watson-32392-3-public-censure.pdf (2010)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference. The original PDF remains the official record for legal purposes.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (watson-32392-3-public-censure.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
f!
_%JE:EiLae/o
sop-jt PHOFESleNAL sESPoNSIleITY
- OFTHE
PHEM OURT FTENNESSEE
IN DISCIPLWARY DISTRICT III M W
OF TI'IE Executive Secretary
BOARD or PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
or "rtâre
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1N RE: ALBERT L. WATSON, Ill, BPR NO. 1516 ' FILE NO. 323 923423
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Hamilton County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint Was ï¬led against Albert IL. Watson, Ill, an attorney licensed to
practice-law in Tennessee, alleginé certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
9, the Board of Professional Eesponsibility considered these matters at its meeting on June 11,
2010.
The Complainant hired the ReSpondent to represent her mentally ill son after he was
admitted to a mental health institute on an emergency petition. The hospital petitioned the court
to appoint a guardtan ad litem for the Complainantâs son, and an order Was entered appointmgâa
conservator. The Complainant wanted the Respondent to represent her son in an appeal of this '
decision. The Respondent filed a motion to reconsider and a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the
Complainant made seizeral attempts to contactthe Resp'ondent| and inquire about the status of the
matter, but the Respondent did not respond. Finally, the Complainant received a notice from the
chanoery court clerkâs ofï¬ce advising her that the Court of Appeals had dismissed the appeal.
The Respondent had failed to ï¬le an app ellate- brief. Subsequently, the characer court entered an
I order denying the motion to reconsider, in which. the court questioned the adequacy of the
Respondentâs motion under Rule of Civil Procedure 7.02. The Respondent failed to give the
. â¢u-ââMh\~1â«_ -_
.
..:.......
___.
Complainant notice of either courtâs ruling. V,
The Respondent violated Rule 11.4 by failing to maintain communication With the
Complainant. The Respondent ignored the Complainantasrequests .forainformaï¬on and did not
inform the Complainant that the Court of Appeals had dismissedâthe appeal or that the ohanoery
court had denied the motion to reconsider; Also, the Respondent failed to act with reasonable
diligence in violation of Rule 1.3. The Respondent did not ï¬le an appellate brief in the Court of
Appeals, so the appeal Was dismissed. Finally, the Respondent failed to abide by the
Complainantâs decision concerning the objective of the representation in violation of Rule 1.2.
âBy the aforementioned facts, Albert L. Watson, III, {as violated Rule of frofessional
Conduct '152. (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (oonununioatiou) and is hereby
Publicly Censored forthese violations.