Board_Notes_Fall_2018_-_FINAL.pdf (2018)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (Board_Notes_Fall_2018_-_FINAL.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Fall 2018

Inside:
2

5

Spotlight: Tennessee Board of
Law Examiners: The Uniform Bar
Examination and Tennessee Law
Course
Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Protection and the Tennessee
Supreme Court’s Amendments to
Rule 25

6

New TLAP Executive Director

8

Recognition of Tennessee
Receiver Attorneys

9

Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F166: Settlement Agreements

13

Guidance for Attorneys Retiring
from the Practice of Law

14

Disciplinary Actions
April 2018 - September 2018

Greeting from Jimmie Carpenter Miller
Chair, Board of Professional Responsibility

This past year it has been my privilege to work closely with the staff
Disciplinary Counsel. All members of the Board have an “up close
and personal” exposure to the staff Disciplinary Counsel’s
dedication, professionalism and thorough analysis before they make
a recommendation for action by the Board. Tennessee lawyers and
citizens are fortunate to have Sandy Garrett as the Chief Disciplinary
Counsel of the Board. Her leadership is evident from the incredible
volume of work accomplished by the legal and support staff of the
office. It is appropriate to give recognition to the Staff. It is also
appropriate to recognize the numerous Tennessee lawyers who serve
as members of the District Committees, and specifically those who
have given of their expertise and time to serve on a Hearing Panel.
The efforts of all of these lawyers serve the purposes to protect the
public and to ensure fair application of the Rules of Professional
Conduct to lawyers practicing in Tennessee. Hopefully, the contents
of these Board Notes will be informative to you.

Tennessee Board of Law Examiners:
The Uniform Bar Examination and Tennessee Law Course
by Lisa Perlen, J.D., Executive Director
Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted amendments to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7
(“Rule 7”), that change the content of the bar examination and add pre-admission requirements to
the licensing process for lawyers wishing to practice in Tennessee. First, the Court adopted
changes to Rule 7 in April, adding a new way to gain admission to the bar of Tennessee and
changing the content of the bar examination. On October 16, 2018, the Court entered an order
adopting the Tennessee Law Course for all applicants seeking a law license in Tennessee.
The April amendments added Tennessee to the growing list of jurisdictions that utilize the
Uniform Bar Examination (the “UBE”), which consists of the Multistate Bar Examination, two
Multistate Performance Tests, and the Multistate Essay Examination, consisting of six questions.
The Tennessee Bar Examination last administered in July, 2018, included the Multistate Bar
Examination and one Multistate Performance Test, plus 9 essay questions that were drafted by
Tennessee attorneys. The questions included in the Multistate Essay Examination, while not
specific to Tennessee law, are drafted and reviewed by national experts in each field, and pretested, which is a step that is difficult to do for a state-prepared essay examination, regardless how
expert and talented the Tennessee drafters are. However, even without specific Tennessee content,
the Multistate Essay Examination is effective for measuring competency of attorneys prior to
admission by testing knowledge of the subject matter, issue identification, and persuasive writing
ability.
Lawyers are more mobile than they once were, no longer settling and practicing in one
state until retirement. Moreover, multi-jurisdictional or cross-border practice is more common,
particularly in Tennessee, where we border more states than any other state in the Union. This can
be seen in the increased applications for admission without examination in recent years1.
Adoption of the UBE acknowledges that certain legal concepts and lawyering skills span
our borders. The UBE assures uniformity in testing from administration to administration while
still utilizing local attorneys to grade essay and practice tasks. Further, the methods used to develop
the MEE and MPT tests result in a high quality and reliable test. While the Board members and
exam assistants work diligently to prepare high quality tests, what the Board can do locally does
not compare to the resources available for the development of the MEE and MPT test items.

1 In 2012, the TBLE received 125 applications for admission without examination (comity); in 2016, the TBLE received 238, an

increase of 90.4% in a five year period. Similarly, in 2012, the TBLE received 28 In-House Counsel registration applications; in
2016, the TBLE received 89, an increase of 218% over the same period.

2

Tennessee Board of Tennessee Board of Law Examiners:
The Uniform Bar Examination and Tennessee Law Course
(continued from previous page)
In addition to changing the content of the bar examination to be given in Tennessee, the
April amendments add a new form of admission, allowing an applicant to transfer to Tennessee a
UBE score that meets the Tennessee threshold. Lawyers who earn a score of 270 or higher on the
UBE in another jurisdiction may be eligible for admission in Tennessee on the basis of their UBE
score. Applicants by transferred UBE score will have to undergo a character and fitness
investigation and meet all other Tennessee eligibility requirements. Complete details on admission
by transferred UBE score are available on the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners website at
www.tnble.org.
As part of the adoption of the Uniform Bar Examination, the Tennessee Supreme Court
established the Tennessee Law Course Committee to study the need, feasibility and scope of a
required Tennessee Law Course for applicants to the Tennessee bar. The Tennessee Law Course
Committee recommended that the Court adopt a new pre-admission requirement for all applicants
to the Tennessee bar requiring completion of a course on the distinctions found in Tennessee law.
The Uniform Bar Examination is a highly reliable test but does not include law specific to
the state in which it is administered. Applicants to the Tennessee bar need basic instruction in areas
of Tennessee law that do not align with uniform codes or majority trends. A uniform course
delivered to all applicants for a license in Tennessee, including those seeking admission without
examination (comity) and military spouses, ensures that newly approved Tennessee attorneys who
have not been examined on Tennessee-specific law nonetheless have been instructed in the
distinctions found in Tennessee law.
In addition to the recommendation to adopt a Tennessee Law Course, the Committee
recommended topics as well as the delivery method for the Course. Topics will initially include
Professional Responsibility, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Torts,
Property, Tennessee Rules, Business Organizations, Wills, Estates and Trusts, and Family Law.
The course will be produced and managed by the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners in
conjunction with the Tennessee Law Course Committee and reviewed by the Court. The members
of the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners and the Tennessee Law Course Committee are grateful
to our Tennessee law school professors who have volunteered to participate in the preparation of
the materials for the Tennessee Law Course. It was recommended further that the course content
be reviewed periodically to add, modify or delete content as required. The Tennessee Law Course
will be delivered digitally and outlines will be available on the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
website. The required program will be instructive but will not include an additional examination.
After posting recommended changes to Rule 7 for comment, the Supreme Court adopted
the amendment as proposed, making completion of the Tennessee Law Course a requirement for
admission to the Tennessee bar. The adoption of the Uniform Bar Examination and a Tennessee
Law Course is a positive development for the practice of law in Tennessee. The portable UBE
score provides a new path for admission and all newly licensed attorneys, not just those sitting for
examination, will receive instruction in Tennessee law.

3

Tennessee Board of Tennessee Board of Law Examiners:
The Uniform Bar Examination and Tennessee Law Course
(continued from previous page)

It is anticipated that the Tennessee Law Course will be online for applicants to complete
by April 2019. To access the course, applicants will be provided instructions once they have been
approved by the Board of Law Examiners for licensing or with the notification of a successful
Tennessee bar examination.
Applications are now open for the February 2019 bar examination, which will be
the first administration of the Uniform Bar Examination in Tennessee, while applications for
admission by transferred UBE score will open on January 2, 2019. Lawyers licensed in another
jurisdiction who wish to practice in Tennessee prior to admission may register for limited practice
with submission of the application for admission by examination or prior to the time application
by transferred UBE score open.
For more information on the Uniform Bar Examination, please see the website for the
National Conference of Bar Examiners at www.ncbex.org/ube. For more information about how
to apply and the UBE in Tennessee, please visit the website for the Tennessee Board of Law
Examiners at www.tnble.org.

4

Tennessee Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and the
Tennessee Supreme Court’s Recent Amendments to Rule 25
On October 15, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order amending Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 25 regarding Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (TLFCP). TLFCP is an agency
of the Tennessee Supreme Court established to reimburse claimants for losses caused by dishonest
conduct committed by lawyers practicing in Tennessee. In fiscal year 2017-2018, TLFCP awarded
$815,197.38 in reimbursement to 39 claimants who lost money due to dishonest conduct by 14
attorneys.
Tennessee attorneys support TLFCP by paying $10 of their annual registration payment to
the fund. No taxpayer money is used to subsidize TLFCP.
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 establishes the procedures for TLFCP Board’s review
of claims. Rule 25, Section 12 provides that claims with TLFCP must be filed within three years
of the date that a loss occurred or in no event later than five years from the date of a loss. Claim
forms must be notarized and must include in part information regarding the attorney’s name and
address; the nature of the legal services provided; the amount of loss, and a description of the
attorney’s dishonest conduct. Losses suffered by family members; partners; associates; financial
institutions; business entities controlled by the lawyer; governmental agencies or those covered by
bonds are not reimbursable. To pursue a claim with TLFCP, the claimant must also file a
complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility (the Board). The Board will investigate
the complaint and report their findings to the TLFCP Board to enable the TLFCP Board to make
their decision regarding the claim.
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25, Section 13 provides no payment shall exceed $100,000
for any one claimant nor the aggregate sum of $250,000 per attorney or former attorney unless
otherwise determined by the TLFCP Board and approved by the Supreme Court. Additionally, no
payment from TLFCP shall exceed ten percent of the assets of the Fund at the time the claim is
made. No person has any right to payment from the Fund and the decision of the TLFCP Board
regarding payments is final and not subject to appeal or review by any court.
TLFCP is administered by a Board of six lawyers and three lay members appointed by the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The TLFCP Board evaluates and decides submitted claims. All TLFCP
Board members serve without compensation. The TLFCP Board is assisted by staff of the Board
of Professional Responsibility. The TLFCP Board consists of the following members:
Mark A. Mesler, Chair
Spencer R. Chinery, Vice Chair, Lay Member
Julie Bowling
Terri Crider
R. Jonathan Guthrie
Rod Loggins, Lay Member
Erin Polly Palmer
James R. Wheeler
Rep. Sam Whitson, Lay Member

Memphis, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Columbia, TN
Humboldt, TN
Chattanooga, TN
Memphis, TN
Nashville, TN
Jonesborough, TN
Nashville, TN

More information about TLFCP may be found at www.tlfcp.tn.gov.

5

Ted Rice Named New Executive Director of
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program
by Barbara Peck, Director of Communications
Administrative Office of the Courts
The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program is welcoming a familiar face as its new executive
director.
Ted Rice was recently appointed to the top post at TLAP by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Rice
first came to TLAP in 2006 as deputy director. For the past several months he has been serving as
interim executive director.
Since he joined TLAP, Rice has worked to greatly expand the organization’s scope and reach. TLAP
has grown to help around 350 lawyers, law students, and judges who are dealing with substance
abuse or mental health-related issues each year.
“I’m so excited for the opportunity,” said Rice, who was born in Knoxville and grew up in both
West and Middle Tennessee. “I’m very humbled and honored that the Court would have me as the
new executive director. I look forward to the challenges and opportunities that the position will
provide.”
Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeff Bivins welcomed Rice’s elevation to this new role.
"Ted Rice has a proven track record as a true leader of TLAP,” Chief Justice Bivins said. “In his
prior roles, Ted has been a critical component of TLAP's expanded service across this state and in
TLAP being recognized as a national leader of LAP programs across the country. The Court has full
confidence in Ted's abilities to lead TLAP to even greater heights in his new role as executive
director as TLAP continues to serve the law students, attorneys, and judges of this state."
Prior to his time at TLAP, Rice worked as a clinical counselor at Vanderbilt University Medical
Center, offering psychological support to doctors and nurses. At the same time, Rice maintained a
private practice where he routinely assisted attorneys and judges facing many of the issues that
TLAP is designed to address.
One of Rice’s main goals when he started at TLAP was to broaden the focus of the program. While
TLAP still has many clients struggling with substance abuse, overall about two out of three of the
organization’s clients are facing other problems.
“We deal with stress, burnout, depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment,” Rice said. “There really
isn’t anything that we don’t consult and help folks with.”
Rice said that the stress that can accompany a legal career often begins in the high pressure world
of law school. In fact, according to TLAP’s 2016 Annual Report, 33 percent of the program’s
referrals that year were law students or bar applicants, 58 percent were attorneys, and 9 percent were
members of the judiciary.
No matter which segment of the legal community clients come from, Rice said that the emphasis is
on caring for them as human beings first.
6

Ted Rice Named New Executive Director of
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program
(continued from previous page)

“When folks come through our doors it’s not because they had a bad day, it’s because they’ve been
having a really hard time and they’re out of solutions,” Rice said. “What we try to do here is to build
rapport, earn trust, earn respect, and earn the right to ask permission to help a person get back on a
path of healing and well-being.”
As much as Rice has accomplished so far at TLAP, he hopes to do even more. For instance, he wants
to increase the amount of educational outreach that TLAP does with organizations like local bar
associations. That way, attorneys that are a part of a given community can become ambassadors for
the TLAP message. Rice has identified a particular need to spread that message in some of the state’s
more rural areas.
“One of my goals over the next two years is to really canvas the state and, as we’ve done really well
in larger cities, go to our smaller communities and extend the hand of TLAP,” he said.
Rice has seen numerous success stories over the past dozen years of people who either contact TLAP
directly or are referred to the program by organizations like the Tennessee Board of Professional
Responsibility or the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners. They may feel hopeless, or close to it,
when they first get in touch with a TLAP staff member or volunteer, but, with the proper care, they
have been able to turn their lives around.
Rice had some of those success stories on his mind at a recent weekend retreat and CLE session that
TLAP hosted at a state park. Looking at the assembled crowd of judges, law students, lawyers, and
family members, Rice was struck once again by the importance of TLAP’s mission.
“I looked across the audience and thought, ‘Wow this is why we do what we do,’” he said. “Because
we’re restoring happiness and good and meaningful lives back to people who deserve it. Whether
judges, attorneys, or law students, they deserve every part of life that is there to be had. We are
making a difference one life at a time, one member of the profession at a time.”
The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program was established in 1999 by the Tennessee Supreme
Court with a three-part mission: To PROTECT the interest of clients, litigants and the general public
from harm caused by impaired lawyers or judges; To ASSIST impaired members of the legal
profession to begin and continue recovery; & To EDUCATE the bench and bar to the causes of and
remedies for impairments affecting members of the legal profession.

7

Recognition of Receiver Attorneys
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 29 provides for the appointment of a
receiver attorney when an affected attorney becomes unable to continue the practice of
law. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 29.1 states, “The purpose of this Section is to protect clients
and to the extent possible and not inconsistent with the protection of clients, to protect the
interests of the attorney…”
Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of Professional Responsibility are aware of
several individuals’ service as receiver attorneys. Disciplinary Counsel extend our thanks
to the following receiver attorneys for their assistance:
William Byrd, Elizabethton
Jeff Cranford, Morristown
Art Grisham, Chattanooga
Kyle Heckman, Lebanon
Bruce Hill, Sevierville
Caleb McDaniel, Elizabethton
Dennis Powers, Gallatin
Glenna Ramer, Chattanooga
Braxton Terry, Morristown

8

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2018-F-166

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion
on the ethical propriety of a settlement agreement which contains a confidentiality provision that
prohibits any discussion of any facet of the settlement agreement with any other person or entity,
regardless of the circumstances; and which prohibits the requesting attorney from referencing the
incident central to the plaintiff’s case, the year, make, and model of the subject vehicle or the
identity of the Defendants.

OPINION
It is improper for an attorney to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement
that requires the attorney to be bound by a confidentiality clause that prohibits a lawyer from future
use of information learned during the representation or disclosure of information that is publicly
available or that would be available through discovery in other cases as part of the settlement, if
that action will restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients.

DISCUSSION

The inquiring lawyer has encountered a condition to settlement, in product liability cases
against a certain defendant, which prohibits plaintiff’s counsel from discussing any facet of the
settlement agreement with any other person or entity, regardless of the circumstances; and which
prohibits the requesting attorney from referencing the incident central to the plaintiff’s case, the
year, make, and model of the subject vehicle or the identity of the Defendants.
The parties agreed on a settlement amount, and the requirement of the confidentiality
clause was only brought up after the Plaintiff agreed to settle. The client simply wanted to be paid
their settlement monies and the lawyer’s objections to such clauses were discarded because the
client is the ultimate decision-maker to accepting settlement which creates a conflict between the
lawyer and the client. Such provisions actively restrict the lawyer’s ability to advise other current
or future clients with similar claims against the Defendants.

9

RPC 5.6 (b) states “A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (b) an agreement
in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client
controversy.”1 2
“As to existing clients, inclusion of such a clause in a release could be construed as the
settlement of one client’s case to the detriment of another client’s case. Such a clause would
constitute representation of differing interests in violation of RPC 1.7.”23
ABA Formal Opinion 93-371 articulates the three policy considerations underlying this
rule. First, there is a risk that the public’s access to the best attorney for a particular case will be
curtailed. Second, such a restraint could be motivated by an effort to “buy off” counsel rather than
to resolve the dispute. Third, a restriction on an attorney’s right to practice may place him or her
in a position where the interests of the current client are in conflict with those of potential future
clients.
It is not uncommon for there to be settlement conditions of nondisclosure of the amount
and terms of the settlement. “A settlement condition providing for nondisclosure of the amount
and terms of a settlement is not only proper, but should be recognized where the details are not a
matter of public record.”34
“Many jurisdictions concur with the ABA that settlement agreements containing indirect
restrictions on the lawyer’s right to practice violate those jurisdictions’ respective equivalents of
Rule 5.6(b). Examples of similar provisions found to constitute unethical restrictions under the
rule include those that require counsel to keep confidential public information concerning the case,
such as the identity of the defendant, the allegations of the complaint, and the fact of settlement.”45
“Such conditions have the purpose and effect of preventing counsel from informing
potential clients of their experience and expertise, thereby making it difficult for future clients to
identify well-qualified counsel and employ them to bring similar cases.”56 Such conditions violate
RPC 5.6(b) which prohibits lawyers from offering or making a settlement agreement that restricts
the lawyer’s right to practice. “A settlement agreement may provide that the terms of the
settlement and other non-public information may be kept confidential, but it may not require that
public information be confidential.”67

21

Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.6(b).
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-141, (Feb. 4, 1998) citing ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 93-371.
43
State Bar of New Mexico Advisory Opinions Committee Advisory Opinion 1985-5 (Oct. 23, 1985).
54
See D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 335 (2006).
65
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006).
76
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006).
32

10

“Some ethics committees have interpreted RPC 5.6(b) to prohibit settlement clauses that
restrict a lawyer from publicly naming the particular parties against whom their client has
settled.”78
Other ethics committees have interpreted RPC 5.6(b) to prohibit settlement provisions that
restrict a lawyer from disclosing publicly available information, or that would be available through
discovery in other cases.89
“The underlying rationale for all these opinions is that the prohibited provisions restrict the
lawyer’s right to practice by effectively preventing him or his firm from representing clients in
certain kinds of cases against the settling party.”910
If an attorney is bound by a confidentiality clause that prohibits him or her from discussing
any facet of the settlement agreement with any other person or entity, regardless of the
circumstances; and which prohibits the attorney from referencing the incident central to the
plaintiff’s case, the year, make, and model of the subject vehicle or the identity of the Defendants,
defense counsel would accomplish indirectly what they cannot accomplish directly by precluding
the attorney from representing other plaintiffs with similar claims.
There is also a public policy consideration. A confidentiality agreement in long-running
personal injury litigation “does not create a ‘compelling interest’ that overcomes the strong
presumption” in favor of public access to the data.1011 The ability for plaintiffs’ firms to act as
industry watchdogs is both good public policy and was specifically addressed as a vested
responsibility during Congress’s enactment of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.1112
This does not mean that all confidentiality clauses are prohibited. Most ethics opinions
conclude that negotiating for, agreeing to, and, ultimately, including a confidentiality provision
precluding the dissemination of the fact of or terms of the settlement agreement (provided that
information is not publicly known) is not prohibited under the applicable Rules of Professional
Conduct.1213
There is no ethical prohibition under the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct against
the most common confidentiality provisions, which prohibit disclosure of the terms of a specific
settlement, including the amount of the payment.

87

Pennsylvania Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2016-300 (November 2016); S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Comm.,
Ethics Advisory Op. 10-04 (2010); Bar Ass’n of San Francisco Ethics Comm., Op. 2012-1 (2012); D.C. Bar Legal
Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006).
98
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006); N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Comm. On Prof’l Ethics, Op 730
(2000); State Bar Ass’n of N.D. Ethics Comm. Op. 1997-05 (1997).
109
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006).
1110
Estate of Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Ariz. Super. Ct., No. CV 2013-052753, 4/4/18.
12 11
49 U.S.C. Ch.301; 49 U.S.C. section 30103(e)(2010).
13 12
Pennsylvania Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2016-300 (November 2016); N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Comm. On
Prof’l Ethics, Op 730 (2000); ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (2000); Colo. Bar Ass’n Ethics Comm. Op.92 (1993);
N.M. Eth. Op. 1985-5 (1985).

11

CONCLUSION
To the extent settlement provisions which contain confidentiality agreements which
prohibit attorneys from discussing any facet of the settlement agreement with any other person or
entity, regardless of the circumstances; and which prohibits the requesting attorney from
referencing the incident central to the plaintiff’s case, the year, make, and model of the subject
vehicle or the identity of the Defendants, such provisions are prohibited by Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 5.6(b), if such confidentiality agreements will restrict the attorney’s
representation of other clients.
It is improper for an attorney to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement
that requires the attorney to bound by a confidentiality clause that prohibits a lawyer from future
use of information learned during the representation or disclosure of information that is publicly
available or that would be available through discovery in other cases as part of the settlement, if
that action will restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

12

Guidance for Attorneys Retiring from
the Practice of Law
Are you planning to retire soon? As you begin making your plans for a wonderful
and well-deserved retirement, please remember to notify the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the change in your employment and all changes to your contact
information. Most importantly, you may wish to request a change in the status of your law
license. Retirement does not automatically end an attorney’s obligation to register and pay
the Board of Professional Responsibility. Attorneys who are no longer practicing law in
Tennessee may request a status change pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 10.3. Pursuant
to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 10.7, attorneys requesting a change in their status must file an
application to assume inactive status and discontinue the practice of law in Tennessee. In
support of the application, the attorney must file an affidavit or declaration under penalty
of perjury stating that the attorney is not delinquent in meeting any of the following
obligations:
• Payment of all fees and penalties owed to the Board of Professional Responsibility
pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. Rule 9. (This includes payment of any assessed
registration fee that is due on or before the date your request for exemption is
submitted to the Board.)
• Completion of all requirements for continuing legal education pursuant to Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 21.
• Submission of the mandatory IOLTA form pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 43.
• Payment of any professional privilege tax assessed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §
67-4-1702.
The staff of the Board’s registration department will gladly answer your questions
or provide the appropriate forms for the status change request. You may download the
forms from the Board’s website at the following link http://www.tbpr.org/for-legalprofessionals/attorney-license-information. Please let me or one of the other registration
team members know if you have any questions as you plan for your retirement.
For the Board’s Registration Department
Mary McKnight, Manager

13

Disciplinary Actions
• (April, 2018 – September, 2018)
DISBARMENTS
ANDY LAMAR ALLMAN, BPR #017857
SUMNER COUNTY
Effective June 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Andy Lamar Allman from the
practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.1, and ordered him to pay restitution
in the amount of $320,050.00 and costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Allman consisting of seventy-nine (79) separate
complaints from individual clients. The Hearing Panel found Mr. Allman knowingly, intentionally and
systematically failed to provide the substantive professional services for which he was retained,
misappropriated unearned retainer fees provided by those clients and converted the funds to his personal or
business use, and misled clients regarding the status of their cases and the filing of pleadings. The Panel further
found Mr. Allman failed to notify his clients of his temporary suspension, engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law and failed to respond to the Board regarding a disciplinary complaint. Mr. Allman’s misconduct
violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and
Allocation of Authority); 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property and
Funds); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); 3.4 (Fairness to
Opposing Party and Counsel); 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law); 8.1 (Bar Admissions and Disciplinary
Matters), and 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) (Misconduct).
Mr. Allman must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
ANDY LAMAR ALLMAN, BPR #017857
SUMNER COUNTY
Effective July 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Andy Lamar Allman from the
practice of law and ordered restitution in the amount of $322,898.85, and costs of the disciplinary proceeding
be paid.
This is the second order disbarring Mr. Allman and is based upon a Petition for Discipline involving
forty-six (46) separate disciplinary complaints filed against Mr. Allman, an unfiled Supplemental Petition for
Discipline containing nine (9) complaints and two (2) disciplinary complaints under investigation.
Mr. Allman knowingly and intentionally misappropriated client funds received in the settlement of
litigation claims and life insurance proceeds held in trust for a minor child, knowingly, intentionally and
systematically misappropriated unearned retainer fees and converted the funds to his personal or business use,

14

DISBARMENTS (continued)
failed to provide the substantive professional services for which he was retained, and misled clients regarding
the status of their cases and the filing of pleadings. Mr. Allman failed to notify his clients of his temporary
suspension, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to respond to the Board regarding a
disciplinary complaint.
Mr. Allman admitted violating Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.3
(diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds); 1.16 (declining or
terminating representation); 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal); 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 5.5
(unauthorized practice of law); 8.1 (disciplinary matters); and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Allman must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
ANDY LAMAR ALLMAN, BPR #017857
SUMNER COUNTY
Effective July 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Andy Lamar Allman from the
practice of law and ordered restitution in the amount of $511,386.50 and costs of the disciplinary proceeding
be paid.
This is the third order disbarring Mr. Allman and is based upon a Petition for Discipline, Supplemental
Petition for Discipline, Second Supplemental Petition for Discipline, and Third Supplemental Petition for
Discipline involving seventy-four (74) separate disciplinary complaints.
Mr. Allman submitted a Conditional Guilty Plea on June 8, 2018, admitting he knowingly and
intentionally misappropriated client funds received in the sale of real estate and/or the settlement of litigation
claims; knowingly, intentionally and systematically misappropriated unearned retainer fees and converted the
funds to his personal or business use; failed to provide the substantive professional services for which he was
retained; and misled clients regarding the status of their cases and the filing of pleadings. Mr. Allman failed
to notify his clients of his temporary suspension, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to
respond to the Board regarding a disciplinary complaint.
Mr. Allman admitted violating Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.2 (scope
of representation); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds);
1.16 (declining or terminating representation); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law);
8.1 (disciplinary matters); and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Allman must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

15

DISBARMENTS (continued)
LARRY DEAN CANTRELL, BPR #9921
McMINN COUNTY
Effective April 3, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Larry Dean Cantrell from the
practice of law for delivering property of an estate by quitclaim deed which should have been conveyed by
court deed or court order, for stating in the quit claim deed that the debts of the estate had been paid when they
had not, for delaying the delivery of the deed for seven months, and failing to maintain the purchase funds in
his trust account while the matter was pending.
Mr. Cantrell’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence). 1.3 (diligence), 1.15
(safekeeping property), and 8.4 (a), (b) (c) and (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Cantrell was previously suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on November 17, 2017,
after pleading guilty to a serious crime, i.e. violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-103 Theft of Property - $60,000 $250,000.
Mr. Cantrell must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
CHARLES MICHAEL CLIFFORD, BPR #1544
BLOUNT COUNTY
On May 10, 2018, Charles Michael Clifford, of Maryville, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice
of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Clifford must submit
to an evaluation by the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program and conform to any monitoring agreements
deemed necessary. The disbarment begins on May 10, 2018. Mr. Clifford must pay the Board’s costs and
expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
In his representation of clients in a personal injury auto accident claim, Mr. Clifford failed to provide
opposing counsel with his client’s authorization for release of records relevant to injuries sustained as promised
and as ordered by the court. In addition, Mr. Clifford and his clients failed to appear at a Motion for Pre-Trial
Conference and failed to appear for scheduled depositions. After opposing counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss,
Mr. Clifford filed a Notice of Voluntary Nonsuit with a proposed Order before the Motion could be heard. Mr.
Clifford’s clients were not included on the certificate of service nor updated about the status of the case. The
clients were unable to contact Mr. Clifford which ultimately contributed to the clients’ statute of limitations
for re-filing expiring. Mr. Clifford did not respond to this complaint.
Mr. Clifford’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, Scope of Representation;
1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communications; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 8.1(b), Disciplinary Matters; 8.4(d), Conduct
Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice; and 8.4(a), Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Clifford was previously suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court on March 10, 2017, and has
not been reinstated from this suspension.

16

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Mr. Clifford must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
HOMER L. CODY, BPR #010755
SHELBY COUNTY
On August 28, 2018, Homer L. Cody of Memphis, Tennessee was disbarred effective immediately by the
Tennessee Supreme Court. Further, Mr. Cody must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and
expenses and the court costs within ninety days.
This is the fifth disciplinary proceeding brought against Mr. Cody arising from his representation of
one client. The first case resulted in a public censure. The second resulted in a 180-day suspension. The third
resulted in a one-year suspension. The fourth resulted in a two-year suspension. While the first two
suspensions were in effect, Mr. Cody filed two pleadings on behalf of the client in the Chancery Court for
Shelby County. After the third suspension took effect, Mr. Cody filed an additional pleading in the case. In
addition to his unauthorized practice of law, by filing pleadings on behalf of the client, Mr. Cody continued
his conflict of interest that formed the basis for the previous suspensions. A Hearing Panel found Mr. Cody’s
actions violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.7(a), Conflict of Interest; 5.5(a), Unauthorized
Practice of Law; and 8.4(a), (b) and (g), Misconduct.
Mr. Cody must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
SCOTT ERIC CRAWFORD, BPR #17056
SHELBY COUNTY
On May 8, 2018, Scott Eric Crawford, of Collierville, Tennessee (formerly Olive Branch, Mississippi)
was disbarred from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of
reinstatement, Mr. Crawford must make restitution to one client. The disbarment begins on May 18, 2018.
Mr. Crawford must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of
the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Crawford represented his client in a fire loss dispute with an insurance company. The Hearing
Panel found that Mr. Crawford forged his client’s signature on the insurance payment checks, failed to deposit
them into his trust account as required, failed to adequately communicate with his client, failed to maintain
adequate records and to account for the distribution of funds, and failed to remit his client’s portion in a timely
manner. In addition, Mr. Crawford was found to have concealed the payment of a portion of his fees by the
insurance carrier when he was not entitled to any fees, and misappropriated an amount he claimed he was
holding in escrow for the client’s payment of contractor expenses.
Mr. Crawford’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3,
Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.15(a) and 1.15(c), Safekeeping client funds; 8.4(c), Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 8.4(a), Misconduct.

17

DISBARMENTS (continued)
Mr. Crawford was previously disbarred, retroactive to March 19, 2004, by the Tennessee Supreme
Court on February 28, 2008, and remains disbarred.
Mr. Crawford must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
THOMAS ALLEN CRAWFORD, BPR #006427
PENNSYLVANIA
Effective November 14, 2017, Thomas Allen Crawford, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was disbarred by
Order of Reciprocal Discipline entered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on May 18, 2018. Mr. Crawford
was disbarred from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered November 14,
2017. On April 3, 2018, this Court entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline directing Mr. Crawford to inform
this Court, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice, why the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania should not be imposed by this Court. Mr. Crawford provided no response to this Court.
Mr. Crawford must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys. Mr. Crawford must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the order.
CARRIE LEIGH GASAWAY, BPR #18746
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Effective May 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Carrie Leigh Gasaway from the
practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.1, and ordered her to pay restitution
in the amount of $6,500.00 and costs of the disciplinary proceeding. Ms. Gasaway was previously disbarred
by Orders entered October 15, 2015, and October 29, 2017, and said Orders remain in effect. Ms. Gasaway
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a prior Public Censure issued by the Board on April 13,
2016, for failing to provide competent and diligent representation and reasonably communicate with two (2)
clients, failing to account for funds held in trust, failing to deliver the trust funds to her client and failing to
respond to the Board concerning the disciplinary complaint. In the second disciplinary matter, Ms. Gasaway
received a retainer fee but failed to provide professional services, failed to adequately communicate with her
client during her client’s military deployment or promptly refund unearned fees after being terminated.
Ms. Gasaway’s misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees)
and 8.4(d) (Misconduct). Ms. Gasaway must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9, Sections 28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the procedure
for reinstatement.

18

DISBARMENTS (continued)
WESLEY LYNN HATMAKER, BPR #014880
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On May 22, 2018, Wesley Lynn Hatmaker, of Jacksboro, Tennessee, was disbarred from the practice of law
by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Hatmaker must make
restitution to one former client. The disbarment begins on May 22, 2018. Mr. Hatmaker must pay the Board’s
costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
In his representation of one client, Mr. Hatmaker did not provide his client with a written fee agreement, failed
to perform the work for which he was retained, abandoned his representation, failed to properly terminate the
relationship, and failed to refund his client for the work he did not perform. In his representation of a second
client, Mr. Hatmaker took no further action in the case after receiving payment for his representation. Mr.
Hatmaker continued to invoice his client and told his client everything was fine in the case; however, when
the Court placed the case on the trial calendar six years later, the client obtained new counsel who determined
that Mr. Hatmaker had done nothing on behalf of this client. In both cases, Mr. Hatmaker failed to inform his
clients that he had been suspended from the practice of law in January 2016.
Mr. Hatmaker’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communication; 1.16(d), Terminating Representation; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 8.1(b), Disciplinary
Matters; and 8.4 (a) (c) (d) and (g), Misconduct.
Mr. Hatmaker was previously disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court on October 3, 2016, and
August 10, 2017, and remains disbarred.
Mr. Hatmaker must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
ROBERT ALAN LENTER, BPR #025841
FLORIDA
On August 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline
disbarring Robert Alan Lenter of Boca Raton, Florida.
The Board of Professional Responsibility submitted a notice of reciprocal discipline based upon an
Order of the Supreme Court of Louisiana accepting Mr. Lenter’s permanent resignation from the practice of
law in lieu of discipline. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel in Louisiana was conducting an investigation of
Mr. Lenter into allegations that he mishandled client settlement funds, among other misconduct.
Mr. Lenter must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

19

DISBARMENTS (continued)
JUDSON WHEELER PHILLIPS, BPR #013029
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On August 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Judson Wheeler Phillips from the
practice of law effective immediately. Mr. Phillips must pay the court costs within ninety days of the entry of
the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Phillips consented to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself on charges
alleged in a Petition for Discipline that included eighteen (18) disciplinary complaints and ninety-one (91)
additional pending disciplinary complaints. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23, requires that Mr.
Phillips’ consent to disbarment be maintained under seal.
Mr. Phillips must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the procedures for reinstatement.

SUSPENSIONS
KEITH ALAN BLACK, BPR #018546
HAMILTON COUNTY
Effective June 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Keith Alan Black from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) years, ordered restitution be paid in the amount of $2,250.00, and costs
of the disciplinary proceeding be paid to the Board.
A Petition for Discipline, Supplemental Petition for Discipline and Second Supplemental Petition for
Discipline involving three (3) disciplinary complaints were filed against Mr. Black. At the conclusion of the
final hearing, the Hearing Panel determined Mr. Black failed to reasonably communicate with and diligently
represent his clients, failed to notify clients of his temporary suspension from the practice of law, failed to
withdraw as attorney of record in pending cases and abandoned his practice. Mr. Black also failed to respond
to the Board regarding the disciplinary complaints.
Mr. Black’s unethical conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.3 Diligence;
1.5, Fees; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 3.4, Fairness to
Opposing Party and Counsel; 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4, Misconduct.
Mr. Black must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

20

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
JAMAAL L. BOYKIN, BPR #031037
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 19, 2018, Jamaal L. Boykin was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court for two (2) years, with six (6) months active suspension and the remainder on probation. The
suspension is to take effect immediately. As conditions of his probation, Mr. Boykin must engage a practice
monitor, undergo an evaluation by Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and enter into a
monitoring agreement if deemed appropriate by TLAP, pay restitution to a client, earn one hour of continuing
legal education in the subject of trust accounting, and commit no further acts of misconduct resulting in a
recommendation of discipline. Mr. Boykin must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within
ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
In the representation of five clients, Mr. Boykin failed to act with diligence in handling client matters,
failed to adequately communicate with the clients, failed to deposit unearned fees in a trust account and failed
to timely refund unearned fees.
Mr. Boykin’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communication; 1.15, Safekeeping Property and Funds; 1.16, Declining and Terminating Representation; 3.2,
Expediting Litigation; and 8.4, Misconduct.
Mr. Boykin must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
TED AUSTIN BURKHALTER, JR., BPR #020674
BLOUNT COUNTY
On June 19, 2018, Ted Austin Burkhalter, Jr., was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court for three (3) years, with one (1) year active suspension and the remainder on
probation. The suspension is to take effect immediately. As conditions of his probation, Mr. Burkhalter must
undergo an evaluation by Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and enter into a monitoring
agreement if deemed appropriate by TLAP, and commit no further acts of misconduct resulting in a
recommendation of discipline. Mr. Burkhalter must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs
within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Burkhalter represented the executrix of an estate. He prepared a waiver of accounting and
inventory calling for the signatures of three persons. Mr. Burkhalter notarized the three signatures appearing
on the waiver but one of those signatures was not made by the person whose signature it purports to be. Mr.
Burkhalter filed the pleading with the court.
Mr. Burkhalter’s ethical misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3, Candor toward the
Tribunal; and 8.4, Misconduct.
Mr. Burkhalter must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

21

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
THOMAS PATRICK COOPER, BPR #026251
FLORIDA
On July 20, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Thomas Patrick Cooper of Miami Beach,
Florida, from the practice of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9, Section 22.3. Mr. Cooper was suspended based upon his criminal conviction for Grand Theft and
Defrauding a Financial Institution in the matter of The State of Florida v. Thomas Patrick Cooper, in the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County. The Supreme Court’s Order is effective immediately.
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Board to institute formal
proceedings to determine the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon Mr. Cooper as a result of his
conviction of a serious crime.
Mr. Cooper must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations
and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
JAMES CARL COPE, BPR #3340
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On May 4, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended James Carl Cope from the practice of law
for twenty-five (25) months, effective immediately.
Mr. Cope has been suspended since October 25, 2016, based upon his plea of guilty to the serious crime
of insider trading in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 78j(b) and Title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 240.10b-5. The Supreme Court ordered the Board of Professional Responsibility to
institute a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Cope’s
guilty plea. Following a full evidentiary hearing, a hearing panel determined that the final discipline should
be twenty-five (25) months suspension, retroactive to October 25, 2016. The Tennessee Supreme Court
exercised its discretion to review the discipline.
Following a review of the record and oral argument, the Court concluded that a retroactive suspension
would not be adequate in light of other similar cases. Therefore, the Court concluded that it is appropriate to
increase the total length of suspension by making the twenty-five (25) month suspension period prospective
from the date of its opinion, May 4, 2018.
Mr. Cope must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations
and responsibilities suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
CHARLES EDWARD DANIEL, BPR #014016
KNOX COUNTY
On June 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Knoxville attorney Charles Edward
Daniel from the practice of law for three (3) years, with one (1) year to be served on active suspension and the

22

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
remaining two (2) years on probation. The suspension will be effective 10 days from the date of the Supreme
Court Order.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Daniel based upon
a complaint of misconduct. Mr. Daniel made unauthorized deposits of funds from his law partnership into his
personal account over a three-year period while he managed the partnership’s accounting books. Mr. Daniel
claimed that his partners were aware of these deposits and that he was entitled to all of the funds that he took
because of expense advances he had made to the partnership. A hearing panel found that Mr. Daniel
intentionally concealed the transactions from his law partners and misappropriated funds from his law firm
partnership, thus violating Tennessee Rules of Professional conduct 8.4 (b) and (c). The hearing panel imposed
a three (3) year probation.
The Board of Professional Responsibility appealed the decision. The Tennessee Supreme Court
affirmed the decision of the hearing panel, but concluded that the hearing panel acted arbitrarily and
capriciously by probating the entirety of Mr. Daniel’s suspension. The Court modified the disciplinary
sanction by including a period of active suspension for one (1) year.
Mr. Daniel must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
ROBERT ALLEN DOLL, III, BPR #022764
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 20, 2018, Robert Allen Doll, III, was suspended from the practice of law by Order of
the Tennessee Supreme Court for ninety (90) days effective immediately. Mr. Doll must pay the Board’s costs
and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Doll failed to timely prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in a divorce case after being
ordered to do so. In an unrelated matter, Mr. Doll was convicted of a serious crime and summarily suspended
by the Tennessee Supreme Court on May 31, 2017, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, Section 22.3. He was
required to notify the divorce client of that suspension but he failed to do so. That suspension remains in effect
pending Mr. Doll’s appeal of the conviction.
Mr. Doll’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Diligence; and 8.4(a) and
(g), Misconduct.
Mr. Doll must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

23

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
ARTHUR WAYNE HENRY, BPR #9484
LOUDON COUNTY
On April 30, 2018, Arthur Wayne Henry, of Loudon, Tennessee, was suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year and one (1) day, effective immediately, by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. In
addition, as conditions of reinstatement, Mr. Henry must obtain an evaluation by the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program, attend six (6) hours of continuing legal education in law practice management, and obtain
sufficient professional liability insurance. Mr. Henry must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court
costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
In one case, Mr. Henry agreed to accept a settlement offer without advising his clients. He received a
$5,000 settlement check but did not advise his clients. The settlement check was never cashed. Mr. Henry
did not respond to a show cause order requiring him to show cause why an order of compromise and settlement
had not been entered and the case was dismissed without prejudice. In a second case, Mr. Henry did not
diligently pursue a divorce petition or adequately communicate with his client. In a third case, Mr. Henry did
not diligently pursue a post-divorce matter or adequately communicate with his client.
Mr. Henry’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, Scope of Representation;
1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.15, Safekeeping Property and Funds; 3.2, Expediting Litigation; 8.1,
Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4, Misconduct.
On April 26, 2018, Mr. Henry was temporarily suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court in an
unrelated matter upon finding that Mr. Henry had misappropriated funds and poses a threat of substantial harm
to the public. The temporary suspension remains in effect.
Mr. Henry must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
ANGELA JOY HOPSON, BPR #022500
MADISON COUNTY
On September 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Angela Joy
Hopson from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with thirty (30) days served as active suspension
and the remainder on probation. Ms. Hopson is required to engage a practice monitor during the probationary
period and to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The suspension is effective immediately.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Hopson based upon
one (1) complaint of ethical misconduct arising from her representation of a criminal defendant. A hearing
panel determined that Ms. Hopson failed to properly manage communication with her client who was
incarcerated, causing the client and his family to contact the trial court on multiple occasions with their
complaints.

24

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Ms. Hopson’s misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(3) and (4), (Communication).
Ms. Hopson 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.
JARAMIAH JUSTIN HRUSKA, BPR #29225
PUTNAM COUNTY
Effective April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Jaramiah Justin Hruska from the
practice of law effective immediately for two (2) years with thirty (30) days active suspension and the
remainder served on probation. Mr. Hruska must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and
expenses and court costs within ninety (90) days.
On November 22, 2016, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Jaramiah Justin Hruska. Mr. Hruska
entered a conditional guilty plea subject to conditions that he comply with the recommendations of his health
care professional and retain a practice monitor for the duration of his probation.
The complaints alleged that Mr. Hruska pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of patronizing
prostitution for which he received judicial diversion, and for making inappropriate comments to the wife of
one of his clients.
Mr. Hruska’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (a) and (b) (misconduct).
Mr. Hruska must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys, and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
CASEY EUGENE MORELAND, BPR #011069
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 5, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Casey Eugene Moreland from the practice
of law until further orders of the Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3. Mr.
Moreland was suspended based upon pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to
retaliate against a witness, victim, or informant, conspiracy to commit theft, embezzlement, or conversion of
over $5,000 in funds from an organization receiving over $10,000 in federal benefits, destruction of records
or documents with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, and tampering with a witness by corrupt
persuasion.
The Supreme Court ordered the Board to institute a formal proceeding to determine the extent of final
discipline to be imposed as a result of Mr. Moreland being found guilty.
On April 6, 2017, Mr. Moreland was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by the Tennessee
Supreme Court upon finding that he poses a threat of substantial harm to the public. That suspension remains
in effect. On April 4, 2017, Mr. Moreland resigned from his position as General Sessions Judge in Davidson
County, Tennessee.

25

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Moreland must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
LARRY EDWARD PARRISH, BPR #008464
SHELBY COUNTY
On August 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Memphis attorney Larry Edward
Parrish from the practice of law for six (6) months, with one (1) month to be served on active suspension and
the remaining five (5) months on probation. This suspension will be effective 10 days from the date of the
Supreme Court Order. Mr. Parrish must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety
days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Parrish based upon
a complaint of misconduct. Mr. Parrish made derogatory statements in motions to recuse three judges on the
Tennessee Court of Appeals after an adverse decision such as “This is not about miscalling balls and strikes;
this is about rigging the game”; “The repeated statements in [the judge’s] Memorandum Opinion … [are] a
convenient and illegitimately purposeful fabrication”; and “… although there is no evidence that [the judge]
received a bribe to do what he is doing, [the judge] is doing what a bribe-taking judge would do to victimize a
litigant.…” A hearing panel found that Mr. Parrish violated Tennessee Rules of Professional conduct 3.5 (e)
(conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal), 8.2 (a) (1) (false statement concerning qualifications and integrity of
a judge), 8.4 (a) (misconduct) and 8.4 (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The hearing
panel imposed public censure.
The Board of Professional Responsibility appealed the decision. The trial court affirmed the findings
of the hearing panel, but imposed a six (6) month suspension with one month to be served as an active
suspension. Mr. Parrish appealed and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court,
concluding that the hearing panel acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing a public censure.
Mr. Parrish must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 18
(2006) and 30 (2014), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return
to the active practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
MICHAEL GIBBS SHEPPARD, BPR #019868
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
Effective August 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Michael Gibbs Sheppard from
the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days, followed by two (2) years of probation under the supervision
of a practice monitor. Mr. Sheppard is required to take fifteen (15) hours of continuing legal education on law
office management and trust accounting procedures.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Mr. Sheppard based
upon two (2) complaints of ethical misconduct. A hearing panel found that Mr. Sheppard failed to properly
maintain and monitor client trust accounts, which resulted in the commingling of client funds, use of client
funds to pay for operating expenses, and a diminished balance of client funds in the trust account. The hearing

26

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
panel found that Mr. Sheppard knowingly misled at least one client about the status of the client’s trust funds;
however, they found Mr. Sheppard’s acts were not intentional and did not seriously injure any clients.
The Board appealed the decision of the hearing panel to a trial court and to the Tennessee Supreme
Court. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the hearing panel decision was supported by substantial and
material evidence, was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Mr. Sheppard’s conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional conduct 1.15 (safekeeping property and
funds) and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Sheppard must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.
JUDITH-ANNE ROSS ST. CLAIR, BPR #034024
COFFEE COUNTY
On July 20, 2018, Judith-Anne Ross St. Clair was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court for three (3) years, with six (6) months to be served as an active suspension, and the
remainder to be served on probation subject to the following: Ms. St. Clair must continue to be in compliance
with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) monitoring agreement and follow any and all
recommendation; make restitution prior to seeking reinstatement; engage a practice monitor; and commit no
further acts of misconduct resulting in a recommendation of discipline. Ms. St. Clair must pay the Board’s
costs and expenses.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Ms. St. Clair concerning multiple complaints of misconduct.
Prior to the final hearing, Ms. St. Clair entered into a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting that on April 10, 2017,
she was arrested for a schedule II drug violation in a drug free school zone. Ms. St. Clair entered a plea to
amended lesser charges, received judicial diversion, and a suspended sentence of eleven (11) months and 29
days. During the period of her arrest and subsequent drug treatment, Ms. St. Clair failed to communicate with
her clients, failed to provide diligent legal services, and abandoned their cases. Ms. St. Clair has made
restitution to two clients and has agreed to make restitution to a third client.
Ms. St. Clair has admitted violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communications; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; and 8.4(a),(b), and (d), Misconduct.
Ms. St. Clair must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
HAL WILKES WILKINS, BPR #017830
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 6, 2018, Hal Wilkes Wilkins, of Nashville, Tennessee, was suspended for one year from the
practice of law, effective immediately, by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Wilkins must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

27

SUSPENSIONS (continued)
The Board filed a Petition for Discipline arising from one complaint of ethical misconduct alleging that
Mr. Wilkins, who was disbarred on July 22, 2014, and again on January 28, 2015, sought and opened a lawyer’s
trust account during the period of disbarment. Mr. Wilkins held himself out as a lawyer admitted to practice
in this jurisdiction in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) and
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 18 (2006) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4
(2014) which require disbarred lawyers to “take such action as is necessary to cause the removal of any indicia
of lawyer, counselor at law, legal assistant, law clerk, or similar title.”
The Court ordered Mr. Wilkins to close the bank account within thirty (30) days, or be subject to
contempt proceedings.
Mr. Wilkins must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and may not return to the active
practice of law until an order of reinstatement has been entered by the Supreme Court.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
JONATHAN STEPHEN CARLTON, BPR #029768
KENTUCKY
On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended the law license of
Jonathan Stephen Carlton of Nortonville, Kentucky from the practice of law upon finding Mr. Carlton failed
to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides
for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure
to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.
Jonathan Stephen Carlton is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by October 7, 2018. After October 7, 2018, Mr. Carlton shall not use any indicia
of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Jonathan Stephen Carlton must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as cocounsel and opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license. Mr. Carlton is
required to deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Carlton 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. Jonathan
Stephen Carlton may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.

28

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
DAPHNE MICHELLE DAVIS, BPR #028128
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Daphne Michelle
Davis from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Davis failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint
of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an
attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the Board regarding a complaint
of misconduct.
Ms. Davis is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing
existing clients by October 21, 2018. After October 21, 2018, Ms. Davis shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Davis must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Davis is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Ms. Davis
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
BENJAMIN S. DEMPSEY, BPR #009041
CARROLL COUNTY
On August 16, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Benjamin S. Dempsey
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Dempsey misappropriated funds 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 of an attorney’s misappropriation of funds.
Mr. Dempsey is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by September 15, 2018. After September 15, 2018, Mr. Dempsey shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Dempsey 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. Dempsey is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Dempsey may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

29

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
ARTHUR WAYNE HENRY, BPR #9484
LOUDON COUNTY
On April 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Arthur Wayne Henry from
the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Henry has misappropriated funds 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 if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Henry is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by May 26, 2018. After May 26, 2018, Mr. Henry shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Henry 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. Henry is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Henry
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
JENNIFER LYNN MAYHAM, BPR #034346
LAUDERDALE COUNTY
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Jennifer Lynn Mayham
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Mayham 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 if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Ms. Mayham is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing
existing clients by July 21, 2018. After July 21, 2018, Ms. Mayham shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Mayham must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel, of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Mayham is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Ms. Mayham
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
BRIAN PHILLIP MANOOKIAN, BPR #026455
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Brian Phillip
Manookian from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Manookian poses a threat of substantial harm to the

30

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s
license to practice law if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Manookian is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease
representing existing clients by October 21, 2018. After October 21, 2018, Mr. Manookian shall not use any
indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Manookian 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. Manookian is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Manookian may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.
JUDSON WHEELER PHILLIPS, BPR #013029
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On August 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Judson Wheeler Phillips
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Phillips 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 if an attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Phillips is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by September 7, 2018. After September 7, 2018, Mr. Phillips shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Phillips 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. Phillips is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Phillips
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
TRAVIS WAYMON TIPTON, BPR #035557
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Travis Waymon Tipton from
the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Tipton was in substantial non-compliance with the terms of the
monitoring agreement with the Tennessee Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“TLAP”). 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 noncompliance with TLAP’s monitoring agreement.

31

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Mr. Tipton is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 1, 2018. After August 1, 2018, Mr. Tipton shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Tipton 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. Tipton is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Tipton must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, §§ 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. Tipton
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
MARTIN ALAN WEISS, BPR #012295
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Martin Alan Weiss from the
practice of law upon finding that Mr. Weiss misappropriated funds and poses a threat of substantial harm to
the public and failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme
Court Rule 9 provides for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law if an
attorney poses a threat of substantial harm to the public and in cases of an attorney’s failure to respond to the
Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.
Mr. Weiss is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by August 24, 2018. After August 24, 2018, Mr. Weiss shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Weiss 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. Weiss is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Weiss
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.
CANDACE LENETTE WILLIAMSON, BPR #028933
MISSISSIPPI
On July 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Candace Lenette
Williamson of Southaven, Mississippi, from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Williamson failed to
respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court Rule 9 provides
for the immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure
to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct.

32

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS (continued)
Ms. Williamson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease
representing existing clients by August 17, 2018. After August 17, 2018, Ms. Williamson shall not use any
indicia of lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Ms. Williamson must notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending her law license. Ms. Williamson is required to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Ms. Williamson 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.
Williamson may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the
Supreme Court.

PUBLIC CENSURES
BEDE O. M. ANYANWU, BPR #024293
MADISON COUNTY
On June 15, 2018, Bede O. M. Anyanwu, of Madison County, Tennessee, was publicly censured by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court ordered Mr. Anyanwu to pay costs and expenses to the
Board of Professional Responsibility.
On May 8, 2017, a Petition for Discipline containing one (1) complaint was filed against Mr. Anyanwu.
Prior to the final hearing, Mr. Anyanwu executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging he delayed for a
period of fifteen (15) months taking the steps necessary to perfect service of a divorce complaint on the nonresident defendant. Mr. Anyanwu’s conduct violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence).
For these violations, the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Mr. Anyanwu. A Public
Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice law.
JOSEPH SCOTT BEAN, JR., BPR #022018
FRANKLIN COUNTY
On July 19, 2018, Joseph Scott Bean, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
During the duration of his four-year disciplinary suspension, Mr. Bean has maintained a trust account and used
it as his personal checking account. Although there was no evidence that client funds were involved, Mr.
Bean’s conduct was improper and violated Rule 1.15 regarding trust accounts.

33

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
By these acts, Mr. Bean has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (Safekeeping 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.
CHARLES RUFUS BOBBITT, BPR #21846
SUMNER COUNTY
On April 16, 2018, Charles Rufus Bobbitt, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Bobbitt represented a client in seeking modification of a parenting plan. Mr. Bobbitt did not affix
a proposed parenting plan and verified statement of income to his petition, as required by statute. The Court
entered an order requiring Mr. Bobbitt to correct these deficiencies. Mr. Bobbitt failed to do so, which resulted
in the dismissal of the petition. Additionally, Mr. Bobbitt failed to file a timely reply to opposing counsel’s
counter-petition, resulting in entry of a default judgment. Mr. Bobbitt also failed to maintain good
communication with his client throughout the representation.
By these acts, Charles Rufus Bobbitt, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 3.4(c) (disobedience to an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal), 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.
DAWN ELAINE BOWIE, BPR #033113
SEVIER COUNTY
On July 25, 2018, Dawn Elaine Bowie, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Bowie filed a guardianship action while a dependent and neglect petition was pending involving the same
custody dispute. Ms. Bowie filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions after being served with a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Bowie did not provide opposing counsel with an opportunity to
withdraw the motion to dismiss as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and there was no merit
to the motion for sanctions. Ms. Bowie also communicated with the opposing parties about the subject matter
of the custody dispute despite being aware that they were represented by counsel.
By these acts, Dawn Elaine Bowie has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 3.1
(meritorious claims and contentions), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal), and 4.2 (communication with a person represented by counsel), and is hereby Publicly Censured for
these violations.

34

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
DENNIS DWAYNE BROOKS, BPR #018561
CARTER COUNTY
On July 13, 2018, Dennis Dwayne Brooks, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Brooks entered into an agreement to publish a book about the convictions of three people for
murder, after he was successful in getting murder convictions as the lead prosecutor in the matters. Mr.
Brooks’ book was published prior to the conclusions of the appeals of two of the convictions. After Mr.
Brooks’ book was published, one of the defendants filed a motion for a new trial and a writ of error coram
nobis alleging that the book contained evidence which had not been provided to the defense. The appeals of
two of the convictions were stayed for 18 months pending a hearing on these matters.
By these acts, Mr. Brooks is in violation of Rule 1.8 (conflict of interest) 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.
ARTHUR WAYNE HENRY, BPR #9484
LOUDON COUNTY
On April 16, 2018, Arthur Wayne Henry, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
On September 21, 2017, Mr. Henry was retained to represent a client in a domestic case in which the
client desired to relocate with her child to another state. On December 4, 2017, the client discovered that Mr.
Henry had taken no action to file a petition to relocate or to answer the opposing party’s petition. Mr. Henry
did refund the client’s fees after she confronted him about the inactivity on the case.
By these acts, Arthur Wayne Henry, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 3.2 (expediting litigation) 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.
LATRENA DAVIS INGRAM, BPR #16657
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 17, 2018, LaTrena Davis Ingram, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

35

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
In the representation of a client in pursuing a medical malpractice claim, Ms. Ingram failed to comply
with Tennessee’s statutory pre-suit requirements, which led to the dismissal of the lawsuit. On appeal, Ms.
Ingram failed to file a transcript or statement of the evidence as required by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the assessment of court costs against her client.
By these acts, LaTrena Davis Ingram has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3, (diligence), 3.2, (expediting litigation), and 3.4(c) (disobedience to an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal), 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.
JOHN BENNETH IWU, BPR #024522
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 19, 2018, John Benneth Iwu, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In December 2017, Mr. Iwu authorized two electronic payments representing filing fees from his trust account
knowing that his trust account contained personal funds that would not be sufficient to cover the amount of
the payments. While Mr. Iwu anticipated depositing client funds into the account to cover the filing fees, he
ultimately forgot resulting in an overdraft on the account.
By these acts, Mr. Iwu has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (Safekeeping Funds), 8.4(b)
(Criminal Conduct) and 8.4(c) (Conduct Involving Dishonesty) 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.
ALAN C. LEE, BPR #012700
HAMBLEN COUNTY
On July 9, 2018, Alan C. Lee, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Lee issued two checks from his trust account to two clients for settlement funds to those clients.
At the end of the month, Mr. Lee mistakenly believed the two checks had been cashed by the clients, so Mr.
Lee took the remaining funds on those matters as a fee. The two clients later cashed the checks, and the checks
were covered by other funds in the account. Mr. Lee discovered the error, but did not replace the funds in his
trust account which had been inadvertently taken as a fee for almost two months. Mr. Lee’s conduct resulted
in harm to his clients.

36

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
By these acts, Mr. Lee is in violation of 1.15(e) (safekeeping funds) and is hereby Publicly Censured
for this violation with the condition that he attend the three-hour Trust Account Workshop by the Board of
Professional Responsibility, scheduled for August 29, 2018.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
BRENNAN PATRICK LENIHAN, BPR #022165
KNOX COUNTY
On July 17, 2018, Brennan Patrick Lenihan, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In three separate cases, Mr. Lenihan engaged in a pattern of neglecting client matters. In the first case,
Mr. Lenihan ignored his client’s attempts to obtain information about their case as well as requests from the
Board’s Consumer Assistance Program during this time period. In the second case, Mr. Lenihan allowed
deadlines that were important to his clients to pass, he did not provide them with draft pleadings as they
requested, and he did not reply to a number of their text messages inquiring as to the status of the matter. In
the third case, Mr. Lenihan did not complete his client’s amendment to a custody order, he ignored her
numerous attempts to communicate with him for several months, including her request for her file and a refund
of fees paid, and he ignored inquiries from the Board’s Consumer Assistance Program as well. In addition,
Mr. Lenihan failed to respond timely to a disciplinary complaint.
By these acts, Brennan Patrick Lenihan, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 (scope of
representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (unreasonable fee), 1.16 (terminating representation)
and 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation with the conditions that he
engage a practice monitor and issue refunds to the affected clients.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
KAY JEFFREY LUETHKE, BPR #015534
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On July 10, 2018, Kay Jeffrey Luethke, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Luethke improperly commingled trust funds into his operating account and personal funds into his
trust account on several different occasions. Mr. Luethke also held funds in his trust account which were not
related to any representation, withdrew funds without allowing adequate time for a check to clear, and
inadvertently used trust funds to pay a personal debt without reconciling his account and correcting the
problem.

37

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
By these acts, Kay Jeffrey Luethke, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping
property) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. As a condition of the Public Censure, Mr.
Luethke shall be required to attend the Board’s Trust Account Workshop on August 29, 2018.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
ROBERT ELLIOTT MCGUIRE, BPR #21594
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On April 10, 2018, Robert Elliott McGuire, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In October of 2013, Mr. McGuire made statements in the rebuttal closing argument of a criminal
prosecution that referenced material which had been excluded by the trial court in a pretrial Order. Further,
the statements were inappropriate, served no legitimate purpose, and resulted in reversal of the conviction by
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
By these acts, Robert Elliott McGuire, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) (disobey rules
of tribunal) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for
these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
THOMAS HOWARD MILLER, BPR #017124
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 10, 2018, Thomas Howard Miller, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Miller failed to adequately communicate with his client, and failed to diligently address the client’s
needs. Mr. Miller’s fee was unreasonable based upon the time and labor involved and lack of complexity of
the case, the results obtained, and the failure to reduce the fee to a writing.
By these acts, Thomas Howard Miller, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), and 1.5 (fees) and is hereby Publicly Censured for such violations. As a condition of the
Public Censure, Mr. Miller shall be required to refund $2,500.00 in fees directly to his client within 60 days.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.

38

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
JERE F. OWNBY, BPR #14979
KNOX COUNTY
On April 11, 2018, Jere F. Ownby, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Ownby’s law license was suspended on Friday July 7, 2017, but he continued to practice law for
three business days after the suspension.
In one client matter, Mr. Ownby failed to notify the court or opposing counsel of his suspension, and
he failed to withdraw from the representation of his client at any time. Three months after his suspension, the
court set a status conference and Mr. Ownby did not appear or provide any response to the court or opposing
counsel. This conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
By these acts, Mr. Ownby has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of
law), 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice) and 8.4(g) (knowingly failing to comply with court
order when attorney is a party) 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.
KARL EMMANUEL PULLEY, BPR #012761
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 20, 2018, Karl Emmanuel Pulley, 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 a client in a criminal case, Mr. Pulley failed to request a jury instruction as to the lesser
offense of facilitation, which was fairly raised by the proof thereby waiving any chance his client had of being
convicted of a lesser charge. In response to a post-conviction petition in which Mr. Pulley’s client alleged that
Mr. Pulley rendered constitutionally deficient representation, the State, rather than attempting to defend the
convictions, entered into an agreed order vacating the convictions and the client was permitted to enter a plea
to a lesser charge for a shorter sentence.
By these acts, Mr. Pulley, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence) and 1.3
(Diligence) 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.

39

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
JAMES D.R. ROBERTS, JR. BPR #017537
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 12, 2018, James D. R. Roberts, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
During a period of suspension from the practice of law, Mr. Roberts worked for the mailing service
used by his law firm. While working for the mailing service, Mr. Roberts utilized his law firm email address
to communicate with a client and to provide him with copies of letters being sent from his law firm through
the mailing service. Mr. Roberts’ conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
By these acts, Mr. Roberts 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.
ELIZABETH ANN SHIPLEY, BPR #032721
PUTNAM COUNTY
On July 9, 2018, Elizabeth Ann Shipley, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Shipley represented clients in defense of a boundary line suit. Ms. Shipley failed to file an answer
or enter an appearance in the action, which led to entry of a default judgment. Ms. Shipley failed to take
prompt remedial action once notified of the default judgment or protect her clients’ interests following her
discharge as counsel. Ms. Shipley also failed to maintain good communication with her clients throughout the
representation.
By these acts, Ms. Shipley has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and
3.4(c) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. Additionally, as a condition of the Public Censure,
Ms. Shipley shall refund $1,500.00 in attorney fees to her former clients within thirty (30) days of issuance of
this 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.
AUNDREAS W. SMITH, BPR #17169
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On April 4, 2018, Aundreas W. Smith of Williamson County, Tennessee, was publicly censured by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court further ordered Ms. Smith to pay restitution to one client,
complete an additional three hours of continuing legal education with a focus on management of IOLTA

40

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
accounts and accounting associated with contingency fee cases, and pay costs and expenses to the Board of
Professional Responsibility.
On May 23, 2017, the Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Smith. The Petition for
Discipline included one (1) complaint of disciplinary misconduct alleging that Ms. Smith took her fee from
medical payments issued by her client’s insurance company and deposited the medical payment checks into
her operating account rather than her IOLTA account. She also failed to provide her client with a written
settlement statement.
A hearing panel determined that Ms. Smith violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(c) (fees), 1.15
(safekeeping property), and 8.4(a) (misconduct). For these violations, the Supreme Court of Tennessee
publicly censured Ms. Smith.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
SHANTELL S. SUTTLE, BPR #023365
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 17, 2018, Shantell S. Suttle, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Suttle failed to timely file a client’s personal injury lawsuit and also failed to respond to requests
for information from her client for three months in late 2016 and for six months in 2017. In another client
matter, Ms. Suttle failed to timely pursue the closing of an estate after the initial filing opening the matter. Ms.
Suttle took no action on the estate for more than a year, and failed to timely file an accounting. Ms. Suttle also
failed to respond to requests for information from her client for eight months. The client paid Ms. Suttle a
$2,300 fee for the estate matter.
By these acts, Ms. Suttle has violated Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 (diligence) and Rule 1.4
(communication), and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation with the condition that she refund $2,000
to the second client.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
TODD ALLEN TRESSLER, BPR #26925
WILSON COUNTY
On April 16, 2018, Todd Allen Tressler, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Tressler hired a real estate broker in connection with the purchase of commercial realty. Mr.
Tressler terminated the broker’s services and hired an immediate family member as successor broker after the

41

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
original broker’s work was substantially completed. The closing documents and contractual agreement
between Mr. Tressler and the two brokers granted the original broker the full commission at closing and
provided that the division of the commission would be subsequently negotiated between the two brokers.
Contrary to this agreement, Mr. Tressler refused to forward payment of the full commission to the original
broker, and instead attempted to negotiate a division of the commission on behalf of the successor broker.
By these acts, Todd Allen Tressler, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (misconduct) 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.
TIMOTHY JOEL WILLIAMS, BPR #10159
MEMPHIS
On April 10, 2018, Timothy Joel Williams, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Williams represented a client in a municipal court in Mississippi without receiving permission to
appear pro hac vice and further represented the client in a Mississippi Circuit Court case without fully
complying with the Mississippi pro hac vice rules. Mr. Williams associated a Mississippi attorney to assist in
the case, but did not inform his client of the associated attorney’s participation in the case until after the case
had been transferred to Circuit Court. Mr. Williams also claimed that his fee was non-refundable but he did
not have a written fee agreement signed by his client.
By these acts, Timothy Joel Williams has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication),
1.5(f) (fees), 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under rules of a tribunal), 5.5(a) (unauthorized
practice of law), and 8.4(a)(d) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. As a
condition of the Public Censure, Mr. Williams is required to refund $2,500.00 in fees to his former client.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.
ANDREW NICHOLAS WILSON, BPR #25760
SEVIER COUNTY
On April 16, 2018, Andrew Nicholas Wilson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Wilson represented a client whose case was moved from state court to federal district court. Mr.
Wilson was not admitted to practice in federal district court and failed to respond to the court’s request to file
a motion to appear pro hac vice, to the court’s show cause order, or to the court’s order to appear. Mr. Wilson
was accordingly removed as counsel of record and reprimanded by the district court.

42

PUBLIC CENSURES (continued)
By these acts, Andrew Nicholas Wilson, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law), 3.4(c) (disobey obligation under rules of tribunal), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to
administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.

DISABILITY INACTIVE
ROBERT C. BROOKS, BPR #009371
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 11, 2018, the law license of Robert C. Brooks
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Brooks cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
JAMES DOUGLAS BUSCH, BPR #024090
KNOX COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 14, 2018, the law license of James Douglas
Busch was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Busch cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
WILLIAM DALTON CASTLEMAN, SR., BPR #3161
DALTON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 9, 2018, the law license of William Dalton
Castleman, Sr. was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.
Mr. Castleman cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

43

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
JOSETTE MICHELLE CHAMBERS, BPR #028788
GEORGIA
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 5, 2018, the law license of Josette Michelle
Chambers of Smyrna, Georgia was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Chambers cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice
of law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence
that the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
RICHARD DALE DARBY, BPR #28787
HAMBLEN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 9, 2018 the law license of Richard Dale Darby
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Darby cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
WALTER FRENCH EUBANKS, JR, BPR #019373
MADISON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 25, 2018, the law license of Walter French
Eubanks, Jr. was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Eubanks cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
JAMES JASPER FASON, III, BPR #035837
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 25, 2018, the law license of James Jasper
Fason, III, was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Fason cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

44

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
HOWARD FREDERICK FORD, BPR #2477
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 18, 2018, the law license of Howard Frederick
Ford was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Ford cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
LOVEMORE NYASHADZASHE GORORO, BPR #036386
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 26, 2018, the law license of Lovemore
Nyashadzashe Gororo was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Gororo cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
TERRY SHANE HENSLEY, BPR #24990
HAMILTON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 16, 2018, the law license of Terry Shane
Hensley was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Hensley cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
DAYNA A. HULME, BPR #016470
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 18, 2018, the law license of Dayna A.
Hulme was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Ms. Hulme cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.

45

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
PATRICK M. KELLEY, BPR #031596
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 30, 2018, the law license of Patrick M. Kelley
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Kelley cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
KIMPI KING KENDRICK, BPR #023728
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 6, 2018, the law license of Kimpi King
Kendrick was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Kendrick cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
IVAN MONROE LILLY, BPR #5892
WASHINGTON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 30, 2018, the law license of Ivan Monroe Lilly
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Lilly cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
ROGER DALE OAKS, BPR #010818
NORTH CAROLINA
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered June 5, 2018, the law license of Roger Dale Oaks
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Oaks cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law
after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that the
disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

46

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
ANDREA ELAINE PHELAN, BPR #020956
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 23, 2018, the law license of Andrea Elaine
Phelan was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Ms. Phelan cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and she is fit to resume the practice of law.
JOHN T. MILBURN ROGERS, BPR #1422
GREENE COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 25, 2018, the law license of John T. Milburn
Rogers was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Rogers cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
MARK A. SCHNEIDER, BPR #005039
ILLINOIS
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 25, 2018, the law license of Mark A. Schneider
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Schneider cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
GEORGE ERNEST SKOUTERIS, BPR #013417
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 30, 2018, the law license of George Ernest
Skouteris was transferred to disability inactive status after the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a
petition for discipline against Mr. Skouteris. By orders filed February 21, 2014; April 21, 2015 and February
9, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court previously disbarred Mr. Skouteris. Mr. Skouteris has not requested,
nor been granted, reinstatement from these disbarments and they remain in effect.
Mr. Skouteris cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and may not return to the practice
of law unless and until he is reinstated from his disbarments, his disability status is removed, he is determined

47

DISABILITY INACTIVE (continued)
to be fit to resume the practice of law by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and his pending disciplinary action is
resolved.
DAVID W. SPENCE, BPR #015032
SOUTH CAROLINA
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 28, 2018, the Tennessee law license of
David W. Spence was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.
Mr. Spence cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
MICHAEL LEONARD UNDERHILL, BPR #020316
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 12, 2018, the law license of Michael
Leonard Underhill was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.
Mr. Underhill cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of
law after reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing of clear and convincing evidence that
the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.

REINSTATEMENTS
DANIEL GRAHAM BOYD, BPR #22448
HAWKINS COUNTY
On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Daniel Graham Boyd to the practice of
law. Mr. Boyd had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on January 10, 2018, for a period of
one-hundred twenty (120) days. Mr. Boyd filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board found that the Petition was satisfactory and
submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
JARAMIAH JUSTIN HRUSKA, BPR #029225
PUTNAM COUNTY
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Jaramiah Justin Hruska to the practice
of law. Mr. Hruska had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 19, 2018, for a period
of two (2) years with thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension and the remainder served on
probation. Mr. Hruska filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme

48

REINSTATEMENTS (continued)
Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board found that the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of
Reinstatement to the Court.
JAMES DANIEL MARSHALL, BPR #25541
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated James Daniel Marshall to the practice of
law. Mr. Marshall had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on March 22, 2018, for a period
of two (2) years with a minimum of thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension and the remainder on
probation. Mr. Marshall satisfied the conditions of his suspension and filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the
practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board found the Petition
satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
TIMOTHY PAUL WEBB, BPR #016531
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Timothy Paul Webb to the practice of
law effective immediately. Mr. Webb had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for five years
on September 26, 2016, with two years active suspension and the remainder on probation with conditions. Mr.
Webb filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Section 30.4.
A Hearing Panel found that Mr. Webb complied with the terms and conditions of his suspension, and
further found that he had demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required
for the practice of law, and that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity or
standing of the bar or administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. Mr. Webb was required
by the order suspending him to make restitution to several clients. He completed that restitution fully prior to
filing the petition for reinstatement. Based upon the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court
reinstated Mr. Webb’s license to practice law. As conditions of his reinstatement, Mr. Webb must have a
practice monitor for the remainder of his probation, continue his current Tennessee Lawyers Assistance
Program monitoring agreement, and obtain legal malpractice insurance for the duration of his practice. Mr.
Webb must pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
HOMER L. CODY, BPR #10755
SHELBY COUNTY
On April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of a Special Master and held
Homer L. Cody of Memphis, Tennessee in criminal contempt and sentenced him to serve thirty days in jail.
The Court previously had entered an Order of Enforcement on July 27, 2015 suspending Mr. Cody’s license
to practice law for one-hundred eighty days; a second Order of Enforcement on July 7, 2016 suspending Mr.

49

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (continued)
Cody’s license for one year; and a third Order of Enforcement on August 11, 2017 suspending Mr. Cody’s
license for two years, in connection with three judgments of Hearing Panels issued on Petitions for Discipline
filed by the Board of Professional Responsibility.
The Board received a complaint that after the effective date of the first two suspensions, Mr. Cody
continued to practice law by filing two pleadings in a case in the Shelby County Chancery Court, and that after
the effective date of the third suspension, Mr. Cody continued to practice law by filing a third pleading in the
same case. Following an investigation, the Board filed a Petition for Contempt on August 11, 2017. The
Supreme Court appointed a Special Master who held a hearing on December 4, 2017. In the report and
recommendation filed on February 1, 2018, the Special Master found Mr. Cody guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt of three counts of criminal contempt pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 29-9-102, and sentenced him to ten
days in jail plus a $50.00 fine for each.
On February 8, 2018, the Supreme Court ordered Mr. Cody to show cause why the recommendation
should not be adopted. By the April 19, 2018 Order, the Court has adopted the recommendation finding that,
while on suspension, Mr. Cody willfully and intentionally engaged in three separate acts of criminal contempt
by filing the pleadings in the Chancery Court for Shelby County.
The Court sentenced Mr. Cody to a period of incarceration of thirty days and ordered him to pay a fine
of $150.00. Mr. Cody was ordered to surrender to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department by May 4, 2018.

50

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	jturner
Creator	PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2
ModifyDate	Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:24 PM +00:00
PageCount	50
PDFVersion	1.4
Title	Microsoft Word - Board Notes Fall 2018 - FINAL 2

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
CreateDate	Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:24 PM +00:00
FileName	Board_Notes_Fall_2018_-_FINAL.pdf
FileSize	437 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Linearized	No
MIMEType	application/pdf
Producer	GPL Ghostscript 8.15
SourceFile	Board_Notes_Fall_2018_-_FINAL.pdf

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