hancock-32469.pdf (2011)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (hancock-32469.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.
FlLE l}
:tlllâJsH~6 9s 53-53
_ msat.
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT v soat? gggmï¬ï¬gâï¬ï¬
.OF THE .
BOARD OF PRQFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXEC. SEQ-"F
3 _-: . W'Oiil' TIE-{ij '- ""l-' 'V'W V ». -- âQM" :âuz |-'-'u.,_- ,--,-:=I-J_ -. ' '. ;'-.--- «âI 4 ' r:
SUPREME COURT OF 'IENNESSEE
IN RE: Willlmn Caldwell Hancock; BPR NO. 5312 FILE NO, 32469-5âKB
Resizondont, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CENSURE-
The above complaint was ï¬led against William Caldwell Hancock; an attorney licensed
to practice law 'l'n 'Iâenncssee, alleging certain. acts ofmiâscohtluct. Pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule .9, the Board of Professional Reaponsihlllty considered these matters "at its meeting on
. December 10, 201.0.
to April, 2007, Reapoadent was retained to represent his client to a civil action regarding
a real estate property dispute. Respondent agreed to ï¬le acivil action seeking redress based
upon claims of fraud and. breach of ï¬duciary duty. After some delay, Respondent ï¬lec'lthe
lawsuit and 'proceecled with service of process. Thereafter, Respondent failed to communicate
effectively with his client and failed to move the case forward at a pace suitable to his client. On
August 512008, the oourtvseot a lettet to Respondent advising that if the case was notset for trial
or resolved by a date CBL'tElilfl, it would be dismissed under .a local Scheduling rule without
we..." 4"ȉ
prejudice to res-ï¬ling. On Jammy 28, 2009, the court: dismissed the casewithout prejudioo for-
wsot of proscoutlon under that local rule. Respondent failed to notify his client regarding; the
dismissal of the case. The client subsequently terminates Respondentâs representation and
demanded a ï¬nal accounting and at 1131111111 of all feesâpsi'tl, simultaoecâmsly ï¬ling a colnplsiht with
the, Board of Professioï¬al Rssponsibiiiâty. It was only after the termination of Respondentâs
I represmtatiolmï¬mt the client realized his case had been dismissed.
"L'Jï¬âc'ier ï¬ttisie'facts}, Réspohdenâ: hï¬S' vitï¬'atad Rules â01âPmï¬Ã©s'sibi'ml'Cbndud't 113' (diligélic-h),
1.45 (communicating), 1.5 (fees), and 1.16 (Lenuinating re1â31:esentati0n) and is hereby Publicly
Censured. for these violations.
FOR THE BGARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
cï¬z Nam
Lela/M. Hollaba'ugh, Ghaâjr
{494/
'1) ate
M. . . A- .-......~...m. âa... .W.w ~)~m-,.-~lMVr\-0-w~