board-notes-fall-2023.pdf (2023)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (board-notes-fall-2023.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES

published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2023

Inside:
2

Spotlight: Ethical Concerns for
Lawyers Practicing in Office Sharing
Arrangements

15

Board of Professional Responsibility’s
2023 Ethics Workshop

17

Formal Ethics Opinion 2023-F-169

20

Formal Ethics Opinion 2023-F-170

25

Board of Professional Responsibility
New Disciplinary Counsel

26

Board of Professional Responsibility’s
42nd Annual Report

39

Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Protection 2023 Annual Report

41

Disciplinary Actions April –
September 2023

73

Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for
Client Protection Payments

Greeting from Justice Page

Supreme Court Liaison, Board of Professional Responsibility

I am honored and excited to return as the Tennessee Supreme Court’s new
liaison to the Board of Professional Responsibility. In my role as Chief
Justice, I had several egregious BPR cases come across my desk. The thing
that sticks with me, though, is how many more lawyers are upholding the
ethical standards of our profession. Our profession can be stressful at times,
but it carries many rewards. The smile of a happy client is extremely
satisfying.
We are each responsible for monitoring our own behavior. Of course, we
have to make ethical choices almost every day. It is our duty to avoid mistakes
as best as we can and learn from the mistakes of others so that we can
promote trust in the legal system. Together, we can encourage each other to
have higher standards for ourselves and our colleagues. Together, we can
raise the standard in our profession so that we can ensure justice in our state.
I’d like to thank Chief Justice Holly Kirby for her service as liaison these past
four years and congratulate her on her new role. In addition, I appreciate the
excellent leadership of Jennifer Hagerman as Chair of the BPR. All of us on
the Court appreciate the hard work of the Members of the Board, District
Committee Members, Disciplinary Counsel, and all the hardworking BPR
employees. Finally, Sandy Garrett is extraordinary in her role as Chief
Disciplinary Counsel. I look forward to working with everyone.

Ethical Concerns For Lawyers Practicing in
Office Sharing Arrangements

Steven J. Christopher, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel - Investigations
Board of Professional Responsibility

Office sharing arrangements are becoming an attractive option for lawyers in Tennessee
and other jurisdictions. In this model, lawyers maintain separate law practices but work out of an
office suite with a shared conference room, library, and other common spaces. An office sharing
arrangement may also involve sharing support staff, telephone and facsimile systems, and a
computer network. An office sharing arrangement not only can significantly reduce the cost of
operating a law practice but can also facilitate a sense of collegiality and community for solo
practitioners relative to operating in a separate brick and mortar office space.
The office sharing model is permitted in Tennessee and other jurisdictions but raises
potential ethical concerns. The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and
Professional Responsibility recently published Formal Ethics Opinion 507, “Office Sharing
Arrangements with Other Lawyers” which specifies some of the ethical issues that are potentially
applicable when attorneys enter into office sharing arrangements. 1 A number of state jurisdictions
have addressed ethical issues arising out of office sharing arrangements as well. 2 This article will
focus upon a particular issue for attorneys in Tennessee and other jurisdictions who are considering

1

ABA Formal Op. 507 (July 12, 2023).

2

See e.g., Conn. Bar Ass’n Prof’l Ethics Comm. 2014-04, 2014 WL 12823983 (2014); Ohio Bd.
of Prof’l Conduct Advisory Op. 2017-05, 2022 WL 10219976 (2017); N.Y State Bar Ass’n
Comm. on Prof’l Ethics Op., 2012 WL 6087183 2012).

2

employing an office sharing model or who have already done so: the need to be acutely conscious
about whether the lawyers in the office sharing arrangement are operating as a “firm.”

The Definition of a Firm
A common error made by lawyers who create an office sharing arrangement is to act under
the assumption that if the lawyers do not enter into a formal partnership agreement or create a legal
corporation or other entity through which they will practice, the lawyers are per se not forming a
“firm.” Contrary to this understanding, the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct contain a
much broader definition of a “firm.” As described with more specificity below, whether lawyers
are operating in a firm is foundational in analyzing their ethical responsibilities, such as conflicts
of interest and confidentiality. Lawyers who work in an office sharing arrangement must be
acutely conscious of whether they are operating as a firm and be intentional in structuring their
office sharing arrangement and individual practices in a manner consistent with whether they fall
within the definition of a firm.
A “firm” is defined in the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct as “a lawyer in a law
partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to
practice law; or lawyers employed in a legal services organization or the legal department of a
corporation, government agency, or other organization.” 3 The inclusion of the emphasized phrase
in the definition confirms the potential inclusion of office sharing arrangements or other forms of
association beyond law partnerships, professional corporations, and other formally created entities.
This is made explicit in Comment [2] of RPC 1.0, which specifies that whether attorneys are

3

RPC 1.0(c)(emphasis added).

3

deemed to practice in a firm and thereby be held to all of the attendant ethical responsibilities is a
fact specific inquiry. 4 Whether the attorneys who practice together consider themselves to be a
firm is similarly relevant but not dispositive.

Comment [2] specifically states that while

practitioners who share office space and occasionally consult or assist each other ordinarily will
not be regarded as constituting a firm, they will be held to the definition if they present themselves
to the public in a way that suggests that they are a firm or conduct themselves as a firm. 5 The
existence of a formal agreement between lawyers in an association is relevant to the analysis of
whether the lawyers will be deemed to be a firm for purposes of analyzing their ethical conduct. 6
Attorneys practicing in an office sharing arrangement could unintentionally create the
perception that they are operating as a firm through a number of acts and omissions. One of these
is signage. Lawyers in a shared office arrangement should avoid employing a name on their
signage that suggests that they are a firm and should instead itemize each attorney in the
arrangement in a manner that emphasizes their separate law practices. If lawyers in an office
sharing arrangement do not employ signage that specifies that each attorney operates a separate
practice, this could reasonably create the perception by clients and other observers that they
practice together in a firm. 7 The same perception could be created if the lawyers in a shared space
do not use letterhead, business cards, and email signatures that specify that each lawyer maintains
a separate practice.

4

RPC 1.0, Comment [2].

5

Id.

6

Id.

7

RPC 7.1, Comment [13].

4

In addition to being inadvertently held to the ethical obligations incident to practicing in a
firm, an attorney falsely holding themselves out as practicing in a firm or engaging in conduct that
suggests that they practice in a firm itself implicates several ethical rules. One of these is RPC
7.1(a), which prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading statement regarding their legal
services. 8 RPC 7.1, Comment [13] confirms that RPC 7.1 is potentially implicated when attorneys
who practice in an office sharing arrangement present themselves in a manner that suggests that
they practice as a firm. False or misleading communication about whether lawyers practice in a
firm could additionally be deemed to violate RPC 8.4(c), which prohibits attorneys from engaging
in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation.

Conflict of Interest Analysis
Without a foundational understanding of whether attorneys in an office sharing
arrangement are a firm, the attorneys in the arrangement will be unable to effectively analyze their
ethical obligations. An example is the evaluation of conflicts of interest. Tennessee’s imputed
conflict of interest rule for private attorneys provides that while lawyers are practicing in a firm,
none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be
prohibited from doing so due to a conflict of interest, unless the prohibition is based upon a
personal interest. 9 Tennessee’s imputed disqualification rule applies only to lawyers practicing in

8

RPC 7.1, Comment [13]. ABA Formal Op. 507.

9

RPC 1.10(a).

5

a firm. 10 Consequently, if lawyers are practicing in an office sharing arrangement that is deemed
to fall within the definition of a firm, they will be held to Tennessee’s imputed conflict rules and
may have entered into or continued in the representation of one or more clients that create imputed
conflicts. 11 In contrast, if attorneys are practicing in an office sharing arrangement that is deemed
to consist of solo practices, the imputed conflict rules are inapplicable. 12 Consequently, if solo
practitioners in an office sharing arrangement hold themselves out as a firm while not applying
Tennessee’s imputed conflict rules when taking on new cases, they will be violating the Tennessee
Rules of Professional Conduct each time RPC 1.10 would disqualify an attorney from representing
a client.
The failure to determine if attorneys in an office sharing arrangement are a firm for
purposes of imputed conflict analysis can result in the disqualification of attorneys in a legal
proceeding as well as disciplinary action. Disqualification can result in significant harm to clients
who are required to locate successor counsel, delay in legal proceedings, and loss of revenue for
lawyers who are compelled to withdraw. Research revealed a number of court decisions where a
motion to disqualify counsel was filed where attorneys practicing together in a shared office

10

RPC 1.10, Comment [2](“The rule of imputed disqualification stated in paragraph [1.10(a)]
gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law
firm.”).
11

ABA Formal Op. 507.

12

Id.

6

arrangement were alleged to fall within the definition of a firm, and where representation was
thereby deemed to be prohibited under the jurisdiction’s conflict of interest rules. 13
For example, in the United States of America v. Dale C. Schafer and Marion P. Fry, federal
prosecutors sought disqualification of counsel for both individual defendants based upon the
argument that their counsel practiced in the same firm, and that representation was thereby
prohibited from jointly representing both criminal defendants. 14 The defendants’ counsel argued
that they practiced in an office sharing arrangement and did not practice together in a firm for
conflict of interest purposes. 15
The Court’s analysis relied upon a very fact specific inquiry that included the way that
attorneys in the office sharing arrangement presented themselves through their business cards,
letterhead, the sharing of information between lawyers in the office sharing arrangement, and other
details. 16 The Court ultimately denied the motion to disqualify, concluding that there was
insufficient evidence to establish that the office sharing arrangement fell within the definition of a

13

See, e.g., United States v. Varca, 896 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir. 1990)(disqualification sought for
counsel in office sharing arrangement where counsel shared office space, jointly paid office
overhead, and shared fees); United States v. Young, 73 F. Supp.2d 1014, 1018-1019 (N.D. Iowa
1999)(disqualification sought where two defense attorneys owned building jointly and
cooperated with each other on cases); United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1140 (3rd Cir.
1990)(sharing of office space and joint representation did not lead to finding that they were in a
firm due to separate letterhead and other factors).
14

United States of America v. Dale C. Schafer and Marion P. Fry, No. CR.S-05-00238 FCD,
2006 WL 3271290 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2006).
15

Id. at *3-*4.

16

Id.

7

firm. 17 However, the opinion and related court decisions reveals that more intentional efforts by
the lawyers in the office sharing arrangement to confirm to the public that they were not a firm
would have saved the significant time, expense, and risk involved in defending against the motion
to disqualify.

The Protection of Confidential Information
A second example of the importance of reaching a threshold understanding of whether an
office sharing arrangement will constitute a firm involves an attorney’s confidentiality obligations.
Attorneys are required to protect confidential client information and prevent the inadvertent or
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. 18 Confidential information includes any
information relating to the representation of the client and is thereby much broader than attorneyclient privilege, which only generally covers communications between attorney and client. 19
Confidential information may only be disclosed through the client’s informed consent, if impliedly
authorized to carry out the representation, or if disclosure is permitted by one of the circumstances
defined at RPC 1.6(b) or required by one of the circumstances defined at RPC 1.6(c). 20
Lawyers practicing in a firm are permitted to disclose information to each other relating

17

Id. at *10-*11.

18

RPC 1.6(d).

19

RPC 1.6, Comment [3].

20

RPC 1.6(a)(1)-(3).

8

to a client of any of the other lawyers of the firm. 21 Lawyers practicing in a firm are thereby not
bound by the requirements of RPC 1.6(d) as it concerns other lawyers in the firm and support staff,
and the duty to protect information only becomes applicable to disclosure outside the firm.
Lawyers in a firm can freely consult with each other about their respective clients and refer clients
to others within the firm for other legal work without the need to obtain informed confidentiality
waiver from their clients.
In contrast, if attorneys in an office sharing arrangement are deemed not to practice within
a firm, they must expend the time and resources to protect the disclosure and dissemination of
confidential information to other attorneys in the office sharing arrangement. This requires the
creation and implementation of appropriate protocols to ensure that information is not shared with
the other attorneys in the office sharing arrangement. These protocols would need to take into
account the practical realities of practicing in the shared office arrangement. For example, care
should be taken if the attorneys in the shared space use a single fax machine to prevent an attorney
other than the intended recipient from inadvertent review of the communication. If a shared
computer server is used, specific steps should be taken to ensure that each lawyer has access only
to information regarding their respective clients. Consultation about cases between attorneys in
an office sharing arrangement that is not a firm is appropriate where information is not shared that
would be sufficient to disclose the identity of the client. 22 Disclosure would otherwise require an
informed confidentiality waiver.

21

RPC 1.6, Comment [5].
RPC 1.6, Comment [4] provides that a disclosure of information in a way that cannot
reasonably be linked to the client does not reveal information relation to the representation of a
client in violation of RPC 1.6.
22

9

Decide Whether the Office Sharing Arrangement Will be a Firm
Considering the foregoing, lawyers who choose to practice in an office sharing
arrangement should expressly decide prior to entering into the arrangement whether they will
operate as a firm. This decision should not be taken lightly, as it will have significant business and
practical consequences as well as ethical ones. There are significant benefits as well as drawbacks
in operating as a firm, and some of these are highly subjective to an attorney’s preferences in the
carrying out of their law practice. For example, the autonomy that is a hallmark of a truly solo
practice might be of great benefit to a particular attorney, while another attorney might assign
significantly higher value to the potential tax consequences of operating in a professional
corporation. The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct do not dictate the particular form
through which a firm chooses to operate, and lawyers who create a firm are free to practice as a
partnership, professional corporation, or any other form recognized and permitted by applicable
law. In reaching the decision of whether to operate as a law firm, lawyers should consider each of
the forms of organization that is available and the positive and negative implications of each form
in light of the unique proclivities of their law practice.

Reduce the Office Sharing Arrangement to Writing
If lawyers who practice in a shared office arrangement decide not to operate as a firm and
instead maintain separate practices, it is recommended that the office sharing arrangement be
reduced to writing and agreed upon by each lawyer. A written agreement will help ensure that
there is a consistent and shared understanding that the lawyers will not be operating together as a
firm, and the implications for this decision and understanding. If new lawyers are brought into the

10

office sharing arrangement, they should be made a party to the written agreement and confirmation
should be obtained that they will conduct themselves accordingly.
The written agreement should affirm each lawyers’ responsibility to take adequate steps to
ensure that the perception is not created that the office sharing arrangement is a firm. Appropriate
provision should be made regarding the shared expenses of support staff salaries and benefits, rent,
and other costs. If there are shared common areas such as a conference room and library, the
agreement should reflect a plan for the amicable sharing of these resources.

Provide Managerial and Supervisory Oversight
Once an agreement is reached between the lawyers in the office sharing arrangement that
they will not be operating as a firm, each lawyer in the arrangement should create and promulgate
protocols for their own law practice commensurate with this understanding and the terms of the
agreement, including protocols relative to the protection of confidential client information,
advertising, and the intentional presentation of their law practice as a solo practice. The creation
and promulgation of such protocols is required for each attorney’s compliance with RPC 5.1,
which requires that lawyer make reasonable efforts to ensure that their practice has measures in
compliance with the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.
If the lawyers in the office sharing arrangement jointly employ support staff, it is the
responsibility of every lawyer in the office sharing arrangement to ensure that the support staff
have appropriate training, oversight, and supervision. This obligation reflects an attorney’s
obligations defined at RPC 5.3(a), which require attorneys with managerial authority over support
staff to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of nonlawyers is compatible with their
professional obligations. Care should be taken to ensure that support staff are trained regarding

11

the fact that the office sharing arrangement is not a firm and the ethical implications of this
distinction. For example, support staff should be instructed to maintain confidentiality regarding
each lawyers’ respective law practices, refraining from disclosure of any confidential information
to other lawyers in the office sharing arrangement.

Advising Clients that the Office Sharing Arrangement Is Not a Firm
If a decision is made that the office sharing arrangement will not be a firm, lawyers should
be clear about this distinction when entering into fee agreements with clients. Whether a lawyer
practices in a firm may be significant to a prospective client. A prospective client may, for
example, assign significant weight to the fact that lawyers in a firm are able to act in concert and
generally have access to greater shared resources.
Without steps being taken to clarify that the office sharing arrangement is not a firm, a
prospective client may form the erroneous perception that a firm exists and make their decision to
hire the lawyer on this understanding. To correct this misunderstanding, a lawyers’ fee agreement
or letter of engagement should reflect that the lawyer is operating a solo practice.

It is

recommended that when initially meeting with new clients, that the nature of the office sharing
arrangement be clarified, with particular care taken to ensure that clients understand the
implications of communication with other lawyers in the office sharing arrangement for purposes
of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege.

Conflict of Interest Analysis
While attorneys in an office sharing arrangement who choose not to operate as a firm will
not be subject to imputed conflict of interest rules, the existence of the office sharing arrangement

12

will nevertheless be relevant for concurrent conflict checking purposes. 23 A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person
or by a personal interest of the lawyer. 24
Attorneys who practice together in a shared office arrangement, even when not creating a
firm, will likely develop a sense of collegiality and community. If a lawyer who agrees to represent
a client in highly contested litigation discovers that the opposing party is represented by another
lawyer in the office sharing arrangement, the lawyer would need to analyze whether their
professional relationship with the other lawyer creates a “personal interest” that would
significantly limit their provision of diligent advocacy to their client.
Even where lawyers practicing in an office sharing arrangement are opposing counsel in
contested litigation conclude that they would not have a personal interest conflict, each lawyer
should additionally consider whether there is a significant risk that either lawyer would
unintentionally come into possession of communications intended for the opposing counsel. Much
of this analysis would involve consideration of the likelihood of such inadvertent disclosure
considering the specifics of the office sharing arrangements mechanisms for transmittal of
communications and shared use of a computer server. Lawyers in an office sharing arrangement
may conclude that this risk precludes representation of adverse parties in a legal proceeding.
In either of these contexts, a conflict waiver would likely be permissible pursuant to RPC
1.7(b)(1)-(4). Waiver of a concurrent conflict is permitted when a lawyer reasonably believes that
the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation, the representation is not

23

ABA Formal Op. 507.

24

RPC 1.7(a)(2).
13

prohibited by law, the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against
another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding, and where each
affected client gives informed written consent to the conflict. 25
In either of these two situations, even where a lawyer ultimately concludes that no conflict
exists, it is advisable to nevertheless disclose the circumstance to the client, explaining how the
lawyer’s professional relationship with opposing counsel will not prevent the provision of zealous
advocacy, and how the representation may otherwise proceed without creating a conflict of
interest. The client should be provided with assurance of the confidentiality protections maintained
in the office sharing arrangement. While a lawyer may correctly conclude that no genuine conflict
exists, the disclosure of the circumstance will enable the client to make a fully informed decision
about whether to employ the lawyer under the existing circumstances.

Further Inquiry
If you have questions about the content of this article, you may contact the author at
schristopher@tbpr.org or (615) 361-7500, extension 203. Questions about the article may also be
directed to the Board’s Ethics Counsel, Laura Chastain, at lchastain@tbpr.org, or (615) 361-7500,
extension 212.

25

RPC 1.7(b)(1)-(4).
14

Board of Professional Responsibility
2023 Ethics Workshop
The Board of Professional Responsibility is excited to present their 2023 Ethics
Workshop as a hybrid event, offering both in person and virtual attendance options.
In person attendance will be at the Nashville School of Law, while all others will attend
via livestream. Each attendee has the opportunity to earn 6.5 hours of dual CLE credit.
The workshop will be held Friday, November 3 and tickets are $100.00. Registration for
in person attendees closes on Friday, October 27 and virtual registration ends Wednesday,
November 1. Reserve your ticket on Eventbrite.
8:00 – 8:30

Registration
Presentation

Real Ethics Issues for Lawyers in the Use and
Application of Technology

8:30 – 9:45
1.25 (dual)

9:45 – 10:45
1.0 (dual)

10:45 – 10:55

10:55 – 12:10
1.25 (dual)

With the explosion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration
in many applications and gadgets that we use every day,
it’s easy to get lost in the sea of lofty promises for AI. This
session will explore practical applications of AI in the real
world in legal-specific technology. For many attorneys,
there are more important practical issues in the use and
dangers of technology in the practice of law. This session
will also “get real” and “down and dirty” and discuss the
more mundane issues relating to a lawyer’s everyday use
of technology.

Speaker(s)

Bill Ramsey
Nathan Sanders

Your BPR Case Before the Tennessee Supreme
Court: Your Brief May Be Your Only Shot, Make it
Persuasive

Chief Justice Holly
Kirby
Justice Roger Page
This lecture will center around a discussion designed to Lisa Rippy McGuffey
help attorneys write a disciplinary brief.

10 Minute Break

When to Say ‘No!’ Cantankerous Clients, Marijuana
& the Courts

This one-hour and 15 minute ethics presentation focuses
on the professional responsibility rules that apply when a
client wants a lawyer to perform services that might be
prohibited by law or ethics rules. Using the example of
lawyers practicing in the cannabis law realm, where

15

Jim Grogan

12:10 – 1:25

federal law prohibits activity that is both lawful and proper
in many states, the scope of the attorney-client relationship
will be carefully examined within the context of Rule 1.2 of
the Rules of Professional Responsibility, a provision that
exists in almost every American jurisdiction. This session
will then expand the discussion to spotlight recent ethics
issues of relevance.

Lunch (on your own)

Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program

1:25 – 2:25

My experience with the most important State Agency you
have probably never heard of.

Rob Briley

2:25 – 3:25

This CLE discusses the various formal ethics opinions the
ABA has issued in the last year.

David Hudson

1.0 (dual)

1.0 (dual)

3:25 – 3:35
3:35 – 4:35
1.0 (dual)

A Review of ABA Formal Ethics Opinions
10 Minute Break

Practical Ethics in Criminal Law: Fees, Conflicts,
Communication

The session will cover fees, conflicts and communication
in criminal law.

16

Wade Davies

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2023-F-169
The Board of Professional Responsibility, in response to numerous ethics inquiries on this subject, issues this opinion
as guidance regarding the ethical obligations of departing attorneys and their former firms to notify clients of their
options when an attorney leaves a firm.

OPINION
Departing lawyers and their law firms have an ethical duty to protect client interests when a lawyer leaves a law firm.
The departure of a lawyer who represents a client or is responsible for the law firm’s delivery of legal services currently
on a matter is information that may affect the status of a client’s matter and require the client to make a decision regarding
the representation as set forth in RPC 1.4. A departing lawyer and the law firm have an ethical duty to inform the client
of the lawyer’s departure. Because a client has the right to select counsel of the client’s choice, the fact that the lawyer
is leaving and where the lawyer will ultimately practice is information that will aid the client in determining whether to
stay with the law firm, leave with the lawyer or seek legal representation elsewhere. Notice should be given to the client
by the departing lawyer, the law firm, or preferably, jointly by the law firm and the lawyer.

DISCUSSION
Many lawyers will change law firms during their careers. When a lawyer departs from a law firm, clients should be
given the option to stay with the firm, go with the departing attorney, or choose another law firm altogether. 1
The law firm and the departing lawyer both have the ethical obligation to protect the clients’ interests during the departing
lawyer’s transition. “Lawyers and law firm management have ethical obligations to assure the orderly transition of client
matters when lawyers notify a firm they intend to move to a new firm.” 2 As noted in State Bar of Ariz., Formal Op. 1002 (2010) “When a lawyer’s employment with a firm is terminated, both the firm and the departing lawyer have ethical
obligations to notify affected clients, avoid prejudice to those clients, and share information as necessary to facilitate
continued representation and avoid conflicts. These ethical obligations can best be satisfied through cooperation and
planning for any departure.” Law firms may require a period of advance notice of a lawyer’s intended departure. Notice
should be long enough for clients to make decisions about who will represent them as required by RPC 1.4(a)(1).
However, law firm notification requirements cannot be so rigid that they restrict or interfere with a client’s choice of
counsel or serve to unreasonably delay the diligent representation of a client and therefore may violate RPC 5.6 which
prohibits restraints on a client’s choice of counsel.
RPC 5.6 provides: A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:
(a) a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that
restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement
concerning benefits upon retirement.
ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 99-414 (1999) at n. 1 (clients should be given the option to stay with
a firm, go with a departing attorney, or choose another firm altogether).
2
ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 489, 1 (2019).
1

17

“While the departing lawyer and the firm may unilaterally inform clients of the lawyer’s impending departure at or
around the same time that the lawyer provides notice to the firm, the firm and departing lawyer should attempt to agree
on a joint communication to firm clients with whom the departing lawyer has had significant contact, giving the clients
the option of remaining with the firm, going with the departing attorney, or choosing another attorney.” 3 Copies of the
joint communication should be provided to both the law firm and the departing lawyer.
When a lawyer gives notice of the intention to leave a firm, the firm often assigns a new lawyer to the case for the
purposes of continuity, however that does not change the firm’s obligation to cooperate with the departing lawyer to
notify the firm clients for whom the departing lawyer was responsible for providing legal services of the client’s options.
The law firm management should assess if it has the capacity and expertise to offer to continue to represent the clients.
If the departing lawyer is the only lawyer at the firm with the expertise to represent a client on a specific matter, the firm
should not offer to continue to represent the client unless the firm has the ability to retain other lawyers with similar
expertise. If a client wants to remain with the firm and the court refuses to allow the departing lawyer to withdraw, the
lawyer “shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.” 4
RPC 5.1 sets forth law firm management’s obligations to establish procedures to ensure the ethical transition of client
matters when lawyers change firms.
RPC 5.1(a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers
possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that
the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
Ideally the firm will have written policies to provide guidance to lawyers about the procedures the firm anticipates
following when a lawyer leaves the firm.” 5
“Firms also cannot restrict a lawyer’s ability to represent a client competently during such notification periods by
restricting the lawyer’s access to firm resources necessary to represent the clients during the notification period.” 6 These
resources would include client contact information, and the use of computer client data. Likewise, if the lawyer’s
departure is immediate, the firm should not restrict the lawyer’s access to client contact information because the lawyer
has the ethical obligation to notify current clients of his/her departure. RPC 1.4 requires the lawyer to “promptly inform
the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in RPC 1.0 (e),
is required by these Rules.” 7

Firms cannot prohibit or restrict access to email, voicemail, files, and electronic court filing systems where
such systems are necessary for the departing lawyer to represent clients competently and diligently during the

notice period. Firms are not obligated to provide such access to proprietary or confidential materials not necessary for
the departing lawyer to represent clients during the notice period. Once the lawyer has left the firm, the firm should set
automatic email responses and voicemail messages for the departed lawyer’s email and telephones, to provide notice of
the lawyer’s departure, and offer an alternative contact at the firm for inquiries. A supervising lawyer at the firm should
review the departed lawyer’s firm emails, voicemails and paper mail in accordance with client directions and promptly
forward communications to the departed lawyer for all clients continuing to be represented by that lawyer. 8
ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 99-414, at p. 2. (1999).
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 1.16 (c).
5
ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 489, p. 1 (2019).
6
Id. at p. 1.
7
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 1.4(a).
8
Id at p. 7.
3
4

18

There may be instances where the law firm has a substantial question as to a departing lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer as a
result of misconduct, fraud, illness, incapacity, substance abuse, dependency or similar circumstances. Under those
circumstances the law firm should use its best judgment as to the restriction of the departing lawyer’s access to files and
client information, and the duty to inform the client may fall directly upon the law firm. Such circumstances may trigger
the law firm’s duty under RPC 8.3(a) to report.

CONCLUSION
Lawyers have the right to change law firms and clients have the same right to change lawyers or law firms. Lawyers
and law firms have the ethical obligations to protect client interests when a lawyer leaves a law firm. Such protection
involves notice to the client of the lawyer’s departure, advising clients of their options for continued representation, and
a smooth transition in accordance with the client’s wishes for their continued representation.
This 7th day of August, 2023.

ETHICS COMMITTEE
Barbara Medley, Chair
Charles K. Grant
Juanita Patton

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

19

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2023-F-170

The Board of Professional Responsibility, in response to a request from Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Sandy
Garrett, issues this opinion with updated guidelines for an attorney’s acceptance of credit card payments and
vacates Formal Ethics Opinions 82-F-28 and 82-F-28(a).
OPINION
In light of changes in the Rules, opinions from other jurisdictions, the Tennessee Supreme Court’s revision of
the lawyer advertising rules, and the evolution in the use of credit cards, the Board of Professional
Responsibility vacates Formal Ethics Opinions 82-F-28 and 82-F-28(a) and updates guidelines for a lawyer’s
acceptance of credit card payments and the use of payment processing services. A lawyer may accept credit
cards or payment processing services, such as PayPal, Venmo or other like payment processing services, from
a client for payment of fees, including unearned fees (commonly referred to as retainer fees), so long as the
lawyer ensures compliance with the applicable Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct regarding client
confidentiality, how credit card transaction fees will be treated, and the security of client trust funds.
DISCUSSION
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinions 82-F-28 and 82-F-28(a) on credit card payments for legal services and
expenses were based on ABA Formal Opinion 338. On July 7, 2000, the American Bar Association withdrew
ABA Formal Opinion 338 because it “carried forward from another earlier opinion, Formal Opinion 320 (Legal
Fee Finance Plan), series of requirements that are not justified by the present-day Model Rules of Professional
Conduct.” 1
Previous ABA Formal Opinion 320 and Informal Opinions 1120 and 1176 were also withdrawn. They required
advance approval of advertisements by bar associations regarding the use of credit cards for payment of legal
services. “Because the Model Rules require only that any advertising materials used by a lawyer not be false,
fraudulent, or misleading, and because they do not require any advance approval by a bar association for a
lawyer’s participation in a credit-card plan, the Committee hereby withdraws each of the four opinions referred
to above.” 2
Credit cards are recognized as useful in facilitating the ability of many persons to obtain legal services at the
time the services are needed and to pay for those services on a schedule that comports with their budgets.
Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 00-419, July 7,
2000.
2
Id at p.1.
1

20

Accepting credit card payment of fees provides lawyers with assurance that they will be paid for their services
and obviates the need for them to expend time and money pursuing clients who do not pay on time. 3
Ethical issues that are presented in accepting payment by credit cards or payment processing services are client
confidentiality, how credit card transaction fees will be treated, and the security of client trust funds.
RPC 1.6(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client.
“A lawyer may use or reveal client confidences or secrets with the informed consent of the client.” See RPC
1.6(e)(1). Therefore, lawyers should advise clients that certain information such as the client’s identity will
be revealed to the credit card company in credit card transactions and the kind of information that is likely to
be disclosed. “A lawyer cannot assume that a client who is paying a bill by credit card has impliedly authorized
the attorney to disclose otherwise confidential information.” 4
The use of payment processing services creates privacy risks. “Several Web-based, mobile, and digital
payment-processing services and networks (“payment processing services”) facilitate payment between
individuals, between businesses, or between individuals and a business. Some are specifically designed for
lawyers and law firms (e.g., LawPay and LexCharge), while others are not (e.g., Venmo, PayPal, ApplePay,
Circle, and Square). These services operate in different ways. Some move funds directly from the payor’s
bank account to the payee’s bank account, some move funds from a payor’s credit card to a payee’s bank
account, and some hold funds for a period of time before transferring the funds to the payee. Service fees
differ for various transactions, depending on the services terms of operation. Some offer more security and
privacy than others.” 5
Privacy risks arise “from the potential publication of transactions and user-related information, whether to a
network of subscribers or to a population of users interacting with an application. For example, Venmo users,
when making a payment are permitted to input a description of the transaction (e.g., ‘$200 for cleaning
service’). Transactions then are published to the feed of each Venmo user who is a party to the transaction.
Depending on the privacy settings of each party to the transaction, other users of the application may view that
transaction and even comment on it.” 6
“Payment processing services typically offer various privacy settings. Venmo, for example enables users to
adjust their privacy settings to control who sees particular transactions. The options are (1) ‘Public,’ meaning
anyone on the internet will be able to see it, (2) ‘Friends only,’ meaning the transaction will be shared with
the ‘friends’ of the participants of the transaction, and (3) ‘Private,’ meaning it will appear only on the personal
feeds of the user and the other participant to the transaction. Venmo has a default rule that honors the more
restrictive privacy setting between the two users; if either participant’s account is set to Private, the transaction
will only appear on the feeds of the participants to the transaction, regardless of the setting enabled by the other

Cf., D.C. Ethics Op. 310 (2002) (discussing considerations involved in attorney-client fee agreements and noting certain factors
may have a positive impact on the formation of lawyer-client relationships).
4
D.C. Ethics Opinion 348 at p. 3 (2009) citing Colorado Formal Ethics Op. 99 (1997).
5
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-2 at p. 1 (2021).
6
Id. at p. 1 and 2.
3

21

participant.” 7 To protect the client’s confidentiality the lawyer should always select the most secure privacy
setting to protect against unwanted disclosure of information relating to the client’s representation.
“The lawyer must take reasonable steps to avoid disclosure by the lawyer as well as by the client, including
advising clients of any steps that they should take to prevent unwanted disclosure of information. Although
not ethically required, inserting such advice in the lawyer’s retainer or engagement agreement or on each
billing statement is wise. For example:
As a convenience to our clients, we accept payment for our services via certain online paymentprocessing services. The use of these services carries potential privacy and confidentiality risks.
Before using one of these services, you should review and elect the privacy setting that ensures
that information relating to our representation of you is not inadvertently disclosed to the public
at large.” 8
Treatment of fees charged by credit card or payment processing companies for processing payment raises the
issue of whether the lawyer should absorb the fee as the cost of doing business or pass the fee onto the client.
Nothing in the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from increasing the lawyer’s fee
for legal services to cover any additional cost incurred in accepting credit card or payment processing service
payments. The only limitation imposed by the Rules is that the fee must be “reasonable.” See RPC 1.5(a).
“Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a fee is reasonable are ‘the limitations imposed
by the client or by the circumstances.’ A client’s need to procure legal services from a lawyer whom the client
believes is qualified to meet his needs and a client’s decision that using a credit card to pay for the services is
the best means of obtaining those services are limitations or circumstances within Rule 1.5. We thus believe
that a lawyer properly may pass on to the client the fees charged by credit card companies for processing
payment.” 9 The fee to the client for the convenience of paying by credit card or payment processing service
should be no more than the actual cost to the lawyer.
RPC 1.15 mandates that a lawyer has the ethical obligation to place all funds held or received for a client’s
benefit into a trust account. “Opinions from other jurisdictions generally conclude that a lawyer may accept
credit cards for the payment of advance fees. See California Bar Formal Op. 2007-172 (2007); Colorado
Formal Ethics Op. 99 (1997); Massachusetts Bar Ethics Op. 78-11 (1978); Michigan Op. R.I. 344 (2008);
North Carolina Formal Ethics Op. 97-9 (1998); Oregon Ethics Op. 2005-172 (2005).” 10
An issue relating to the payment of advance fees by credit cards is the practice referred to as “chargeback”.
Credit card companies have the requirement that the cardholder (client) have “chargeback” rights pending
resolution of a dispute (i.e., the credit card company has the right to access the lawyer’s account to debit funds
previously deposited into that account and charge it back to the cardholder).” 11 This practice makes it
impossible for a lawyer to link an IOLTA account to the credit card company without putting other client’s
funds at risk, unless further protections are agreed between the lawyer and payment processor.
See Venmo Help Center, “Payment Activity & Privacy” available at https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/210413717Payment-Activity-Privacy.
8
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-2 at p. 3 (2021).
9
District of Columbia Ethics Op. 348 at p.3 (2009).
10
Id at p. 7.
11
Id.
7

22

Florida and North Carolina have resolved this issue by using a separate “suspense” or trust account for
receiving the credit card or payment processing service payments and then immediately transferring the funds
to the lawyer’s IOLTA account. 12 The lawyer may establish a trust account for the sole purpose of receiving
advance payments by credit card. The lawyer must withdraw all payments to this trust account immediately
and deposit them in the lawyer’s “primary” or IOLTA account. In this way the risk of a chargeback that will
impact the funds of other clients will be minimized.
Oregon suggests “The simple solution is to limit credit card payments to earned fees. 13 “A client who wishes
to use a credit card for a retainer deposit can do so by obtaining a cash advance that is deposited into the
lawyer’s trust account. This method is more costly to the client because cash advances typically carry a higher
interest rate than other charges. However, it avoids for lawyers the problems of covering the service charge
from the lawyer’s own funds and the risks associated with chargebacks.” 14
In reliance on the Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-2 (2021) and the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct,
lawyers may ethically accept payments via credit cards or a payment-processing service (such as Venmo,
PayPal or other like payment processing services), including funds that are property of a client or third person
that must be held separately from the lawyer’s own funds under the following conditions:
1. The lawyer must take reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent or unwanted disclosure of information
regarding the transaction to parties other than the lawyer and the client or third person making the
payment.
2. If the funds are the property of a client or third person (such as advances for costs and fees and escrow
deposits), the lawyer must direct the payor to a trust account set up for the sole purpose of receiving
advance payments, which are then swept into the lawyer’s IOLTA account, or through a substantially
similar arrangement.
3. The lawyer must ensure that any chargebacks are not deducted from trust funds and that the service
will not freeze the account in the event of a payment dispute.
4. The lawyer may charge a convenience fee for the cost charged to the transaction with the prior consent
of the client in an amount no larger than the actual transaction cost.
CONCLUSION
The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct are “rules of reason” and “should be interpreted with reference
to the purpose of legal representation and of the law itself.” 15 When reasonable to do so, the rules should be

97 North Carolina Formal Ethics Op. 9 (1998); Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-2 (2021).
Oregon Formal Op. No. 2005-172 at p. 4 (2005), 2016 revision.
14
Id.
15
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Scope, Comment [15].
12
13

23

interpreted to permit lawyers and clients to conduct business in a manner that society has deemed commercially
reasonable while still protecting client interests. 16
Updated guidelines for a lawyer’s acceptance of credit card payments and the use of payment processing
services require that a lawyer comply with the applicable provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct. A lawyer may accept credit cards or payment processing services, such as PayPal or Venmo or other
like payment processing services, from a client for payment of fees, including unearned fees (commonly
referred to as retainer fees), so long as the lawyer ensures compliance with the applicable Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct regarding client confidentiality, how credit card transaction fees will be treated, and the
security of client trust funds. A lawyer shall advise clients that the use of credit cards or payment processing
services will result in certain information such as the client’s identity being revealed to the credit card company
or payment processing service in such transactions and the kind of information that is likely to be disclosed.

This 7th day of August, 2023.

ETHICS COMMITTEE
Barbara Medley, Chair
Charles K. Grant
Juanita Patton

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

16

Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 21-2 at p. 5 (2021).
24

Board of Professional Responsibility
New Disciplinary Counsel
Maureen Hughes joined the Board of Professional Responsibility in the Investigations

Division in June 2023.

Maureen started her career as an Assistant State’s Attorney for the Cook County State’s
Attorney’s Office in Illinois where she prosecuted criminal offenses for over fifteen years.
Subsequently, she represented the United States in Federal cases under the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area Grant in the Southern District of Iowa.
Before joining the Board, Maureen was a Statewide Criminal Prosecutor in the Iowa
Attorney General’s Office. As an Assistant Attorney General, Maureen practiced across the state
prosecuting violent felony offenses with an emphasis on murder and sexual assault cases.
Maureen received her bachelor’s degree from St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa, and
her law degree from Westen Michigan University-Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

25

Board of Professional Responsibility
42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Board of Professional Responsibility
Organization and Composition
The Tennessee Supreme Court regulates and supervises the practice of law in Tennessee
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. The Court appoints twelve members to the Board of
Professional Responsibility (the Board) to effectuate Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 and the Court’s disciplinary
enforcement.
The Board consists of nine (9) attorneys and three (3) public (non-attorney) members who serve
three-year terms and geographically represent the entire state. In 2022-2023, Board members
volunteered 564 hours and received no compensation for their service. Members of the Board include:
Jennifer S. Hagerman (Chair)
Floyd Flippin (Vice-Chair)
Richard Briggs (Lay Member)
Ginger Wilson Buchanan
Jimmy Dunn
Stacey B. Edmonson
Charles K. Grant
Dr. Carol Johnson-Dean (Lay Member)
Barbara Medley
Juanita Patton (Lay Member)
Jody Pickens
R. Culver Schmid
The Court appoints a Chief Disciplinary Counsel who reports to the Board. The Board also
employs attorneys as Disciplinary Counsel and support staff to assist with attorney registration;
consumer assistance; investigation and litigation. A staff directory is attached as Exhibit A.
District Committee Members
The Tennessee Supreme Court appoints attorneys to serve as district committee members from
each disciplinary district in the state. In 2022-2023, 185 attorneys assisted the Court and the Board as
district committee members reviewing Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendations on investigative files
and sitting on hearing panels conducting formal disciplinary charges. Of the 185 members, 139 reported
volunteering 2,423 hours in 2022-2023 for which they received no compensation for their services. A
roster of current district committee members is attached as Exhibit B.

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Tennessee Attorney Information
The Board of Professional Responsibility provides an easy-to-use online registration system
that allows lawyers to fulfill their annual registration requirements. Public registration information is
displayed on the Board’s website to allow the judiciary, lawyers and the public to access licensing,
registration and contact information about lawyers.

Active Attorneys by Disciplinary District: 23,934*

Disciplinary District 1: 1,073 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 2: 2,696 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 3: 1,614 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 4: 1,406 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 5: 6,069 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 6: 2,585 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 7: 502 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 8: 285 Active TN attorneys
Disciplinary District 9: 3,476 Active TN attorneys
*4,228 Out of State Active TN attorneys

Active Attorney Statistics:


Years Licensed:

<5 yrs:
6-15 yrs:
16-25 yrs:
26-35 yrs:
36-45 yrs:
46+ yrs:

18%
27%
23%
15%
11%
6%

●

Age:

21-29 yrs:
30-39 yrs:
40-49 yrs:
50-59 yrs:
60-69 yrs:
70+ yrs:

6%
22%
24%
21%
16%
11%

---

Gender:

Male:
Female:
Unreported:

62%
37%
1%

●

In-state Attorneys:
Out-of-state Attorneys:

81%
19%

●

27

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Inactive Attorneys
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 10.3, inactive attorneys include
attorneys serving as justice, judge or magistrate of a court of the United States of America or
who serve in any federal office in which the attorney is prohibited by federal law from engaging
in the practice of law; retired attorneys; attorneys on temporary duty with the armed forces;
faculty members of Tennessee law schools who do not practice law; and attorneys not engaged
in the practice of law in Tennessee. In 2022-2023, 5,964 attorneys on inactive status were
registered with the Board of Professional Responsibility.
 Non-disciplinary/Administrative Suspensions:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court suspends attorneys who fail to
pay their annual fee (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 10.6); fail to complete annual continuing legal
education requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 21 § 7); fail to comply with Interest on Lawyers
Trust Account requirements (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 43 § 15); fail to pay the Tennessee professional
privilege tax (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 26); or default on student loans (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 37).
No attorney suspended pursuant to these Rules may resume practice until reinstated by Order
of the Supreme Court. Attorneys were administratively suspended during fiscal year 20222023 as follows:

Non-payment of Annual Fee:
Continuing Legal Education non-compliance:
Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts non-compliance:
Professional Privilege Tax non-compliance:
Default on a Student Loan:
Total:

28

229
159
97
68
0
553

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Assistance, Investigation and Prosecution
 Consumer Assistance Program (CAP)

Non-frivolous complaints against attorneys submitted by clients, lawyers, judges and the public
are referred to the Board’s Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) for assistance or opened and assigned
to Disciplinary Counsel for investigation. CAP answers questions, provides information, informally
mediates disputes, and refers matters to Disciplinary Counsel for investigation.
Caseload
Number of Cases Opened

2,291

Timeliness of Resolution
0 to 15 days
16 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 or more days

83.0%
9.2%
6.4%
1.3%

Mediate
Advise
Referrals
Provide Information

33.8 %
42.8%
15.9%
7.5%

Actions Taken

 Trust Account Overdraft Notifications
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 35.1(b), financial institutions report to
the Board whenever any properly payable instrument is presented against an attorney trust account
containing insufficient funds. After receiving notification of an overdraft, Board Staff request financial
information and explanation from the attorney.
Total Notifications:

78

Actions Taken
Referred to Investigations:
Resolved without Investigation:

29

24
42

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023

 Investigation
Disciplinary Counsel investigate complaints alleging unethical conduct. After investigation,
Disciplinary Counsel recommend dismissal of the complaint if there is insufficient proof of a violation
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the investigated complaint reflects a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, Disciplinary Counsel recommend diversion, private informal admonition,
private reprimand, public censure, or the filing of formal disciplinary charges. A district committee
member reviews and approves or disapproves Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation for dismissal,
diversion, and private informal admonition. The Board of Professional Responsibility reviews and
approves or disapproves Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation for private reprimand, public
censure, and the filing of formal disciplinary charges.
A.

Nature of Complaints

Relationship with
Client or Court
14%

Trust Violations
8%

Conflict of Interest
4%

Personal Behavior
1%

Criminal Convictions
2%
Fees
7%
Improper
Communications
6%
Misrepresentation
or Fraud
7%

Other
1%

Neglect or Failure to
Communicate
50%

30

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
B.

Complaints Received:
Complaints Pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

1,029
516

Total Complaints:

1,545

C.

1

Investigative Complaint Caseload

Investigative Complaint Disposition:
Administrative Dismissals:
Investigative Dismissals:
Diversions:
Private Informal Admonitions:
Private Reprimands:
Informal Public Censures:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Transferred to Litigation:
Complainant Appeal:
Placed on Retired Status:
Other: 1

286
445
60
21
14
22
9
92
27
26
18

Total:

1,020

Abated by death; complaint withdrawn; duplicate file.

31

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
 Formal Disciplinary Proceedings:
After the Board of Professional Responsibility authorizes Disciplinary Counsel to file formal
disciplinary charges (i.e., a petition for discipline) against an attorney, the matter is assigned to three
district committee members who constitute a hearing panel. The Hearing Panel sets the disciplinary
proceeding for a hearing which is open to the public unless a protective order has been entered. The
Tennessee Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9 provides otherwise.
The Board of Professional Responsibility must prove an attorney’s ethical misconduct by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hearing Panels may recommend dismissal, public censure, suspension
or disbarment.
A.

B.

2

Caseload
Formal cases filed during Fiscal Year:
Formal cases pending at beginning of Fiscal Year:

80
81

Total formal proceedings:

161

Public hearings conducted in Fiscal Year:

36

Formal Disciplinary Proceedings Disposition:
Dismissals:
Public Censures:
Suspensions:
Permanent Disbarments:
Transfer to Disability Inactive:
Temporary Suspensions:
Retired:
Reinstatements:
Other 2:

4
5
11
8
18
11
1
7
6

Total:

71

Abated by death; voluntary non-suited; denied; withdrawn; nonserious crime.
32

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023

Resolution of Formal Disciplinary Proceedings
18

11

11
8
4

7

5

1

33

6

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023

 Education and Information
The Board issues Formal Ethics Opinions and staff respond to informal ethics questions by
phone and internet. Disciplinary Counsel present continuing legal education seminars and workshops,
publish Board Notes, a bi-annual newsletter, and update the Board’s website with rule changes,
disciplinary decisions and news for attorneys, judges and the public.
A.

Ethics Opinions
i.

Informal Opinions
Ethics Counsel and Disciplinary Counsel responded to a total of 2,150 phone
and internet inquiries from attorneys seeking ethical guidance. 3

ii.

Formal Opinions
2022-F-168: The Board of Professional Responsibility issued a Formal Ethics
Opinion regarding circumstances that establish a systematic and continuous
presence in Tennessee for the practice of law as in-house counsel. A lawyer who
resides and is domiciled outside of Tennessee, who is working remotely as fulltime, in-house counsel for an organization that has its principal place of business
in Tennessee (and offices in other states), who is admitted to the practice of law
only in a jurisdiction other than Tennessee, and who is not registered as in-house
counsel in Tennessee is not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law because
these circumstances alone do not establish a “systematic and continuous
presence in Tennessee for the practice of law” as in-house counsel unless the
lawyer is engaging in conduct that would evidence an indicia of a presence in
Tennessee for the practice of law.

B.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Presentations:

Between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, Disciplinary Counsel presented forty-three
(43) CLE seminars, attended by approximately 2,964 attorneys.

3

Tennessee attorneys may submit ethics inquiries to the Board by calling 615-361-7500, ext. 212, or via the Board’s
website at www.tbpr.org.
34

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023

C.

Board Notes:

In 2022-2023, the Board emailed both Fall and Spring issues of Board Notes, the
Board’s semi-annual newsletter to all attorneys and judges and published it on the Board’s
website.

D.

Workshops
a. The Board of Professional Responsibility hosted its annual Ethics Workshop on
November 4, 2022, with 773 attorneys attending both virtually and in person. This
year’s Ethics Workshop is scheduled for November 3, 2023.
b. The Board of Professional Responsibility has offered two trust account workshops in
2022/2023, with 360 attorneys attending both virtually and in person. The next trust
account workshop is scheduled for September 13, 2023.

E.

Tennessee’s Proactive
Assessment)

Management-Based

Regulation

(Voluntary

Self-

Tennessee’s Proactive Management-Based Regulation (PMBR) program is an
interactive law office management self-assessment course. The ten self-assessments are
designed to mitigate risk, elevate competence, and enhance the quality of legal services
delivered to clients. The goal of the program is to prevent problems within a law firm before
they arise, enabling attorneys to spend more time on cases. Attorneys receive 3 Dual CLE
Credits after completion of the course. The ten self-assessments are as follows:
1. Developing Competent Practices
2. Communicating in an Effective, Timely, Professional Manner
3. Ensuring That Confidentiality Requirements Are Met
4. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
5. Retaining and Managing Secure Files
6. Managing the Law Firm/Legal Entity and Staff
7. Charging Appropriate Fees and Making Appropriate Disbursements
8. Ensuring the Use of Reliable Trust Account Practices
9. Access To Justice and Client Development
10. Promoting Wellness
35

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Since the implementation of the course in August 2019, 1,151 Tennessee attorneys have
completed the self-assessment.
Access the Tennessee PMBR program by following this link: http://tbpr.prolearn.io.

36

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Board of Professional Responsibility
Staff Directory
Name
Doug Bergeron
Melissa Boyd
Michael Brett
Julie Brown
Andrew B. Campbell
Laura Chastain
Steve Christopher

Jesús Del Campo
Dana Dunn
Eric Fuller
Sandy Garrett
Reynold Gaulden, Jr.
Elizabeth Gray

Kelly Heflin
McKenzie Hollars
Maureen Hughes
Katherine Jennings
Molly Liens
Carol Marsh
Jim W. Milam
Caroline Poore
Nicholas Price
Tony Pros
Liz Radford
Beverly Rooks
Beverly Sharpe
Pennye Sisk
Eileen Burkhalter Smith
Candis Stigall
Logan Thornton
Suzie Thurber
Cheri Weaver
Lani White
Russ Willis

Title
Disciplinary Counsel
Executive Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel
Administrative Payables Clerk
Disciplinary Counsel
Ethics Counsel
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel Investigations
Legal Assistant - Litigation
Assistant Director
Disciplinary Counsel
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Registration Assistant II
Administrative Assistant-Registration/
Scanning
Legal Assistant - Investigations
CAP Legal Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel
Executive Secretary
Registration Manager
Receptionist
Disciplinary Counsel
Disciplinary Counsel
CAP Legal Assistant (Intake)
Network Administrator
Legal Assistant – Investigations and Litigation
Lead Legal Assistant – Investigations
Director of Consumer Assistance Program
Paralegal
Disciplinary Counsel
Case Manager
Support Technician
Administrative Receivables Clerk
CAP Paralegal
Registration Assistant II
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel - Litigation
37

Extension
247
204
237
215
246
212
203
249
209
243
211
244
202
242
255
234
206
220
200
245
235
257
205
238
233
226
248
210
229
207
241
208
227
236

Exhibit A

42nd Annual Discipline Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023

District Committee Member Roster
District

1

First Name
Dan E.
Jeremy D.
Melissia
Guy W.

Last Name
Armstrong
Ball
Ball
Blackwell

1

Jeffrey A.

Cobble

1

McKenna L. (Ms.) Cox

1
1
1

1

District
4

Michael R.

Last Name
Burnett
Giaimo

4

Mary Beth

Hagan

4

Hall, IV

6

Henegar

6

4

W. Garrett

Honea

4

Rachel M.

Moses

5

Daniel
Thomas S.
Ginger Bobo
Donna S.
Megan K.
Willie F.
Adam
Keene W.
Robert E.
Jad A.

5

Johnny

5

Christopher B.
Matthew
William J.
Candi R.
Adam
Lucas
Raymond
Russell B.

Rader, IV
Santel
Shofner
Simpson
Trott
Wallace, III
Barber
Bartley
Boston
Duncan
Ellis
Fowler
Harris
Haynes
Henry
Hill
Jerkins
Leathers
Morgan

8

Jeff

Lay

5

Anthony (Tony)

Orlandi

Julie W.

Palmer

Parman
Perutelli
Phillips
Pope
Prince
Puryear

8

8
9

Amber
David A.
Joseph E.
Vanedda
Allison S.

Shaw
Stowers
Tubbs
Webb
Whitledge

1

4

1

Cecil

Mills

5

1

Last Name
Moore
Ross, Sr.
Runyon

Moody Wesley

Farmer
Greene
Hall
Harper
Ladd, Jr.
Marsh

1

6
6

First Name
Tracy (Mr.)
James Y.
Raymond

Trisha L.

Dougherty

1

6

4

Erwin (Lynn)

1

District

4

Andrew E.
Jeffery S.
Scott D.
William B.
Richard E.
William B.

1

First Name
Philip Duane

4
4
4
4
4

Michael L.

Russell

6

M. Stuart
Liz

Saylor
Sitgreaves

6

Rodger D.

Waynick

6

Beverly

White

6

Timothy

Wills

Jake
Andy
Shaun
Lisa
Robert A.
Lisa
William J.
(William) Josh

Wolaver
Anderson
Brown
Houston
Jowers
Miller
Milam
Morrow

Ryan K.

Porter

7

Vincent
Michelle
Terica
Neil
Joe

8

Dean

Seiler
Shirley
Smith
Thompson
VanDyke
Dedmon

Rachele D.

Gibson

6
7
7
7
7
7

1

Polly A.

Peterson

5

1

William O.

Shults

Mark A.
Jeffrey L.
Wm. Dale
Robyn J.

2

Lisa J.
Josh

Skelton
Stern
Amburn
Askew
Ayesh
Barcus
Busby
Carpenter
Cravens
Egle
Erdely
Grossman
Hall
Hedrick

5

5

Steven D.
Barbara
Brant

2

Howard B.

Jackson

5

Lee (Mr.)

2

Michael S

Kelley

King
Maddox
Marcum

5

Raymond G.
Daniel H.

Jeremy G.

Alpert

5

Kristina A.

Reliford

9

Taurus M.

Bailey

2

Michael J.
Mary Elizabeth
Stephen A.

5

9

William R.

Bradley, Jr.

2

Chris

McCarty

Carter

2

McDonald
Mullins
Peterson

9

S. Keenan

Carl P.
Ben
Marshall H.

5

2

P. Edward

Pratt

Peter C.
Christopher C.
(Denise) Billye
Michael J.
Jennifer Lynne
Lesa
Jeffrey
M. Clark
Taylor C. (Mr.)
David J.
James Patrick
Luther
Casey
Evan P.

Margaret
Kevin E.
Brian
David M.
Anne B.
Laura
Nicole
Greg
Jonathan C.

Chesney
Childress
Coleman
Cook
Davis
Deakins
Grida
Grisham
Hancock

Jennifer S.

Harrison

1
1
2
2
2

Maha (Ms.)

2

Heidi
Amanda M.
R. Scott
Loretta G.

2

Shannon (Ms.)

2
2
2

2
2
2

2
2

Steve
Matthew A.

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
5

7
7
7
7
7
7
7

8

8
8
8
8

2

Wayne A.

Ritchie, II

5

2

Garrett P.

Swartwood

Tillman
Tipton
Wanamaker
Wilson
Alliman
Anthony
Cameron, Jr.
Carson III
Cash

6

Richard

6

Jessica N.

3

Victoria B.
Hanson R.
Brian
Shelly
Peter
Ariel
John H. (Cam)
John M.
Larry

5

6

Jim

Robison
Sabis
Sanders
Sandler, Sr.
Sheppard
Skoney
Spark
Spoden
Sutherland
Tarpley
Warfield
Wright, Jr.
Ashworth
Baddour
Boehms
Borne
Catalano

3

Sam D.

Elliott

Marci McClellan

Curry

Rachel
John F.
Jeffrey

Fisher-Queen
Kimball
Maddux

6

9

6

9

Jennifer A.

Mitchell

Lance W.
H. Chris
Carmen (Ms.)
Ronald D.

Pope
Trew
Ware
Wells

2
2

2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Elizabeth L

Williams

4

William "Howie"

Acuff

5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5

6

6

Thomas B.

Dean

6

Hilary

Duke

6

James L.

Elkins

6

Mary Katharine
Jennifer F.

Evins
Franks

6

6

David R.

Grimmett

6

Robert H.

Hassell, II

6

Cameron R.

Hoffmeyer

Patricia
38
Eric

Holder
Larsen

6
6

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Rebecca
Lauren
Earl W.

Hinds
Holloway
Houston, II
Robbin (Ms.)
Hutton
Adam
Johnson
Tressa V.
Johnson
E. Patrick (Pat) Lancaster
Moore
Melisa
Zachary
Moore
Will
Perry
Steve
Ragland
Marc
Reisman
Holly J.
Renken
Zayid
Saleem
Emmett L.
Whitwell

Exhibit B

Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection
Annual Report
Fiscal Year July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023
Tennessee Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
Organization and Composition
The Tennessee Supreme Court has established the Tennessee Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection to
reimburse claimants for losses caused by any dishonest conduct committed by lawyers practicing in this state.
The purpose of the Tennessee Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, as set forth in Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 25, is to promote public confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal profession
as a whole by reimbursing losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct of lawyers practicing in
this state. The Court appoints a nine-member board to manage Tennessee Lawyers Fund for Client Protection.
The Board consists of six lawyers and three nonlawyers who geographically represent the state. In 2022-2023,
Board members volunteered 117 hours and received no compensation for their service. Current members of
the Board include:
Stacy E. Roettger – Knoxville (Chair)
Christen Blackburn – Nashville (Vice-Chair)
Pamela Z. Clary – Memphis (Lay Member)
Ellie Kittrell – Knoxville (Lay Member)
Sabi Kumar – Nashville, TN (Lay Member)
Amanda Morse – Knoxville
Junaid Odubeko – Nashville
Telesa Taylor – Memphis, TN
Quinton Thompson – Memphis
Tennessee Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection is assisted by staff at the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
Fund Resources
The Fund does not receive any government money or tax dollars. The Fund consists of $10 annual
payments from attorneys pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 10.2(c) and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 25 § 2. The fund also
receives unidentified trust funds from lawyer IOLTA accounts if after 12 months, the lawyer determines that
ascertaining the ownership or securing the return of the funds will not succeed, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R.
8, RPC 1.15(f).

39

Eligible Claims
Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 25 §§ 1 and 12, claims must be filed within three (3) years of the date that a loss
occurred or reasonably should have been discovered, but in no event later than five (5) years from the date of the loss.
The loss must be caused by dishonest conduct committed by lawyers practicing in Tennessee. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 25 sets
out procedures for filing and processing claims. All claimants must file a complaint with the Board of Professional
Responsibility for consideration of their claim.
Claim Limits

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 25 § 13 provides:

No payment shall exceed the sum of $100,000 for loss sustained by any one claimant nor the
aggregate sum of $400,00 with respect to losses caused by any one lawyer or former lawyer unless
otherwise determined by the Board and approved by the Court. No payment shall exceed $400,000
per transaction regardless of the number of persons aggrieved or the amount of loss in such
transaction, unless otherwise determined by the Board and approved by the Court. No payment
shall exceed ten percent of the assets of the Fund at the time it is made, unless otherwise determined
by the Board and approved by the Court. Where joint liability of wrongdoers exists, the Board has
discretion to allocate payments as it deems appropriate within these limits. Payments may be in
lump sum or installments as the Board may determine.
Resolution of Claims Filed
1.
2.
3.
4.

New Claims Filed:
Claims Paid:
Claims Dismissed:
Claims Pending at
beginning of Fiscal Year:

20
8
15

totaling $221,627.10

47

Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Claims Paid by Attorney
Attorney

Joseph Crabtree
Wesley Hatmaker
Jason R. McLellan
Janet Okoye
Philip Perez
Judson Phillips
James Schaeffer, Jr.

County/State

McMinn
Campbell
Sullivan
Tennessee
Davidson
Williamson
Shelby

40

Awards
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Reimbursed

1,250.00
16,651.86
196,286.26
1,663.33
2,750.00
2,277.15
748.50

Disciplinary and Licensure Actions
(April 2023 – September 2023)

PERMANENT DISBARMENTS
GLENDA ANN ADAMS, BPR #019948
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Glenda Ann Adams
from the practice of law and ordered her to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a default hearing upon the disciplinary petition, the Hearing Panel determined by a preponderance
of the evidence that Ms. Adams’ felony convictions for conspiracy to violate the travel act and bribery of a
public servant constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; conduct that was
prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that reflected adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as a lawyer.
The Panel found Ms. Adams’ conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b),
(c), and (d) (misconduct) and warranted permanent disbarment.
KENT LOWERY BOOHER, BPR #011416
ROANE COUNTY
Effective August 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Kent Lowery Booher
from the practice of law and ordered him to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined by a preponderance of the
evidence that Mr. Booher’s felony conviction of illegal sexual contact with minor children, intent to distribute
visual media relative to that illegal conduct, and violation of sex offender registry, of which Mr. Booher was
a member, constituted serious criminal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; was
prejudicial to the administration of justice and reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer.

41

The Panel found Mr. Booher’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b),
(c), and (d) (misconduct) and warranted permanent disbarment.
A. SAIS PHILLIPS FINNEY, BPR #028845
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred A. Sais Phillips
Finney from the practice of law and ordered her to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
After final default hearing upon the disciplinary petition, the hearing panel determined by a
preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Finney failed to act diligently in the representation, failed to reasonably
communicate with her clients regarding the status of their case, charged an unreasonable fee for the work
performed, failed to refund all or a portion of client funds, failed to hold client funds in trust account, failed to
respond to the disciplinary complaints and inquiries from the Board’s disciplinary counsel and knowingly
violated the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Finney violated Tennessee Rules of Professional
Conduct: 1.3 (diligence),1.4(a) (communication), 1.5(a) (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping of property and funds),
1.16(d)(6) (declining and terminating representation), 8.1(b) (maintaining the integrity of the profession), and
8.4(a) (misconduct). The hearing panel recommended a suspension and, pursuant to its authority under
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, the Supreme Court of Tennessee upon review of said recommendation
notified the parties it believed the recommendation was too lenient and asked the parties to brief the issue. Ms.
Finney failed to file a brief and the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued its order of enforcement imposing
permanent disbarment.
Ms. Finney must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28.1
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
JAMES E. FOGLESONG, BPR #001126
KNOX COUNTY
Effective July 5, 2023, the Tennessee Supreme Court disbarred James E. Foglesong of Knox County,
Tennessee, from the practice of law. Mr. Foglesong consented to permanent disbarment because he could not
successfully defend the charges alleged in a disciplinary investigation pending against him.

42

Mr. Foglesong represented a client who, while living, received monthly pension benefits from the City
of Knoxville Pension Fund. Following the client’s death in March of 2016, Mr. Foglesong continued to accept
and deposit the Knoxville pension checks into his client’s bank account and used his power of attorney to
withdraw said funds for his own use over a five (5) year period. Following criminal investigation, Mr.
Foglesong pled guilty to a class D felony theft in April of 2023 and received judicial diversion.
Mr. Foglesong’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping of property)
and 8.4(b) (misconduct).
Mr. Foglesong must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
URURA W. MAYERS, BPR #023319
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective July 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Urura W. Mayers from
the practice of law and ordered her to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined Ms. Mayers withdrew client
funds from her trust account without authorization on multiple occasions and used those client funds to gamble
at casinos. Ms. Mayers attempted to deceive investigators by making false factual statements and submitting
altered bank records. After being temporarily suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, § 12.3, for misappropriating funds and posing a threat of substantial harm to the public,
Ms. Mayers failed to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, § 28 requirements for suspended attorneys
by failing to notify the courts, opposing counsel, and clients of her suspension. Ms. Mayers continued to engage
in the unauthorized practice of law for an extended period of time, failed to respond to subsequent lawful
Board requests for information, and failed to participate in the disciplinary process.
Ms. Mayers’ actions and omissions violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.15 (safekeeping
property and funds), 1.5(a) (fees), 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal),
5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), 8.4(a) (violating the Rules
of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d)
(misconduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (knowingly failing to comply with
a final court order entered in a proceeding in which the lawyer is a party).

43

Ms. Mayers must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
ROBERT R. REXRODE, BPR #016508
TENNESSEE LAWYER
Effective June 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Robert R. Rexrode
from the practice of law and ordered him to pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a final default hearing upon the disciplinary petition, the Hearing Panel determined by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Rexrode knowingly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
West Virginia, knowingly engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary
counsel in the investigation of the disciplinary complaint.
The Panel found Mr. Rexrode’s conduct violated West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5
(b)(2) (unauthorized practice), 8.1 (bar admissions and disciplinary matters), and 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct)
and warranted permanent disbarment.
JAY ARTHUR ROSENBERG, BPR #033806
TENNESSEE LAWYER
Jay Arthur Rosenberg was permanently disbarred by Order of Reciprocal Discipline entered by the
Supreme Court of Tennessee on August 8, 2023. Mr. Rosenberg was permanently disbarred by Order of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals entered April 20, 2023.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline directing
Mr. Rosenberg to inform the Court, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice, why disbarment imposed
by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals should not be imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Mr.
Rosenberg failed to file a response with the Court as ordered.
Mr. Rosenberg must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

44

STEVEN EDWARD SAMS, BPR #022560
KNOX COUNTY
Effective June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Steven Edward Sams
from the practice of law. Mr. Sams shall pay all costs incurred to the Board of Professional Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition consisting of five (5) separate disciplinary complaints,
the Hearing Panel determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Sams—who had been disbarred on
November 26, 2014, and again on August 5, 2016—engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing
services requiring the professional judgment of a lawyer to five separate clients. Mr. Sams provided these
services, which he advertised as “immigration consulting” services (including “form selection” and
“strategy”), through S2 Consulting, LLC—a limited liability company created by Mr. Sams. The Hearing Panel
further found that Mr. Sams failed to notify his clients of his disbarment status; misrepresented himself as a
licensed attorney when, in fact, he was not; prepared “ghostwritten” immigration forms (which, in some
instances, contained material factual inaccuracies) for signature by other licensed attorneys; misrepresented
the status of certain immigration cases; failed to notify clients of deadlines for certain submissions; violated
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations; and knowingly disobeyed obligations to the Federal
Immigration Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court. In certain instances, Mr. Sams’ conduct resulted in
irreparable injury.
The Panel found Mr. Sams’ conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4 (knowingly
disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4 (misconduct)
and warranted permanent disbarment.

SUSPENSIONS
TROY LEE BOWLIN, BPR #025893
KNOX COUNTY
Effective April 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9, Sections 12.2 and 14.1, suspended Troy Lee Bowlin from the practice of law for three (3) years with thirty
(30) days served as an active suspension and remainder served on probation with conditions, including
completion of the Board Trust Account Workshop, an immediate independent audit and reconciliation of all
45

trust accounts by a certified public accountant, monthly reconciliation of trust account by Mr. Bowlin, with
review of the trust account by a certified public accountant every six months, and completion of five additional
continuing legal education ethics hours each suspension year.
A Petition for Discipline containing one (1) complaint was filed by the Board on March 1, 2022. Mr.
Bowlin failed to properly maintain client and third-party funds in the law firm’s trust account, failed to audit
and reconcile the firm’s trust account on a reasonable basis, and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure his
firm had effective measures in place to properly oversee that nonlawyer staff conduct was compatible with his
professional obligations.
Mr. Bowlin executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds) and 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer
assistants).
Mr. Bowlin 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.
ROBERT HARRIS GOLDER, BPR #034911
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Robert Harris Golder from the
practice of law for two (2) years, with three (3) months being an active suspension pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder served on probation conditioned upon engagement of
a practice monitor, payment of Board costs, and payment of restitution. The disciplinary action involved three
(3) separate complaints.
In the first disciplinary matter, Mr. Golder failed to render competent representation, failed to consult
with the client about how best to achieve the client’s objectives, failed to reasonably expedite the litigation,
failed to reasonably respond to requests from the client regarding the status of the case, failed to deposit
unearned fees in his trust account, willfully ignored court orders, and failed to comply with the local rules of
court regarding federal habeas corpus petitions.
In the second disciplinary matters, Mr. Golder failed to reasonably expedite the client’s habeas corpus
petition and failed to file an amended petition on behalf of his client.
In the third disciplinary matter, Mr. Golder and co-counsel were retained to prosecute a habeas corpus
action in the Northern District of Mississippi. Mr. Golder, appearing pro hac vice, signed co-counsel and local

46

counsel’s name to the petition without obtaining the “wet signature” of local counsel, in violation of the local
rules of court. Mr. Golder also failed to inform his client that the application for pro hac vice admission of cocounsel had been denied by the court.
The Hearing Panel found the conduct of Mr. Golder violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct
1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping funds and property), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 3.4 (c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4(a) (misconduct).
Mr. Golder 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 RALPH HICKMAN, JR., BPR #020125
SEVIER COUNTY
Effective June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended James Ralph Hickman, Jr. from
the practice of law for one (1) year with six (6) months active suspension and the remainder on probation,
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2. Mr. Hickman must be under the supervision of a
practice monitor while on probation and must complete fifteen (15) additional CLE hours in estate management
and three (3) additional hours of ethics CLE.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, the Hearing Panel determined Mr. Hickman, while
representing a client in a probate matter, failed to establish an appropriate fee arrangement and thereafter
collected unreasonably excessive fees; unethically agreed to represent the decedent’s estate even though Mr.
Hickman’s father was the personal representative of the estate, thereby creating an impermissible conflict of
interest; knowingly filed a motion before the probate court containing material false statements; knowingly
failed to comply with court orders; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
Mr. Hickman’s actions and omissions violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.5(a) (fees);
3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal); and 8.4(c) (misconduct).
Mr. Hickman 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.

47

NEWTON S. HOLIDAY, III, BPR #012990
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective August 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Newton S. Holiday, III, from
the practice of law for two (2) years, with six (6) months being an active suspension and the remaining eighteen
(18) months served on probation pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, conditioned upon
payment of $9,500.00 in restitution prior to his reinstatement to Lanetta Carson-Bell, engagement of a practice
monitor and payment of the Board’s costs.
The disciplinary action involved one (1) matter in which Mr. Holiday failed to act with reasonable
diligence, failed to communicate with his client or keep her informed of significant events and developments
in her case, accepted representation pursuant to a contingent fee agreement which was not in writing, offered
to pay the client and secured her acceptance of a settlement amount for his own negligence without advising
the client of his conflict of interest and the advisability of seeking independent legal advice.
The Hearing Panel found the conduct of Mr. Holiday violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct
1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5(c) (fees), 1.8(h) (conflicts of interest), and 8.4(a) (misconduct).
Mr. Holiday 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 #018784
MAURY COUNTY
Effective May 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended James Michael Marshall from the
practice of law for one (1) year pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2.
This disciplinary action involved two (2) separate complaints. In one disciplinary matter, Mr. Marshall
failed to prepare and file an Order reflecting the trial court’s ruling, resulting in contempt charges being filed
against his client, failed to timely address an Order of Protection or advise his client of the ramifications of
cohabitation, failed to fully advise his client that the dismissal of his divorce complaint would not affect the
pending counter-complaint for divorce filed by his wife, and failed to timely withdraw as attorney of record
after closing his file. In a second disciplinary matter, Mr. Marshall created a conflict of interest by engaging
in an inappropriate relationship with his client during the representation. Mr. Marshall submitted a conditional
guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.7 (conflict of interest), and 1.16 (declining or terminating representation).
48

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.
GARY NEIL PATTON, BPR #003878
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Effective May 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Gary Neil Patton from the practice
of law for one (1) year with thirty (30) days being an active suspension and the remaining served on probation
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 12.2. During the probationary period, Mr. Patton shall
incur no new complaints of misconduct that relate to conduct occurring during the period of suspension and
probation and which results in the recommendation by the Board that discipline be imposed.
A Petition for Discipline consisting of one (1) complaint was filed by the Board alleging Mr. Patton
failed to reasonably communicate with his client; collected a fee for work he performed without filing a motion
for approval of the fee in violation of the rules of the Probate Court and failed to maintain the same in his trust
account prior to receiving approval of the court; obtained a release of liability from his client without advising
his client, in writing, of the desirability of seeking independent counsel; and engaged in unprofessional conduct
through inappropriate conversations with his client in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 1.8 (h) (conflict of interest), and 1.15 (safekeeping
property and funds). Mr. Patton, upon being ordered to do so, promptly paid into Court the fee he had received
for the work he performed.
Mr. Patton 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.
BRIAN CHADWICK RICKMAN, BPR # 017534
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective September 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended attorney Brian Chadwick
Rickman from the practice of law for five (5) years pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2.
Two (2) years will be served as an active suspension with the remaining three (3) years served as a probationary
period.
A Petition and Supplemental Petition for Discipline containing six (6) complaints were filed by the
Board against Mr. Rickman alleging that Mr. Rickman repeatedly failed to ensure the safekeeping of client
49

funds, failed to protect clients against the misconduct of his supervising employer, and failed to report the
misconduct of his supervisors to the court or to the Board. Further, Mr. Rickman failed to comply with court
orders directing the disbursement of client funds and failed to comply with requests for information from
Disciplinary Counsel. Additionally, Mr. Rickman, while suspended from the practice of law, failed to notify
the court and opposing counsel of his suspension in compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, § 28.
Mr. Rickman executed a Conditional Guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.2 (Scope of Representation); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property and Funds); 3.4 (Fairness to
Opposing Party and Counsel); 5.1 (Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyers); 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters), 8.3 (Reporting Professional Misconduct), and 8.4(d) and (g) (Misconduct).
Mr. Rickman 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.
GERALD D. WAGGONER, JR., BPR #013988
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Gerald D. Waggoner, Jr., from the
practice of law for two (2) years, with eighteen (18) months on active suspension pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct.
R. 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder served on probation, conditioned on the engagement of a practice
monitor, payment of restitution, payment of Board costs, and twelve (12) additional hours of CLE in ethics or
handling client property. The disciplinary matter resulted from two (2) separate complaints.
In the first disciplinary matter, Mr. Waggoner, while his license was suspended, continued to market
and manage his law practice; directly and indirectly communicated with former clients, office staff, and
attorneys; and participated in recruiting and hiring attorneys. In the second disciplinary matter, Mr. Waggoner
received settlement funds in a minor’s settlement but failed to transmit the net proceeds to the court clerk as
ordered by the court to be held until the child reached the age of majority, failed to obtain court approval of a
minor’s settlement resulting in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, and failed to re-file that case.
The Supreme Court found Mr. Waggoner had violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence),
1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation),
5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(a) (misconduct) and (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice).

50

Mr. Waggoner must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for
reinstatement.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
DARREN VINCENT BERG, BPR #023505
KNOX COUNTY
On July 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Darren Vincent Berg from
the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Berg poses a threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of
Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law
in cases where an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Berg is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 24, 2023. After August 24, 2023, Mr. Berg shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Berg 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. Berg is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Berg 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. Berg
may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
BRYAN LEE CAPPS, BPR #019999
KNOX COUNTY
On June 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Bryan Lee Capps from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Capps misappropriated funds for his personal use and poses a threat of
substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary
51

suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney misappropriating funds for personal
use and/or posing a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Capps is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by July 12, 2023. After July 12, 2023, Mr. Capps shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Capps 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. Capps is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Capps 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. Capps
may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
JOSEPH HOUSTON CRABTREE, JR., BPR #011451
MCMINN COUNTY
On September 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Joseph Houston
Crabtree, Jr., from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Crabtree failed to respond to the Board of
Professional Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9
provides for the immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an
attorney’s failure to respond to a complaint of misconduct.
Mr. Crabtree previously was suspended on November 22, 2022, for a period of three (3) years, with
one (1) year served on active suspension and the remaining two (2) years on probation. That suspension
remains in effect.
Pursuant to this new suspension, and consistent with the November 22, 2022, suspension, Mr. Crabtree
is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and may not represent any existing clients. In
addition, Mr. Crabtree shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence
wherein the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Crabtree 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 is required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

52

Mr. Crabtree 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. Crabtree
may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
JONATHAN WILLIAM DOOLAN, BPR #024397
KNOX COUNTY
On May 19, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Jonathan William Doolan
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Doolan failed to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility concerning two (2) complaints 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. Doolan is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by June 18, 2023. After June 18, 2023, Mr. Doolan shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence wherein the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Doolan 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 is required to deliver to all clients any papers or
property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Doolan 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 temporary suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Doolan may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the temporary suspension by petition
to the Supreme Court.
KEITH ALLEN POPE, BPR #014146
KNOX COUNTY
On September 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Keith Allen Pope
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Pope is substantially non-compliant with a Tennessee Lawyers
53

Assistance Program and poses a threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule
9 provides for the immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases where the
attorney is substantially non-compliant with a Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring agreement
and/or poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Pope is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by October 12, 2023. After October 12, 2023, Mr. Pope shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence wherein the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Pope 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 is required to deliver to all clients any papers or
property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Pope 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. Pope
may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
MONICA AISLYNN TIMMERMAN, BPR #031536
SHELBY COUNTY
On September 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Monica Aislynn
Timmerman from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Timmerman is substantially non-compliant with a
Tennessee Lawyer Assistance Program and poses a threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of
Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate temporary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice
law in cases where the attorney is substantially non-compliant with a Tennessee Lawyers Assistant Program
monitoring agreement and/or poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Ms. Timmerman is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease
representing existing clients by October 27, 2023. After October 27, 2023, Ms. Timmerman shall not use any
indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence wherein the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Timmerman 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 and is required to deliver to all
clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

54

Ms. Timmerman 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. Ms.
Timmerman may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.
SAMUEL ERVIN WHITE, BPR #029973
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Samuel Ervin White from
the practice of law upon finding that Mr. White misappropriated funds for his personal use and poses a threat
of substantial harm to the public. 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 misappropriation of funds for his
personal use.
Mr. White is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by July 30, 2023. After July 30, 2023, Mr. White shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where 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. Mr. White 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
may, for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

55

PUBLIC CENSURES

ROBERT SADLER BAILEY, JR., BPR #011230
SHELBY COUNTY
On May 8, 2023, Robert Sadler Bailey, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In his representation of a client, Mr. Bailey failed to hold disputed funds in his trust account until the
dispute had been resolved.
By these acts, Mr. Bailey, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(e) (safeguarding property
and funds) 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.
JOHN MICHAEL BOUCHER, BPR #022446
KNOX COUNTY
On April 5, 2023, John Michael Boucher, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Boucher agreed to represent a client in pursuing an employment discrimination claim. Mr.
Boucher’s client signed a contingency fee agreement. The fee agreement required the client to forward $5,000
to Mr. Boucher for anticipated case related expenses. The payment was deposited by Mr. Boucher into his
trust account following receipt. Mr. Boucher subsequently unilaterally modified the fee agreement by claiming
the $5,000 payment as a fee and removed the payment from his trust account. Mr. Boucher then appeared as
the client’s legal representative in an administrative complaint filed with the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission, despite the fact that the client’s employment discrimination claim had no valid factual or legal
basis. Mr. Boucher also failed to maintain good communication during the representation.
By these acts, Mr. Boucher has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 1.8(a)
(modification of a fee agreement), 1.15 (client property and funds), 3.1 (meritorious claims), and
8.4(a)(attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these

56

violations. As a condition of the Public Censure, Mr. Boucher shall be required to return the former client’s
$5,000 payment within sixty (60) days of the date of acceptance 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.
RICKY A. W. CURTIS, BPR #019761
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On July 7, 2023, Ricky A. W. Curtis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Curtis represented a client on an appeal of a criminal sentence. After the appeal was filed, the
client was charged with additional felonies and Mr. Curtis negotiated a plea on the subsequent charges which
included his client’s dismissal of the appeal of the first conviction. There was a delay in the client’s entry of
the plea on the subsequent charges, and Mr. Curtis failed to timely file the brief in support of the appeal of the
first charges. The court sent Mr. Curtis a notice and entered an order directing him to file his brief, and he did
not respond to either. The court then ordered Mr. Curtis to appear, which he did. The client eventually
dismissed the appeal as planned.
By these acts, Mr. Curtis has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.4(c) (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.
KEITH LANE EDMISTON, BPR #018366
TENNESSEE LAWYER
On September 26, 2023, Keith Lane Edmiston, a South Carolina attorney licensed to practice law in
Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme
Court.
Mr. Edmiston accepted a $600 fee to defend a client against a lawsuit filed on a sworn account, but Mr.
Edmiston failed to appear at the hearing on the matter. Mr. Edmiston then accepted $1,125 to appeal the matter

57

and filed no appeal and took no further action for the client. A few weeks later, Mr. Edmiston placed his
license on disability inactive status.
In another client file, Mr. Edmiston accepted a filing fee of $335 for a client for whom he filed
bankruptcy. Mr. Edmiston did not pay the filing fee to the court, did not place it in trust, and did not return it
to the client. Mr. Edmiston’s former law partner eventually paid the filing fee to the court.
In a third client file, Mr. Edmiston filed bankruptcy for another client but was not able to complete the
representation prior to placing his license on disability inactive status. Mr. Edmiston failed to respond to
multiple inquiries from the client. Another attorney completed the client’s bankruptcy.
By these acts, Mr. Edmiston is in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.15 (safekeeping funds), 1.16 (termination of representation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing
party), and 8.4 (prejudice to the administration of justice). He is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations
with the condition that he make restitution to the first client of $1,725.00 and restitution to the former law
partner of $335.00 within 90 days.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
MICHAEL LLOYD FREEMAN, BPR #028698
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 31, 2023, Michael Lloyd Freeman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Freeman represented a client on a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. Mr.
Freeman timely filed an appeal, but he did not timely file his appellate brief. After notice from the court, he
filed an untimely motion for an extension of time, which was granted. Mr. Freeman missed this deadline, and
filed an untimely motion to stay the appeal, which was denied. The court provided another deadline for the
filing of the brief, with which Mr. Freeman did not comply. After the court set an additional deadline with
which Mr. Freeman did not comply, the court ordered the brief to be filed on a particular date with an
accompanying motion addressing the lateness. Mr. Freeman filed the brief but did not include an explanation
in his motion. Mr. Freeman’s brief was eventually accepted by the court.

58

By these acts, Mr. Freeman has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.4(c) (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.
CRYSTAL GOAN JESSEE, BPR #024445
GREENE COUNTY
On April 24, 2023, Crystal Goan Jessee, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In representing her client in a criminal case, Ms. Jessee filed a poorly drafted and ambiguous motion
to recuse. In the motion and affidavit, Ms. Jessee made a frivolous statement concerning the judge’s
representation of his current wife in a prior divorce proceeding without making reasonable inquiry regarding
the truth of this assertion. Ms. Jessee’s statement implied that such conduct by the judge was improper.
Further, Ms. Jessee made a reckless statement that the judge had endorsed her opponent in an election in
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
By these acts, Ms. Jessee has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 3.1 (meritorious
claims and contentions), and 8.2 (judicial and legal officials) 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.
TIFFANY MARCILYNNE JOHNS, BPR #027860
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On August 7, 2023, Tiffany Marcilynne Johns, 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 Ms. Johns to represent her in an uncontested divorce. Ms. Johns was provided the correct
address for the estranged spouse in June 2022, and she did not send a draft marital dissolution agreement to
the spouse until November 2022. After the marital dissolution agreement was executed, Ms. Johns appeared
in court for the hearing to enter the final decree in April 2023, but she did not provide the court with the original

59

decree for entry. The final decree of divorce was not entered until June 2023. Ms. Johns failed to respond to
requests for information from her client.
By these acts, Ms. Johns has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), and 1.4
(communication) 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.
KRISTI LEA NORRIS JOHNSON, BPR #022082
CARTER COUNTY
On July 13, 2023, Kristi Lea Norris Johnson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Clients hired Ms. Johnson in January 2016 on a car wreck matter. Ms. Johnson filed a lawsuit on January 30,
2017, and the case was set for trial in 2019 and 2020 and continued each time. Ms. Johnson filed a nonsuit of
the case on December 1, 2021. The clients state that they were never informed and did not agree to the nonsuit.
Ms. Johnson sent communication to the clients thereafter in which she stated she was working on scheduling
a new trial date. In June 2022, the clients discovered the nonsuit and terminated the representation.
By these acts, Ms. Johnson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of representation),
1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation) 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.
CHARLES SCOTT JUSTICE, BPR #025496
KNOX COUNTY
On July 18, 2023, Charles Scott Justice, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In March 2020, Mr. Justice filed a lawsuit for a client arising from the alleged faulty construction of a
deck at the client’s residence. The trial date was continued several times and then taken off the court’s active
docket in April 2021. The client contacted Mr. Justice about the status of the matter in June, September and
October 2021, with no substantive response. Mr. Justice sent an email to the client in March 2022 stating that
60

he wanted to withdraw from the matter, but the client did not receive the email. Mr. Justice did not move to
withdraw from the case and took no further action.
By these acts, Mr. Justice has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16 (termination of
representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication) 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.
KEVIN MCLEAN KELLY, BPR #027345
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 24, 2023, Kevin McLean Kelly, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In the first complaint, Mr. Kelly failed to adequately communicate with his client. Mr. Kelly failed to
stay abreast of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals opinion issued on November 30, 2020, failed to
apprise his client of the same, and failed to preserve his client’s right to appeal. Mr. Kelly also did not timely
withdraw from the representation, which would have allowed his client to retain new appellate counsel or
proceed pro se.
In a second complaint, Mr. Kelly failed to adequately communicate with his client. Mr. Kelly also
failed to withdraw from the representation after being discharged by the client.
By these acts, Mr. Kelly has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.16
(terminating representation); and 3.2 (expediting litigation) 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.
LINDSEY LEIGH LAWRENCE, BPR #032697
WILSON COUNTY
On July 14, 2023, Lindsey Leigh Lawrence, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

61

Ms. Lawrence failed to pursue her client’s legal objectives and did not maintain good communication
with her client. An investigation also revealed that Ms. Lawrence formerly maintained a YouTube channel
where she posted videos of herself smoking marijuana. Ms. Lawrence identifies herself as an attorney in these
videos. By openly engaging in conduct that is criminally actionable in Tennessee, Ms. Lawrence demonstrated
a lack of respect for the law and legal institutions.
By these acts, Ms. Lawrence has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence); 1.4
(communication); 8.4(b) (criminal conduct); and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial 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.
CHARLOTTE ANN LEIBROCK, BPR #026433
COCKE COUNTY
On April 19, 2023, Charlotte Ann Leibrock, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Leibrock represented a man in litigation with a family member. The client lived in a home owned
by the family member, and the client asked Ms. Leibrock to remove a Ring doorbell camera from the home.
On October 15, 2021, Ms. Leibrock removed the Ring doorbell from the home without permission of the
homeowner, causing some property damage. Ms. Leibrock was criminally charged for this conduct and pled
guilty to disorderly conduct, a Class C Misdemeanor.
By these acts, Charlotte Ann Leibrock has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (criminal
conduct) 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.
CRAIG THOMAS PHELPS, BPR #037612
TENNESSEE LAWYER
On July 18, 2023, Craig Thomas Phelps, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

62

Mr. Phelps is licensed to practice law in Tennessee, and he serves in the United States Air Force in
Great Falls, Montana. Mr. Phelps intended to file a motion to place his license on military exempt status with
the Board of Professional Responsibility in March 2020, but he did not do so. Mr. Phelps did not pay his
annual registration fee for 2021. He received three notices of the fee and his failure to pay it. Mr. Phelps
incorrectly believed the notices were in error because he was “military exempt.” On March 15, 2021, Mr.
Phelps’ law license was suspended for his failure to pay his annual fee, but he did not stop practicing law. On
March 7, 2022, he stopped practicing law. Mr. Phelps received discipline from the United States Air Force
for this conduct.
By these acts, Mr. Phelps has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law)
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.
HUGH REID POLAND, III, BPR #019154
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
On June 23, 2023, Hugh Reid Poland, III, 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. Poland represented a client who settled a custody dispute at mediation, which settlement set forth,
in part, a new parenting and visitation arrangement for a trial period of 90 days and specifically required Mr.
Poland to draft the required agreed order, parenting plan, and child support worksheet. Mr. Poland failed to
respond to communications from his opposing counsel regarding the required documents and failed to draft
the documents even after a Motion to Enforce the Mediation was filed.
Opposing counsel ultimately filed the required documents, which included inaccurate statements about
Mr. Poland’s client, and Mr. Poland approved the same for filing without notifying his client or obtaining her
approval. Finally, Mr. Poland made several misrepresentations to his client, in writing, that he would take
specific actions to address her concerns; however, Mr. Poland took no further action and ultimately stopped
responding to his client’s communications and requests for information. Mr. Poland executed a conditional
guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 8.4(c) (misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice).

63

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
JIMMY LEO RICHARDSON, BPR #032500
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On July 26, 2023, Jimmy Leo Richardson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Richardson was appointed to represent a father in a dependency and neglect petition involving a
child. Mr. Richardson ceased representing the father. Mr. Richardson then began representing the mother in
an action to modify the permanent parenting plan for the child. The two matters were substantially related, the
subsequent client’s interests were materially adverse to the former client’s interests, and the former client did
not give timely informed consent confirmed in writing.
By these acts, Mr. Richardson has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (duties to former clients)
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.
JAMES KIDWELL SCOTT, BPR #016893
KNOX COUNTY
On April 27, 2023, James Kidwell Scott, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Scott represented a client in a civil matter, and he did not provide his client with a copy of the
discovery propounded to the client for four months. He did not inform the client when a motion to compel the
discovery was filed. Mr. Scott did not comply with court deadlines for the production of discovery, and he did
not inform his client of the deadlines. A second motion to compel was filed against Mr. Scott’s client, and he
did not inform the client of the second motion to compel.
The court entered an order striking the amended complaint which directed Mr. Scott to provide his
client with a copy of the order. Mr. Scott did not do so. Mr. Scott filed a new lawsuit thereafter. Discovery
was propounded to Mr. Scott’s client in the second lawsuit, and Mr. Scott did not send it to his clients. A

64

motion to compel was filed regarding this discovery and Mr. Scott did not inform his client of the motion to
compel.
By these acts, James Kidwell Scott, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of
representation), 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 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.
EDWARD KENDALL WHITE, BPR #032725
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 13, 2023, Edward Kendall White, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In one client matter, Mr. White represented three indigent criminal defendants for whom he needed the
services of an expert witness. Mr. White called the Administrative Office of the Court about approval for the
cost of the expert, but he did not submit a motion for approval of the costs to the director in writing as set forth
in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13, Section 5(e). The expert witness completed her work which was
favorable for Mr. White’s clients. The expert submitted her invoice for payment, but it was denied by the
Administrative Office of the Court because of Mr. White’s failure to comply with the procedure.
In another client matter, Mr. White represented a criminal defendant on appeal, and he failed to timely
file the transcript or statement of evidence as required by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr.
White later withdrew from the representation prior to submission of the transcript or statement of the evidence.
By these acts, Edward Kendall White has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and court), 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.

65

ANDREW STEPHEN PRIESTLY WILLIAMS
CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA LAWYER
On April 14, 2023, Andrew Stephen Priestly Williams, an attorney licensed to practice law in California
and Florida, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
A civil lawsuit was filed in Shelby County against Mr. Williams’ client. Mr. Williams signed and filed
a Notice of Removal of the action, prior to hiring local counsel. After the matter was remanded back to Shelby
County, Mr. Williams signed and filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission. Though local counsel was
identified in the body of the motion, local counsel did not sign the pleading. Mr. Williams then successfully
registered with the Board of Professional Responsibility for pro hac vice admission. The opposing attorney
opposed Mr. Williams’ motion for pro hac vice admission with the court, and Mr. Williams filed a Reply
which had a hand-written signature of local counsel with no indication that it was done by Mr. Williams “with
permission.” Local counsel did not sign the document himself and did not give permission for his name to be
signed on it. Mr. Williams’ motion for pro hac vice admission with the court was denied.
By these acts, Mr. Williams has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of
law) 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

TROY LEE BOWLIN, BPR #025893
KNOX COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 30, 2023, Troy Lee Bowlin was reinstated to
the active practice of law conditioned upon continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of the Order
of Enforcement entered April 20, 2023.
On April 20, 2023, Mr. Bowlin was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for three (3) years
with thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension. Mr. Bowlin filed a Petition to Terminate Period of

66

Active Suspension pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c), on May 10, 2023. The
Board found the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
GEORGIA B. FELNER, BPR #013167
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On July 31, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Georgia B. Felner to the practice of law.
Ms. Felner was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on June 28, 2019, for a period of three (3) years
with a minimum eighteen (18) months served on active suspension and remainder on probation pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 12.2 and 14.
On January 31, 2023, Ms. Felner filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4(d). The Board verified that the conditions required for
reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Ms. Felner
was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement entered July 31, 2023, was
effective upon filing.
TYREE B. HARRIS, IV, BPR #002367
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On May 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Tyree B. Harris, IV, to the practice of
law. Mr. Harris had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 29, 2022, for a period of one
(1) year as an active suspension.
On April 13, 2023, Mr. Harris filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board verified that the conditions required for
reinstatement were satisfied and filed a Notice of Submission with the Supreme Court indicating Mr. Harris
was eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Order of Reinstatement, entered May 2, 2023, was
effective upon filing.

67

GARY NEIL PATTON, BPR #003878
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 2, 2023, Gary Neil Patton was reinstated to
the active practice of law conditioned upon continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of the Order
of Enforcement entered May 22, 2023.
On May 22, 2023, Mr. Patton was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for one (1) year with
thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension. Mr. Patton filed a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c), on May 22, 2023. The Board found the Petition was
satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
CAPP PETERSON TAYLOR, BPR #025820
JEFFERSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 2, 2023, Capp Peterson Taylor was
reinstated to the active practice of law.
On December 19, 2017, Capp Peterson Taylor was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for
six (6) months and on January 8, 2020, suspended for two (2) years. Mr. Taylor filed a Petition for
Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d), on October
7, 2022. After a final hearing on the merits, a Hearing Panel found Mr. Taylor demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for
admission to practice law in this state and that 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. The Order of Reinstatement entered August 2, 2023, was effective upon filing.

68

DISABILITY INACTIVE

CRISTY ANN BRAUN, BPR #025287
TENNESSEE LAWYER
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 17, 2023, the law license of Cristy Ann Braun
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Braun 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. Ms. Braun may return to the practice of law after
reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that her disability has been removed in
accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.
PAUL WILLIAM DUTY, BPR #020726
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 22, 2023, the law license of Paul William Duty
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Duty 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. Mr. Duty 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.
HANNAH ANDREA GRIBBLE, BPR #007126
TENNESSEE LAWYER
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 17, 2023, the law license of Hannah Andrea
Gribble was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Ms. Gribble cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the
requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities
69

of attorneys transferred to disability inactive status. Ms. Gribble may return to the practice of law after
reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that her disability has been removed in
accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.
RICHARD ALLEN JOHNSON, BPR #012134
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 12, 2023, the law license of Richard Allen
Johnson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Johnson 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. Mr. Johnson 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.
TIMOTHY PAUL MOLYNEUX, BPR #018813
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 28, 2023, the law license of Timothy Paul
Molyneux was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Molyneux 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. Mr. Molyneux 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.

70

RHETT R. RUSSELL, BPR #006980
TENNESSEE LAWYER
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 17, 2023, the law license of Rhett R. Russell
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Russell 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. Mr. Russell 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.
RONALD ANDRÉ STEWART, BPR #023042
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 17, 2023, the law license of Ronald André
Stewart was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Stewart 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. Mr. Stewart 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.
TRAVIS WAYMON TIPTON, BPR #035557
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 27, 2023, the law license of Travis
Waymon Tipton was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.
Mr. Tipton 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. Mr. Tipton may return to the practice of law after

71

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.
JAMES H. WALLACE, JR., BPR #008547
MADISON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 17, 2023, the law license of James H. Wallace,
Jr., was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Wallace 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. Mr. Wallace 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.

72

TENNESSEE LAWYERS’ FUND PAYMENT

A. SAIS PHILLIPS FINNEY, BPR #028845
SHELBY COUNTY
On September 25, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid one
claim filed against A. Sais Phillips Finney, in the amount of $8,335.00.
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. Finney 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.
WESLEY LYNN HATMAKER, BPR #014880
(Deceased Attorney)
On June 15, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against Wesley Lynn Hatmaker, in the amount of $16,651.86.
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.

73

JAMES RALPH HICKMAN, JR., BPR #020125
SEVIER COUNTY
On September 25, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a
claim filed against James Ralph Hickman, Jr., in the amount of $11,975.00.
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. Hickman 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.
JASON R. MCLELLAN, BPR #024596
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On May 23, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against Jason R. McLellan, in the amount of $67,400.36.
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. McLellan 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.

74

JASON R. MCLELLAN, BPR #024596
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On June 9, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against Jason R. McLellan, 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. McLellan 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.
JASON R. MCLELLAN, BPR #024596
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On September 25, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid two
claims filed against Jason R. McLellan. One claim in the amount of $5,500.00 and the other 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. McLellan 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.

75

JANET MONIQUE OKOYE, BPR #027923
TENNESSEE LAWYER
On March 8, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against Janet Monique Okoye, in the amount of $1,663.33.
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. Okoye 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.
PHILIP JOSEPH PEREZ, BPR #021920
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On October 25, 2022, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against Philip Joseph Perez, in the amount of $2,750.00.
Lawyers’ Fund is paid for by Tennessee lawyers and judges to reimburse losses caused by the rare
instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. Lawyers’ Fund operates under the authority of the Tennessee
Supreme Court, and a Board appointed by the Court, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney members,
who serve without compensation. The Board considers and pays claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 25.
Mr. Perez 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.

76

JUDSON WHEELER PHILLIPS, BPR #013029
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On December 15, 2022, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a
claim filed against Judson Wheeler Phillips, in the amount of $2,277.15.
Lawyers’ Fund, funded 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.
Lawyers’ Fund operates under the authority of a Board appointed by the Supreme Court, consisting of six
lawyers and three non-attorney members, who serve without compensation. The Board considers and pays
claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25.
Mr. Phillips 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.
JAMES FOSTER SCHAEFFER, JR., BPR #006862
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 23, 2023, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim
filed against James Foster Schaeffer, Jr., in the amount of $748.50.
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. Schaeffer is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee.

77

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Creator	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Description	empty
Keywords	empty
ModifyDate	Friday, October 13, 2023 4:33 PM -05:00
PageCount	77
PDFVersion	1.6
Subject	empty
Title	empty

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Category	empty
Comments	empty
Company	empty
ContentTypeId	0x010100790E4DF368EB294B8CEE312CA6319EF3
CreateDate	Friday, October 13, 2023 4:33 PM -05:00
CreatorTool	Acrobat PDFMaker 23 for Word
DocumentID	uuid:fdf3ac85-aef1-422c-95c1-df94500404ba
FileName	board-notes-fall-2023.pdf
FileSize	1192 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Format	application/pdf
InstanceID	uuid:4e89b755-97f2-47df-ad81-590a5f236823
Language	EN-US
Linearized	Yes
Manager	empty
MetadataDate	Friday, October 13, 2023 4:33 PM -05:00
MIMEType	application/pdf
PageLayout	OneColumn
Producer	Adobe PDF Library 23.6.96
SourceFile	board-notes-fall-2023.pdf
SourceModified	Friday, October 13, 2023 5:58 PM +00:00
TaggedPDF	Yes
XMPToolkit	Adobe XMP Core 9.1-c001 79.2a0d8d9, 2023/03/14-11:19:46

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