weyant-31532.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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (weyant-31532.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.
stn- 0F statesman ' ESPONSIBILITY
- PREME GOUFRT TENNESSEE
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT VI Ex% HAD}?J!
J]iâ
l
. OF THE Exe'euttva SecreTary
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUEREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: JOSEPH WEYANT BPR NO. 225 87 FILE NO. 315 32â6~DB
Respondent, an attomey licensed
to practice lawin Tennessee
(Montgomery County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against Joseph Weyant, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Tennessee,'alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the
Board ofProfessional Responsibility considered this matter at its meeting on March 12, 2010.
Reapondent represented to Complainant that he would protect his business interests While
Complainant Was deployed to Iraq by the United States Army. Respondent prepared a-Power of
' Attorney granting an accountant in his office building with authority to conduct business on
behalf of Complainant. All such business was to have prior approval by Respondent. After
Complainantâs deployment to Iraq, Julianne Borden, an acquaintance of Complainant, came to
Respondent and advised him of an investment oppoinmity that she indicated Complainant had an
interest in. Ms. Borden stated that Complainant would lose a substantial earnest money deposit
in the amount of $85,000.00 if the deal was not made. Ms. Borden informed Respondent that
she had found an investor who agreed to lend money for the proposed real estate vennire.
Respondent had previously developed a personal friendship with the investor and had
represented him in some unrelated matters. The investor submitted terms for a loan that were
materially adverse to Complainant. Respondent approved the loan agreement and secured the
loan with real: estate ovmed by Complainant. Respondent failed to verify any of the
circumstances surrounding the preposed real estate venture prior to giving his approval. The real
estate venture was later revealed to be a fraud perpetrated by Ms. Borden, and Complainant
suffered a substantial ï¬nancial loss as a result.
Respondent violated RPC 1.1 because he failed to exhibit the legal knowledge and skill
necessary for competent representation of Complainant. Respondent violated RFC 1.2 because
he acted outside the scope of his representation by binding Complainant to a new contract with
the investor, Respondent violated RPC 1.4 by failing to consult with Complainant before
binding Complainant to the contract with the investor and failing to take immediate measures to
inform Complainant of the suspected fraud. Respondent violated RPC 1.7 by negotiating
contract terms With the investor, a personal ï¬iend, that were adverse to Complainant.
Respondent violated RFC 1.8(f), by accepting direction ï¬ora Ms. Borden without consent from
Cemplainant alter consultation. Respondent violated RFC 2.1 by failing to exercise independent
professional judgment in his repreSentatiOn of Complainant.
By the aforementioned facts, Joseph Weyant, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct
Ill
1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope of Representation); 1.4 (Communication), 1.7 (Conflict of
Interest), 1.8(t) (Conï¬ict of Interest), and 2.1 (Failure To Exercise Independent Professional
Judgment), and is hereby Publically Censored for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
W am âView W/
VirgEljia Anne Sharber
0!} 24/] Law
Date I '