13 | P a g e
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
9AM - 12:30PM (Central Time)
Nashville School of Law
4013 Armory Oaks Drive, Nashville, TN 37204
Purchase Tickets here

In person participation is limited to 50 participants. Remote participation by livestream is also available. The
cost of attendance is $50.

Steven Christopher, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations, and John Gilliland, Disciplinary
Counsel in Investigations, will be presenting this CLE. The Board has received approval from the Tennessee
Commission on Continuing Legal Education for attendees to receive 3 hours of dual CLE credit for
completion of the workshop.

This CLE Program will cover the following topics:

 A summary of best practices for trust account management
 An analysis of the ethical rules governing trust accounts
 How to Prevent Trust Account Scams

Speaker Biographies

Steven J. Christopher is Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations for the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Steve earned his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in
2002, and also holds a Master of Divinity degree from Vanderbilt University Divinity School. Prior to being
hired at the Board in 2016, Steve was a Managing Attorney at the Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and
the Cumberlands, a private non-profit law firm that provides free legal representation to indigent persons in
civil and administrative legal matters. Steve handled a wide range of legal matters as a legal services attorney,
including landlord tenant, domestic relations, and public benefits cases.

John E. Gilliland is an Investigations Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of Professional Responsibility of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee. John earned his J.D. degree from the University of Memphis in 2001. Prior
to being hired at the Board in 2025, John was a civilian attorney with the US Army then the US Air Force
after retiring as a judge advocate from the US Air Force in 2020. He has extensive experience in government
ethics, administrative law, and criminal law.

14 | P a g e
Disciplinary and Licensure Actions
(October 2025 – March 2026)

PERMANENT DISBARMENTS

JOEL DAVID RAGLAND, BPR NO. 012222
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Effective October 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Joel David Ragland from
the practice of law. Mr. Ragland delivered to the Board of Professional Responsibility his Declaration in support
of Disbarment by Consent, in compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23.1 and consented
to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself against charges detailed in pending disciplinary
petition, No. 2024-3419-6-DB. Mr. Ragland misappropriated funds by writing unauthorized checks against his
firm’s trust account in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (misconduct).

Mr. Ragland must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 (2024),
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and is not eligible for reinstatement to the
practice of law in this state.

AMANDA HOWELL CASTILLO, BPR NO. 037519
MAURY COUNTY

Effective January 7, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Amanda Howell Castillo
from the practice of law and ordered her to pay restitution to one former client and all costs incurred to the
Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board filed a Petition for Discipline and a Supplemental
Petition for Discipline against Ms. Castillo, and the disciplinary matter was tried before a Hearing Panel on
August 14, 2025.

In the first complaint, the Hearing Panel found that Ms. Castillo: (1) failed to represent her client in a diligent
manner, (2) failed to expedite her client’s litigation; (3) failed to reasonably communicate with her client, (4)
abandoned her representation of her client without notice to the client or permission from the trial court, (5)
failed to comply with an Order of summary suspension entered July 26, 2024, by the Tennessee Supreme Court,
(6) failed to inform her client of her suspension from the practice of law and withdraw from her representation,
and (7) failed to respond to the request of the Board for information related to the disciplinary complaint.

In the second complaint, the Hearing Panel found that Ms. Castillo: (1) failed to represent her client in a diligent
matter, (2) failed to set her client’s case for hearing and expedite her litigation, (3) failed to comply with an
Order of summary suspension entered July 26, 2024, by the Tennessee Supreme Court, (4) failed to inform her
client of her suspension from the practice of law and withdraw from her representation, (5) failed to reasonably
communicate with her client, (6) failed to provide the professional services for which she had been retained
resulting in her abandonment of the representation of her client and the collection of an unreasonable fee that

15 | P a g e
was not returned to the client, and (7) failed to respond to the request of the Board for information related to
the disciplinary complaint.

The Hearing Panel found the conduct of Ms. Castillo violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.3
(diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4(c)
(knowing violation of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters),
and 8.4(g) (misconduct).

Ms. Castillo must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

JOCELYN DORIA MIMS, BPR NO. 023786
SUMNER COUNTY

Effective January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Jocelyn Doria Mims from
the practice of law and ordered her to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

After a hearing on the final discipline to be imposed, the Hearing Panel determined by a preponderance of the
evidence that Ms. Mims’s felony convictions for tampering with evidence, making false report, and intentional
failure to report child sexual abuse constituted serious criminal conduct that was prejudicial to the
administration of justice, reflected adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, and
warranted disbarment.

The Panel found Ms. Mims’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) (scope of
representation), 1.6(c) (confidentiality), 3.3(h) (candor toward tribunal), 3.4(a)-(b) (fairness to opposing party,
4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (misconduct) and warranted permanent
disbarment.

DARREN VINCENT BERG, BPR NO. 023505
KNOX COUNTY

Effective February 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred attorney Darren Vincent
Berg from the practice of law, ordered him to pay all costs and fees of the Board of Professional Responsibility,
and further ordered him to pay restitution to former clients.

After a formal hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined that in eleven (11) separate
matters, Mr. Berg engaged in ethical misconduct that involved failure to provide competent representation,
failure to act within the scope and authority communicated by clients, failure to act with reasonable diligence,
failure to communicate with clients, charging of unreasonable fees, engaging in conflicts of interest, failure to
properly terminate representation, knowing reliance upon non-meritorious claims, failure to expedite litigation,
making of false statements to courts and parties, improper communication with represented parties,
unauthorized practice of law after temporary suspension of his license, repeated abandonment of his clients
and their cases, failure to provide legal services after accepting substantial fees, and multiple instances of
conduct involving deceit or dishonesty and prejudice to the administration of justice.

16 | P a g e
The appointed Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Berg’s actions and omissions violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3.1
(meritorious claims), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3 (candor towards the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party
and counsel), 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal), 4.2 (communication with represented persons), 4.4
(respect for the rights of third persons), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), 8.4(b)
(criminal misconduct), 8.4 (c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d)
(misconduct involving prejudice to the administration of justice), and recommended permanent disbarment.

Mr. Berg must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys, pay all Board costs and fees, and make restitution to two
(2) former clients in the sum amount of $65,000.00.

SUSPENSIONS

MICHAEL LLOYD FREEMAN, BPR NO. 028698
DAVIDSON COUNTY

Effective October 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee revoked Mr. Freeman’s probation and suspended
Michael Lloyd Freeman from the practice of law for three (3) years, less than one hundred and twelve (112)
days that Mr. Freeman had been previously suspended.

On June 21, 2021, Mr. Freeman was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years with three (3)
months of active suspension and the remainder served on probation contingent upon Mr. Freeman incurring
no new complaints of misconduct that relate to conduct occurring during the period of suspension and
probation that result in the recommendation by the Board that discipline be imposed. Mr. Freeman violated
his probationary condition when he was publicly censured by the Board for conduct occurring during his
probationary period, and the Board authorized the filing of a Petition for Discipline for misconduct occurring
during his probationary period. On March 11, 2024, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition
to Revoke Probation, and a Panel revoked Mr. Freeman’s probation and imposed a three (3) year suspension
as originally ordered with credit of one hundred and twelve (112) days previously served.

Mr. Freeman 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.

JEREMY RYAN DURHAM, BPR NO. 027776
WILLIAMSON COUNTY

On November 14, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Jeremy Ryan Durham from the practice of
law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr. Durham
was convicted of felony Reckless Endangerment which constitutes a serious crime as defined by Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 2. In addition, Mr. Durham was convicted of non-serious crimes including one
(1) count of Driving Under the Influence, one (1) count of Driving Under the Influence Per Se, one (1) count
of Resisting Arrest, and one (1) count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
17 | P a g e
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. Durham as a result of his
conduct constituting a serious crime as defined by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 2.

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

ROBERT JOSEPH TURNER, BPR NO. 015107
DAVIDSON COUNTY

Effective November 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Robert Joseph Turner from the
practice of law for one (1) year, with thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder to be served on probation conditioned upon Mr.
Turner’s engagement of a practice monitor.

Mr. Turner was retained to represent a client in a civil matter against a general contractor. During the pendency
of the litigation at least five (5) separate associates employed by Mr. Turner were assigned to handle the
litigation, although Mr. Turner remained counsel of record. Over a four (4) year period, Mr. Turner, or an
associate assigned to the matter who Mr. Turner was supervising, failed to appear for hearings on multiple
occasions, missed multiple deadlines memorialized in a scheduling order, and failed to comply with court orders
to contact the court. In dismissing the matter, the trial court cited as the basis for dismissal Mr. Turner’s failure
to properly represent his client and comply with court orders.

Mr. Turner executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional 1.3 (diligence) and 5.1 (responsibilities of supervisory lawyers).

Mr. Turner 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.

JAMES MICHAEL MARSHALL, BPR NO. 018784
MAURY COUNTY

Effective November 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended James Michael Marshall from the
practice of law for five (5) years, with two (2) years to be served as an active suspension pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder to be served on probation.

Mr. Marshall, during the representation of a client, submitted a factually inaccurate pleading and then failed to
correct the error and failed to reasonably communicate with his client regarding the error. Mr. Marshall
executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct, 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1(b) (disciplinary
matters), and 8.4(a) (misconduct).

Mr. Marshall 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.

18 | P a g e
MICKIE SMITH DAUGHERTY, BPR NO. 022746
DAVIDSON COUNTY

Effective January 7, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Mickie Smith Daugherty from the
practice of law for six (6) years, retroactive to August 20, 2024, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 12.2,
conditioned upon Ms. Daugherty’s cooperation with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and
compliance with the terms and conditions imposed by the Circuit Court for Maury County in State v Mickie
Smith Daugherty, Docket No. 31137.

On September 3, 2024, Ms. Daugherty pled guilty to one (1) count of Theft of Property and one (1) count of
Forgery, both Class C felonies, and was ordered to pay restitution of $35,000.00 to Culleoka Athletic Booster
Club. Pursuant to T.C.A. §40-35-313, Ms. Daugherty received Judicial Diversion and was placed on probation
for a period of four (4) years and six (6) months. Ms. Daugherty paid full restitution before she was sentenced.

Ms. Daugherty executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging her conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional 8.4(c) (misconduct).

Ms. Daugherty 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.

SHEILA L. ROBINSON-BEASLEY, BPR NO. 013937
SHELBY COUNTY

Effective January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Sheila L. Robinson-Beasley from the
practice of law for six (6) years, with five (5) years active suspension and the remainder served on probation
conditioned upon employing a practice monitor at her expense for one (1) year following reinstatement,
compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Order of Enforcement, compliance with all CLE
requirements, payment of all registration fees and professional privileged taxes due and owning, attendance at
the Board of Professional Responsibility’s ethics workshop, payment of all Board costs assessed in this matter,
and payment of all court costs taxed in this matter.

A Petition for Discipline containing one complaint was filed by the Board alleging that Ms. Robinson-Beasley
did not follow proper protocol in the execution and use of a Durable Power of Attorney and Limited Power
of Attorney that she prepared on behalf of an ill family member, and, following the death of the family member,
she converted assets belonging to the deceased’s estate and made false representations concerning the validity
of the Durable Power of Attorney and Limited Power of Attorney to persons involved in the sale of the
deceased’s residence and persons at the deceased’s bank.

Ms. Robinson-Beasley executed a Second Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging her conduct violated
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.15 (safekeeping property and
funds), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), and 8.4 (misconduct).

Ms. Robinson-Beasley 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.

19 | P a g e
WILLIAM ANTHONY PAXTON, BPR NO. 016976
TENNESSEE

Effective February 17, 2025, William Anthony Paxton, a Loudon County Attorney, was suspended by Order
of Reciprocal Discipline entered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on February 17, 2026. Mr. Paxton was
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he
refrain from further misconduct and comply with the Order of the Supreme Court of Ohio entered November
25, 2025. On January 7, 2026, the Supreme Court Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline directing
Mr. Paxton to demonstrate to the Court, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice, why the discipline
imposed by the Supreme Court of Ohio should not be imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Mr.
Paxton failed to respond to the directive of the Court.

Mr. Paxton 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.

LORING EDWIN JUSTICE, BPR NO. 019446
KNOX COUNTY

Effective February 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Knoxville attorney Loring Edwin
Justice from the practice of law for four (4) years, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2,
with all four (4) years to be served as an active suspension. Mr. Justice must also make payment of all Board
costs and expenses.

The Petition for Discipline filed in this matter alleged that Mr. Justice and his firm entered into a fee agreement
without client authorization, charged excessive and unreasonable fees that were unsupported by billing records,
abused the fiduciary relationship with the client, failed to reasonably communicate with or diligently represent
a client, failed to protect his client’s interests after withdrawal or termination, and engaged in misconduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

On December 3, 2025, Mr. Justice executed a Conditional Guilty Plea as to violations of Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communications), 1.5 (fees), 1.8 (conflict of interest: specific
rules), 1.16 (declining or terminating representing), and 8.4(c) (misconduct).

Mr. Justice 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.

MICHAEL LLOYD FREEMAN, BPR NO. 028698
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On February 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Michael Lloyd Freeman
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) years with four (4) years active suspension pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder on probation pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Section 14.1. Additionally, Mr. Freeman shall obtain an evaluation with the Tennessee Lawyer’s
Assistance Program and pay restitution. During the period of any probation, Mr. Freeman shall engage the
services of a Practice Monitor.

20 | P a g e
In a disciplinary Petition consisting of three complaints, a Hearing Panel found Mr. Freeman, during the
representation of multiple clients, failed to act competently, failed to protect client funds, acted outside the
scope of representation, failed to act diligently, failed to communicate with clients, and his actions were
prejudicial to the administration of justice. Mr. Freeman violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(Competence), 1.15 (Safekeeping Funds), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 1.2 (Scope of
Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 3.2 (Expediting litigation), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing
Party and Counsel), and 8.4 (Misconduct)

Mr. Freeman 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

EDWARD KENDALL WHITE, BPR NO. 032725
TENNESSEE

On November 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Edward Kendall White, a
resident of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from the practice of law for failing to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility concerning one (1) 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 a complaint of misconduct.

Mr. White is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients by December 12, 2025. After December 12, 2025, Mr. White shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence wherein the practice of law is conducted. Mr. White 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 he is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to
which they are entitled.

Mr. White 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. White, for good
cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

KERI ELIZABETH RULE, BPR NO. 036921
KNOX COUNTY

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Keri Elizabeth Rule from the
practice of law upon finding that Ms. Rule failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility
concerning a complaint of misconduct.

21 | P a g e
Ms. Rule shall 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. Rule may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

DALEN L. P. FARMER, BPR NO. 012629
RUTHERFORD COUNTY

On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Dalen L. P. Farmer from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Farmer failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility
concerning one (1) complaint of misconduct.

Mr. Farmer is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients by February 21, 2026. After February 21, 2026, Mr. Farmer shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Mr. Farmer shall 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 shall deliver to all clients any papers or
property to which they are entitled.

Mr. Farmer shall 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. Farmer may,
for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

RICKY A. W. CURTIS, BPR NO. 019761
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Ricky A. W. Curtis from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Curtis failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility
concerning one (1) complaint of misconduct.

Mr. Curtis is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients February 21, 2026. After February 21, 2026, Mr. Curtis shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant,
or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Curtis is immediately precluded
from accessing current trust accounts or opening any new trust accounts until further direction of the Court.

Mr. Curtis 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. Curtis is required to deliver to all clients
any papers or property to which they are entitled.

22 | P a g e
Mr. Curtis shall 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. Curtis may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

STEPHANIE BRANAM JOHNSON, BPR NO. 030782
PUTNAM COUNTY

On February 13, 2026, 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 of Professional
Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct.

Ms. Johnson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing existing
clients by March 15, 2026. After March 15, 2026, 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 co-counsel 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 shall 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.

MARY R. RUDOLPH, BPR NO. 034815
SHELBY COUNTY

On March 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Mary R. Rudolph from the practice
of law upon finding that Ms. Rudolph failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning
a complaint of misconduct.

Ms. Rudolph is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing existing
clients by April 4, 2026. After April 4, 2026, Ms. Rudolph shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or
law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Ms. Rudolph must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing
counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Rudolph is required to deliver to all
clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Ms. Rudolph shall 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.

23 | P a g e
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Ms. Rudolph may,
for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

HARVEY RANDOLPH FALLIN, BPR NO. 015127
JOHNSON COUNTY

On March 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Harvey Randolph Fallin from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Fallin failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility
concerning a complaint of misconduct.

Mr. Fallin is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients by April 8, 2026. After April 8, 2026, Mr. Fallin shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law
clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Mr. Fallin 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. Fallin is required to deliver to all clients
any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Mr. Fallin shall 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. Fallin may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

JASON LEE HOLLY, BPR NO. 024279
CARTER COUNTY

On March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Jason Lee Holly from the practice
of law upon finding that Mr. Holly failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning
two (2) complaints of misconduct.

Mr. Holly is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases and must cease representing existing clients
by April 22, 2026. After April 22, 2026, Mr. Holly shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law
clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.

Mr. Holly 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. Holly is required to withdraw from all
representation and deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

Mr. Holly shall 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. Holly may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

24 | P a g e
PUBLIC CENSURES

JOSEPH PAUL WEYANT, BPR NO. 022587
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On October 8, 2025, Joseph Paul Weyant, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Weyant was named the administrator of an estate. While he was serving as administrator of the estate, Mr.
Weyant represented an heir of the estate in filing a petition for grandparent visitation against another heir of
the estate. As administrator, Mr. Weyant took no court action in the estate for four years. Mr. Weyant delayed
responding to the Internal Revenue Service about a refund for the estate for one year.

In a second matter, Mr. Weyant was representing a client in a probate matter in which sensitive client
information was placed under seal by the trial court. In an appeal of that matter, Mr. Weyant filed an appellate
brief without taking steps to protect the confidential information, resulting in the information being referenced
in the court’s opinion.

By these acts, Joseph Paul Weyant, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence),
1.7 (conflict of interest), and 8.4(d) (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.

STACEY ALLEN TERRAL, BPR NO. 023054
RUTHERFORD COUNTY

On October 8, 2025, Stacey Allen Terral, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Terral represented a client in a custody matter in the Rutherford County Juvenile Court. In preparing to
submit discovery responses, Mr. Terral advised his client that with permission, he could sign the discovery
attestation on the client’s behalf to save some time. Believing that he had his client’s permission, Mr. Terral
engaged the services of his wife, who is a Notary Public, to notarize the document. Mr. Terral told his wife
that the client had approved the discovery answers and they were ready to be notarized. Mr. Terral showed his
wife a copy of the client’s driver’s license and signed the verification, which his wife then notarized. In signing
the document, Mr. Terral signed the client’s name and did not indicate that the document was being signed by
him with client’s permission nor in any way indicate that the document was signed by anyone other than the
client. Mr. Terral has been practicing law for over twenty (20) years and claims not to have known such action
was improper.

By these acts, Mr. Terral has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.2(d) (scope of
representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer), 3.4(b) (fairness to opposing party and
counsel), 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and
8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

25 | P a g e
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice
law.

LESLIE ADKINS MILLER, BPR NO. 021608
FAYETTE COUNTY

On October 9, 2025, Leslie Adkins Miller, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Ms. Miller was representing a client in which her client’s parental rights were terminated. Ms. Miller filed a
Notice of Appeal with Tennessee Court of Appeals. Ms. Miller failed to file timely documents as required by
the Court including a brief on behalf of her client. This resulted in her client’s appeal being dismissed.

By these acts, Ms. Miller has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation),
3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4(d) (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.

KYLE BATES HECKMAN, BPR NO. 026363
WILSON COUNTY

On October 20, 2025, Kyle Bates Heckman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

A client hired Mr. Heckman to probate her late husband’s estate. Mr. Heckman filed a petition to probate the
estate and then took no further action for five years despite statements to the client that he would do so. In
another client matter, Mr. Heckman failed to take steps to probate a client’s father’s estate for five months, and
he failed to respond to 17 emails and multiple voicemails from the client.

By these acts, Kyle Bates Heckman, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party), 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.

NICHOLAS LEE SURATT, BPR NO. 035010
HARDIN COUNTY

On October 20, 2025, Nicholas Lee Surratt, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Surratt represented a criminal defendant in appealing a conviction. Mr. Surratt failed to file the trial court
transcript within the time prescribed by applicable rules of court. Mr. Surratt failed to respond to notices from

26 | P a g e
the Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the failure to file the transcript, which resulted in a show cause
proceeding where Mr. Surratt was found in willful contempt. Mr. Surratt also failed to comply with subsequent
orders entered by the Court of Criminal Appeals establishing deadlines for the filing of his client’s principal
brief.

By these acts, Mr. Surratt has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 3.4(c) (knowing violation of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (violation of a court order) 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

DANA C. HANSEN CHAVIS, BPR NO. 019098
ROANE COUNTY

On October 28, 2025, Dana C. Hansen Chavis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee and was ordered to pay the costs and fees of the Board
of Professional Responsibility.

While employed as a federal public defender with the Federal Defender Services of East Tennessee, Ms. Hansen
was assigned to appear pro hac vice in a Virginia matter in order to represent a death row defendant in a post-
conviction appellate matter. During these federal proceedings, Ms. Hansen failed to make reasonably diligent
efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, and thereby negligently failed
to disclose and produce material evidence responsive to a discovery request.

Ms. Hansen executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging her conduct violated Virginia Rules of
Professional Conduct 3.4(e) (fairness to opposing party or counsel).

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice
law.

CHAD MICHAEL BUTLER, BPR NO. 027751
GIBSON COUNTY

On November 14, 2025, Chad Michael Butler, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Bulter was retained by a client to file an Emergency Custody Petition related to minor children in her care.
Subsequently, Mr. Bulter filed a Petition for Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights on behalf of his
client. In court filings in both matters, Mr. Butler indicated that the Complainant pled guilty to sexual battery
and assault and that the Complainant was a registered sex offender. Prior to both filings, Mr. Butler’s client
provided him with information claiming the Complainant had pled guilty to sexual battery and assault and was
a registered sex offender. Mr. Butler included these statements in both filings, verified by his client’s signature.
However, Mr. Butler did not independently verify these statements, and the statements were false.

By these acts, Mr. Butler has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and 8.4 (misconduct) and
is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.

27 | P a g e
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice
law.

MARK STEPHEN MOORE, BPR NO. 009582
RUTHERFORD COUNTY

On November 21, 2025, Mark Stephen Moore, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee and was ordered to pay the costs and fees of the Board
of Professional Responsibility.

Mr. Moore entered the area of the Rutherford County Probate Court containing probate files and, without
permission or authority from the clerk or Court, removed one file and a portion of a second file. While the file
was in his possession, he also placed two documents in the file not properly filed with the court. When the
clerk contacted him later the same day to inquire about the removed file and documents, Respondent Moore
initially denied his conduct. However, the following day, Mr. Moore admitted his conduct and returned all
probate files or related documents in his possession. Neither removal of the files nor adding material to the
files had any impact on any probate proceedings.

Mr. Moore executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others) and 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty).

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice
law.

JOHN MICHAEL BAILEY, BPR NO. 006941
SHELBY COUNTY

On November 26, 2025, John Michael Bailey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

A client hired Mr. Bailey for a personal injury matter. Mr. Bailey’s law partner filed the complaint in federal
court and included Mr. Bailey’s name in the signature block. Mr. Bailey failed to file a motion for pro hac vice
admission to federal court; he failed to attend the initial case management conference; and he failed to respond
to an order to show cause on why the matter should not be dismissed.

By these acts, John Michael Bailey has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 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.

28 | P a g e
MARK ANTHONY LAMBERT, BPR NO. 022509
SHELBY COUNTY

On November 26, 2025, Mark Anthony Lambert, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

A client hired Mr. Lambert’s law firm for a personal injury matter. Mr. Lambert filed a complaint in federal
court and included his law partner’s name when his law partner was not admitted to practice in the court. Mr.
Lambert failed to file a motion for pro hac vice admission for his law partner; he failed to attend the initial case
management conference; and he failed to respond to an order to show cause on why the matter should not be
dismissed.

By these acts, Mark Anthony Lambert has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party), 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.

MATTHEW BRETT REEVES, BPR NO. 035871
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

On December 15, 2025, Matthew Brett Reeves, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Reeves represented a client in Federal Court in Alabama. Mr. Reeves personally used Artificial Intelligence
(AI) to add citations to two separate motions filed on behalf of his client. These citations were fabricated and
Mr. Reeves took no action to check the accuracy of these citations. Mr. Reeves failed to act with diligence and
caused a delay in his client’s case. In addition, Mr. Reeves’ conduct was prejudicial to the administration of
justice

By these acts, Mr. Reeves has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation),
and 8.4 (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.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CRANFORD, III, BPR NO. 035492
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

On December 16, 2025, William Jefferson Cranford, III, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Cranford represented a client in Federal Court in Alabama. Mr. Cranford drafted, signed, and personally
filed two motions on behalf of his client which included fabricated citations that were generated by using
Artificial Intelligence (AI). These citations were added by another attorney; however, Mr. Cranford had an
obligation to check the citations before signing the motions and filing them with the court. Mr. Cranford failed

29 | P a g e
to act with diligence and caused a delay in his client’s case. In addition, Mr. Cranford’s conduct was prejudicial
to the administration of justice.

By these acts, Mr. Cranford has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), and 8.4 (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.

JAMES RALPH HICKMAN, BPR NO. 020125
SEVIER COUNTY

On December 23, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued James Ralph Hickman, an attorney licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, a Public Censure conditioned upon payment of fees to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.

Mr. Hickman engaged in the unauthorized practice of law on July 10, 2023, and July 13, 2023, when he appeared
in court on behalf of two clients and counseled the clients regarding the entry of guilty pleas while his license
to practice law was suspended. The Hearing Panel found his conduct violated Tennessee Rule of Professional
Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law).

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice
law.

NICHOLAS LEE SURRATT, BPR NO. 035010

On January 6, 2026, Nicholas Lee Surratt, 035010, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Surratt agreed to represent a client in transmitting a demand letter in connection with a contract dispute.
The client paid a $350 fee for drafting and transmittal of the demand letter. Mr. Surratt never drafted the
demand letter and took no other action for the client. Mr. Surratt also failed to respond to the client’s inquiries
about the status of the representation and never refunded the $350 fee.

By these acts, Mr. Surratt has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15
(safekeeping property and funds), and 1.16(d) (protecting a client’s interests following discharge) and is hereby
Publicly Censured for these violations. The Public Censure shall be conditioned on Mr. Surratt’s payment of
$350 restitution to the client within sixty (60) days of the date 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.

30 | P a g e
BRIAN WADE LYNN, BPR NO. 016796
SHELBY COUNTY

On January 6, 2026, Brian Wade Lynn, 016796, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Lynn’s law license was administratively suspended on March 5, 2025, for non-payment of his professional
privilege tax. Mr. Lynn has not sought reinstatement of his license. At the time of his administrative
suspension, Mr. Lynn was counsel of record in fourteen (14) bankruptcy cases. After entry of the order of
administrative suspension, Mr. Lynn filed two notices in one of his bankruptcy cases. Mr. Lynn also
significantly delayed in providing notice to his clients of his administrative suspension, withdrawing as counsel
of record, and complying with his other obligations defined at Section 28 of Rule 9 of the Tennessee Supreme
Court Rules.

By these acts, Mr. Lynn has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 1.16(d) (protecting a client’s interests following
discharge), 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel) and 8.4(d) (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.

BRET PHILIP BRYCE, BPR NO. 029075
KNOX COUNTY

On January 7, 2026, Bret Philip Bryce, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Bryce failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and failed to
communicate with his client about the representation. Additionally, Mr. Bryce failed to comply with a court
order and his actions caused a delay in the case for over 9 months. Mr. Bryce’s conduct was prejudicial to the
administration of justice.

By these acts, Mr. Bryce has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2
(expediting litigation), and 8.4 (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.

LEE WILSON MCDOUGAL, BPR NO. 025557
SUMNER COUNTY

On January 7, 2026, Lee Wilson McDougal, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. McDougal was appointed counsel to a parent in a dependency and neglect juvenile proceeding involving
allegations of severe abuse. Following the adjudicatory hearing, Mr. McDougal complied with the client’s

31 | P a g e
request to file a de novo appeal but thereafter failed to inform his client of the Court’s adjudication and final
disposition, failed for ten (10) months to consult with his client about the means to achieve his goals on appeal,
failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the appeal status, and failed to comply with the client’s
reasonable, ongoing requests for copies of discovery, case information, and his client file. Upon being notified
of the client’s request that he withdraw his services, Mr. McDougal delayed his withdrawal from the case for at
least four (4) months. There was substantial potential harm to the client in that a finding of severe abuse in a
dependency and neglect case is a ground for terminating a parent’s constitutional rights to their child, such that
Mr. McDougal’s ongoing failure to communicate during the de novo appeal potentially put his client’s rights in
jeopardy.

By these acts, Mr. McDougal has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of representation and
allocation of authority between client and lawyer), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping
property and funds), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), and 8.4(d) (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.

JASON SCOTT MANGRUM, BPR NO. 018098
WILLIAMSON COUNTY

On January 7, 2026, Jason Scott Mangrum, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Following the residential foreclosure of and service of a detainer warrant upon an individual, Mr. Mangrum
represented the person in filing an action for wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract. In the complaint,
Mr. Mangrum improperly included a claim that the opposing party’s actions constituted deceptive business
practices permitting treble damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which under
Tennessee law does not apply in foreclosure proceedings. The claim had no merit and misrepresented to the
client what recovery they might receive. In negotiations, Mr. Mangrum also suggested a settlement offer to his
client that he then issued to opposing counsel but later asserted that the offer was grossly excessive in light of
the facts and applicable law.

By these acts, Mr. Mangrum has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 3.1 (meritorious
claims and contentions), and 8.4(d) (prejudice to 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.

CURTIS DOUGLAS JOHNSON, BPR NO. 015518
SHELBY COUNTY

On January 7, 2026, Curtis Douglas Johnson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

32 | P a g e
In representing a client in a bankruptcy matter, Mr. Johnson failed to communicate with his client and failed to
respond to multiple requests for information.

By these acts, Mr. Johnson has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication) 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.

TROY LEE BOWLIN, BPR NO. 025893
KNOX COUNTY

On January 14, 2026, Troy Lee Bowlin, II, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Bowlin was hired by a Virginia resident for a potential dispute in Virginia, but he is not licensed in Virginia.
Mr. Bowlin failed to respond to inquiries from the client. A few months later, Mr. Bowlin’s office prepared a
pro se pleading for the client to file in Virginia. Mr. Bowlin then called opposing counsel in that matter to ask
for a continuance, and he gave the client advice about the Virginia filing.

By these acts, Troy Lee Bowlin, II, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (termination of representation) and 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) 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.

CAROL ANN BARRON, BPR NO. 016580
RHEA COUNTY

On January 14, 2026, Carrol Ann Barron, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Ms. Barron is a notary public, and she needed to notarize her client’s signatures in a transfer of property. Ms.
Barron’s notary stamp was not in her office, but her assistant is also a notary. Ms. Barron received permission
to use the assistant’s notary stamp, and Ms. Barron then notarized the signatures of her clients by signing the
assistant’s name and using the assistant’s notary stamp on a deed. Ms. Barron did not indicate that she was
signing someone else’s name “with permission.”

By these acts, Carol Ann Barron has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to
others) and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty) 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.

33 | P a g e
ANTHONY MARVIN AVERY, BPR NO. 012925
UNION COUNTY

On March 2, 2026, Anthony Marvin Avery an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Avery represented a client in a partition action. During the representation Mr. Avery failed to provide his
client with copies of some relevant pleadings and following termination, failed to provide the client with her
file. Upon termination of services by the client, Mr. Avery delayed his withdrawal and additionally while still
counsel of record attended litigation related matters and failed to protect the interests of his client.

By these acts, Mr. Avery has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation
of authority between client and lawyer), 1.3 (diligence), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), and 8.4(a)
(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.

HANDEL R. DURHAM JR., BPR NO. 010949
SHELBY COUNTY

On March 3, 2026, Handel R. Durham, Jr. an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

An existing client visited Mr. Durham at his office. The existing client, at the time, was jointly represented by
Mr. Durham and another attorney. Mr. Durham and the other attorney’s office were within the same office
suite. During this visit the client advised Mr. Durham of a potential new cause of action. At the end of the
conversation, Mr. Durham mistakenly believed that the client had retained both him and co-counsel for the
new matter under the same arrangement as the existing representation. During this new representation, there
was no written fee agreement executed, and Mr. Durham, along with co-counsel, improperly attempted to
collect a contingency fee from the client in the amount of approximately 33.3%.

By the aforementioned acts, Handel R. Durham, Jr., has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) (fees),
7.1 (communications concerning lawyer’s services), and 8.4(a) (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.

KENNETH MICHAEL MARGOLIS, BPR NO. 022906
SHELBY COUNTY

On March 24, 2026, Kenneth Michael Margolis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

An existing client visited Mr. Margolis at his office. Existing client was, at the time, jointly represented by Mr.
Margolis and another attorney. Mr. Margolis and the other attorney shared office space. During this visit client

34 | P a g e
advised the other attorney of a potential new cause of action. At the conclusion of that conversation the other
attorney wrongly believed that client hired both himself and Mr. Margolis for the new matter with the same
arrangement as the already existing representation. The other attorney advised Mr. Margolis that they had been
retained in the new matter, but Mr. Margolis failed to verify such with the existing client. During this new
representation, there was no written fee agreement executed, and Mr. Margolis, along with co-counsel,
improperly attempted to collect a contingency fee from client in the amount of approximately 33.3%. Mr.
Margolis also utilized an existing medical authorization from the other representation to use in this new
representation without prior permission from client.

By the aforementioned acts, Kenneth Michael Margolis, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(c)
(fees), 7.1 (communications concerning lawyer’s services), and 8.4(a) (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.

J. STEPHEN HURST, BPR NO. 000547
CAMPBELL COUNTY

Effective March 25, 2026, J. Stephen Hurst, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Mr. Hurst represented a client in a property boundary action. During the representation, Mr. Hurst improperly
negotiated and settled the pending action without his client’s knowledge or authorization and failed to inform
the court when he announced the terms of the settlement that his client had not approved the settlement.

By these acts, Mr. Hurst violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (allocation of authority between client and
lawyer), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),
and was 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.

MATTHEW WAYNE WILLIS, BPR NO. 024803
DYER COUNTY

On March 30, 2026, Matthew Wayne Willis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Mr. Willis was representing a client before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Mr. Willis personally
used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to aid him in the preparation of a reply brief he filed with the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals. The Court found that after reviewing the reply brief, over seventy percent of the
citations were fictitious, and Mr. Willis took no action to check the accuracy of these citations. Mr. Willis stated
that he believed a paralegal in his office performed a full citation check including verifying references to the
technical record, transcript, and legal authorities. Mr. Willis failed to verify that his paralegal checked the
citations before filing the reply brief.

35 | P a g e
Mr. Willis failed to act with diligence and his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Additionally, Mr. Willis failed to exercise managerial authority over his paralegal.

By these acts, Mr. Willis has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 5.3 (responsibilities
regarding nonlawyer assistants), and 8.4 (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.

CATHERINE ELIZABETH FEZELL, BPR NO. 039547
GREENE COUNTY

On March 31, 2026, Catherine Elizabeth Fezell, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

On May 14, 2024, Ms. Fezell was scheduled to appear for a court docket to represent clients in multiple matters.
When Ms. Fezell failed to appear, she was contacted by court personnel inquiring about her whereabouts. Upon
arrival at court, Ms. Fezell was observed by multiple witnesses, including court staff and colleagues, to appear
to be under the influence. Due to her apparent condition, Ms. Fezell could not appear before the court, and
the scheduled hearings had to be reset.

By these acts, Ms. Fezell has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), and 8.4(d)
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.

REINSTATEMENTS

WILLIAM SHEA FORGETY, BPR NO. 034235
SUMNER COUNTY

On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated William Shea Forgety to the active practice
of law.

On September 9, 2025, Mr. Fogerty was temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for failing
to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct. Mr. Fogerty
filed a Petition for Dissolution pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3 on September 24,
2025, demonstrating he had responded to the disciplinary complaint and complied with the conditions imposed
by the Order of Temporary Suspension. The Board filed a response acknowledging the Petition was satisfactory
and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

36 | P a g e
TESHAUN DAVID MOORE, BPR NO. 027816
SHELBY COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 17, 2025, TeShaun David Moore was reinstated
to the active practice of law.

On December 11, 2020, TeShaun David Moore was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for six (6)
years pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2. On April 9, 2024, Mr. Moore filed a Petition
for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d). After
a final hearing on the merits, the Hearing Panel recommended that Mr. Moore’s license to practice law be
reinstated. The Panel determined specifically that Mr. Moore had demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence he had the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission to practice 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.

Mr. Moore’s reinstatement is conditioned upon his continuing compliance with, and timely satisfaction of, the
conditions set forth in the Order of the Supreme Court entered October 17, 2025. Mr. Moore remains
administratively suspended. Prior to Mr. Moore’s return to active practice, Mr. Moore must obtain another
order from the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstating him from his administrative suspension.

Accordingly, the Board of Professional Responsibility shall cause notice of this reinstatement to be
published as required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28.11.

JOHN EDWARD HUTSON, BPR NO. 034751
WHITE COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 20, 2025, John Edward Hutson was reinstated to
the active practice of law with conditions.

On January 14, 2025, Mr. Hutson was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for two (2) years with
six (6) months active suspension and the remainder on probation. Mr. Hutson filed a Petition for Reinstatement
to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on October 13, 2025. The
Board found the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

Mr. Hutson’s reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon contacting TLAP and engagement
of a practice monitor during the first six months of the probationary period. Mr. Hutson is required to meet
with his practice monitor each month who will review and assess his caseload, case management, timeliness of
performing tasks, adequacy of communication with clients, and accounting procedures and provide monthly
written reports to Disciplinary Counsel.

JAMES BRODERICK JOHNSON, BPR NO. 015509
DAVIDSON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 22, 2025, James Broderick Johnson was reinstated
to the active practice of law.

37 | P a g e
On September 9, 2025, Mr. Johnson was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for three (3) months
with thirty (30) days’ active suspension and the remainder on probation. Mr. Johnson filed a Petition for
Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on October
9, 2025. The Board found the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

Mr. Johnson’s reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon his completion of an additional
six (6) hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) on subjects related to client relations, the management
of a law practice, and/or Rules of Professional Conduct regarding disciplinary action of the Board of
Professional Responsibility.

DARYL ANDRE GRAY, BPR NO. 027781
TENNESSEE

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 27, 2025, Daryl Andre Gray was reinstated to the
active practice of law.

On March 10, 2025, Mr. Gray was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for six (6) months with two
(2) months active suspension and the remainder on probation. Mr. Gray filed a Petition for Reinstatement to
the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on August 29, 2025. The
Board found the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

Mr. Grays’s reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon his engagement with a practice
monitor on a monthly basis for a period of four (4) months.

EDWARD KENDALL WHITE, BPR NO. 032725
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered November 20, 2025, Edward Kendall White, previously a
resident of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was reinstated to the active practice of law.

On November 12, 2025, Mr. White was temporarily suspended for failure to respond to the Board of
Professional Responsibility. Mr. White provided an appropriate response to the Board and on November 17,
2025, filed a Petition to Dissolve the Temporary Suspension. The Board filed a response on November 19,
2025, noting no objection to Mr. White’s Petition and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

CARLOS EUGENE MOORE, BPR NO. 028649
TENNESSEE

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered January 5, 2026, Carlos Eugene Moore was reinstated to
the active practice of law.

On March 27, 2025, Carlos Eugene Moore was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for one (1) year,
retroactive to the date of suspension in Mississippi. Mr. Moore filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice
of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on November 21, 2025. The Board found
the petition to be satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

38 | P a g e
Mr. Moore’s reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon his continuing compliance with,
and timely satisfaction of, the conditions set forth in the Opinion and Final Judgment of the Supreme Court of
Mississippi entered December 31, 2024.

DALEN L. P. FARMER, BPR NO. 012629
RUTHERFORD COUNTY

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Dalen L.P. Farmer to the active practice of
law.

On January 22, 2026, Mr. Farmer was temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for failing to
respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct. Mr. Farmer filed
a Petition for Dissolution pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3 on February 12, 2026,
demonstrating he had responded to the disciplinary complaint and complied with the conditions imposed by
the Order of Temporary Suspension. The Board filed a response acknowledging the Petition was satisfactory
and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

RICKY A. W. CURTIS, BPR NO. 019761
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On February 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Ricky A.W. Curtis to the active practice of
law.

On January 22, 2026, Mr. Curtis was temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for failing to
respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct. Mr. Curtis filed a
Petition for Dissolution pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.3 on February 19, 2026,
demonstrating he had responded to the disciplinary complaint and complied with the conditions imposed by
the Order of Temporary Suspension. The Board filed a response acknowledging the Petition was satisfactory
and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.

DISABILITY INACTIVE

JOHNNY D. HOUSTON, JR., BPR NO. 013834
HAMILTON COUNTY

By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 9, 2026, the law license of Johnny D. Houston, Jr.,
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

Mr. Houston cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

39 | P a g e
INACTIVE

SORNAVIDYA SABA SANKAR, BPR NO. 037964
DAVIDSON COUNTY

On March 6, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an Order removing the disability inactive status of
Sornavidya Saba Sankar. On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court entered an Order transferring Ms. Sankar to
disability inactive status.

Although the disability inactive status has been removed, the Court noted that Ms. Sankar shall remain on
inactive status pending resolution of any disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Sankar is required to pay the expenses
of her reinstatement proceeding, if any, to the Court.

40 | P a g e
Tennessee Lawyer’s Fund Payments

GARY LEE ANDERSON BPR NO. 004515
KNOX COUNTY

On June 16, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Gary Lee Anderson, in the amount of $3,500.00.

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Mr. Anderson 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.

ANGELA JOY HOPSON BPR NO. 022500
MADISON COUNTY
On April 11, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Angela Joy Hopson, in the amount of $2,022.00.

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Ms. Hopson 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.

GEORGE SKOUTERIS, JR. BPR NO. 013417
SHELBY COUNTY

On June 16, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against George Skouteris, Jr., in the amount of $17,609.40.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The

41 | P a g e
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Mr. Skouteris 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.

DOUGLAS A. TRANT BPR NO. 006871
KNOX COUNTY

On April 11, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Douglas A. Trant, in the amount of $7,500.00.

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Mr. Trant 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.

MELVIN JACOB WERNER BPR #015909
KNOX COUNTY

On May 29, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Melvin Jacob Werner, in the amount of $100,000.00.

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Mr. Werner 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.

SAMUEL ERVIN WHITE BPR NO. 029973
SULLIVAN COUNTY

On September 2, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Samuel Ervin White, in the amount of $1,100.00.

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The

42 | P a g e
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.

Mr. White 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.

43 | P a g e

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