board_notes_spring_2019.pdf (2019)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (board_notes_spring_2019.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
published by the

Board of Professional Responsibility
of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee

Spring 2019

Greeting from Floyd Flippin

Inside:
2

Spotlight: Tennessee
Supreme Court Approves
Amendments to
Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 7

6

11

15

Spotlight: CLE
Commission Proposes
Changes to Rule 21 with
Goal of Clarity and
Si
lifi ti
Formal Ethics Opinion
2019-F-167

Disciplinary Actions
September 2018 - March 2019

Chair, Board of Professional Responsibility

This is my first year to be Chairman. It's an honor to serve on the Board. There is a strong
team working with me to protect the public and to make sure the Rules of Professional
Conduct are fairly applied to all lawyers practicing in Tennessee.
Let me introduce you to the team. There are 11 other Board members from all three
Grand Divisions of our State. The 9 lawyers on the Board have varied law practices in
varying size firms in big cities and small towns. We are also blessed to have three lay
people on our Board, a Deputy Chief of Police, a veteran banker and another member
who is a retired Navy Captain, a business leader and a member of the Tennessee State
Senate.
The twelve-member Board is supported by a variety of fine people led by Chief
Disciplinary Counsel, Sandy Garrett. Her staff includes 11 other fine lawyers who all were
private practicing lawyers prior to coming to the Board. Collectively, they have tried
cases jury and non-jury), made Appellate arguments and represented businesses and
individuals throughout Tennessee. These 12 lawyers are supported by an outstanding
support staff of 21 of the finest men and women one could hope for.
We have 170 Hearing Panel Members who, like our twelve-member Board, are from all
three Grand Divisions of our State and who come from law practices that involve every
aspect of law there is in Tennessee. They are in all respects a "jury of our peers."
Who does this team govern? It governs 23,133 active Tennessee licensed attorneys. On
any given day, our staff of 12 lawyers and 21 support staff provides Advisory Opinions,
reviews Complaints, provides Consumer Assistance information and prepares matters for
hearing all the way through the Tennessee Supreme Court.
I hope that as you review these Board Notes that you will, like me, be comforted to know
that such a fine group of folks considers each and every phone call, letter and complaint.

1

Tennessee Supreme Court Approves Amendments
to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7
By: Lisa Perlen, Executive Director
Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
The Tennessee Supreme Court approved amendments to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7 which
governs licensing of attorneys in Tennessee, effective March 29, 2019. An Order soliciting
comments on the proposed changes was entered on January 17, 2019. Links to the Order and rule
revisions can be found at the end of this article.
After many changes to Rule 7 in recent years, including the adoption of the Uniform Bar
Examination (UBE) and Tennessee Law Course, practice pending admission provisions, and
temporary licensing for the spouse of a military servicemember, the Board and Supreme Court
reviewed the balance of the licensing rule, some parts of which had not been revised in many years.
The most recent changes reflect a universal review of the rule with key changes to practice pending
admission, in-house counsel registration by non-Tennessee lawyers, and the rules governing law
students working under supervision of faculty.
As part of the holistic review, the rule was reformatted to a consistent numbering convention for
ease in citation. Further, emphasis was placed on ensuring that each section was properly placed
in the corresponding Articles of the Rule based on the type of admission. Prior to the adoption of
the UBE, to be licensed in Tennessee an applicant was required either to take the Tennessee bar
examination or seek admission based on years of practice. With the adoption of the UBE and
acceptance of transferred UBE scores, the focus shifts to licensing by exam score or licensing
based on time engaged in the active practice of law.
For example, former section 5.01(g) permitted applicants who were licensed in another U.S.
jurisdiction to register to practice pending admission. Section 5.01(g) could be found in Article V,
Admission without Examination. However, more applicants who are licensed in another
jurisdiction are applying for admission by exam or by transferred UBE score; they aren’t waiting
until they have been licensed and engaged in the active practice of law for at least 5 years before
seeking admission in Tennessee. Since practice pending admission applies to anyone seeking
admission who is licensed in another jurisdiction, the section has been moved to Article X, Special
or Limited Practice, as new section 10.07.
Likewise, former section 3.08, “Duty of Candor,” and section 3.09, “False Information,” apply to
all applicants. These sections have been moved to sections 6.04 and 6.05, related to Character and
Fitness Investigations.
The holistic approach to the Rule resulted in a major change to Article II, Educational
Requirements for Admission. Former sections 2.03 through 2.15 governed Tennessee Law Schools
but did not relate to an applicant’s educational requirements for admission. These provisions have
been moved to new Article XVII. The renumbered sections specify the duties and responsibilities
of the Board of Law Examiners and Tennessee law schools, and take into account the effect of law
school accreditation by the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions
to the Bar. New law schools in Tennessee must be approved by the Board and seek ABA

2

Tennessee Supreme Court Approves Amendments
to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7
(continued from previous page)

accreditation. Nashville School of Law will continue as a Tennessee-approved law school and its
graduates remain eligible to take the bar examination.
Other amendments include:
•

The limitation on admission by transferred UBE score or without examination for
applicants who were previously unsuccessful on the Tennessee bar examination has been
removed. The restriction was contrary to the intent of the adoption of the Uniform Bar
Examination, where a passing UBE score would be similar to a subsequent re-examination
score. Further, the provision is not relevant for admission without examination as time in
practice is the measure rather than an examination score.

•

For all forms of admission, there are new provisions regarding the expiration of the
application. See §§ 3.04 and 5.03.

•

Sections 3.05 and 4.07 were amended to clarify that a transferred UBE score is valid for
admission for otherwise expired UBE scores for up to but no more than 5 years, if practice
requirements are met.

•

Section 7.01 was amended to provide that foreign-educated applicants who meet the
eligibility requirements may seek admission by transferred UBE score.

•

Several changes were made to section 10.01, In-House Counsel:
o Foreign lawyers must register as In-House Counsel under section 10.01(a). By statute,
foreign lawyers are permitted to serve as counsel in Tennessee for the purpose of
providing counsel and opinions regarding the law of the country in which the foreign
lawyer is licensed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-2-106. The amendments to Rule 7 require
foreign lawyers serving as In-House Counsel to register as required of other In-House
Counsel; however, a foreign lawyer will not be permitted to provide pro bono service.
Anyone presently serving as foreign legal counsel is given until September 30, 2019,
to register as In House Counsel without penalty.
o Section 10.01(i) was added to clarify that the protections against unauthorized practice
of law apply only to those who timely register as In-House Counsel. Those working inhouse who choose to apply for admission by exam score or without examination must
register for practice pending admission under section 10.07 upon commencement of
practice in Tennessee.

3

Tennessee Supreme Court Approves Amendments
to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7
(continued from previous page)

o There is a new late registration provision, section 10.01(h), permitting in-house counsel
who do not register within 180 days to register late and pay a late registration fee. Late
registration does not preclude discipline for failing to timely register or filing of
potential unauthorized practice of law charges.
o Fees for In-House Counsel applications have been reduced to $600 for a timely
application; an additional late fee of $200 is assessed for late registration.
•

Sections 10.02 and 10.03 related to law school experiential learning programs, formerly
law school clinics, and law student practice have been rewritten on recommendation of
and in cooperation with the clinical directors from all of our Tennessee law schools.
o Section 10.02 was revised in collaboration with the Tennessee law school clinical
directors to encompass more than the traditional law school clinic in order to permit
Tennessee law school students a wide range of hands-on learning options for which the
student can be awarded a limited student practice license. A new definition for
Experiential Learning Program has been added, which is used for section 10.02 as well
as section 10.03. Requirements for approval of Experiential Learning Programs and
clinical counsel are found in section 10.02. Included in the Order Amending Rule 7 is
a provision that a law school with a currently approved Experiential Learning Programs
does not have to seek re-approval of the program.
o Section 10.03 governs law student practice in conjunction with an experiential learning
program or placement. The purpose of section 10.03 is educational, providing law
students options to further legal training. Revised section 10.03 provides a platform for
students to participate in quality experiential learning programs under supervision prior
to graduation as part of their legal education.
o The focus of the experiential learning programs, as in the case of legal clinics
previously, remains on helping those who cannot otherwise afford representation but
does not include placement in private practice.
o Unique to Tennessee is a new provision that allows a qualified law student whose
permission to practice has expired to participate in a short-term law-school-sponsored
pro bono event without seeking re-approval.

•

Show Cause Orders and Hearings in Article XIII:
o Revisions to section 13.01 related to show cause hearings incorporate current practice
and provide more information regarding the show cause and hearing process. The

4

Tennessee Supreme Court Approves Amendments
to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7
•

(continued from previous page)

changes specify which actions of the Board require issuance of a show cause order and
which do not.
o Section 13.02 was modified to clarify that an applicant may not petition for
reconsideration for denial of eligibility due to an incomplete application at the
application deadline.
o Changes to section 13.04 reorganize the provisions related to default to provide clarity.
The list of revisions above is not exhaustive but represents the more significant changes to Rule
7. The full text of Rule 7 and the Order Amending Rule 7 can be found on the Tennessee Courts
website at http://www.tncourts.gov/courts/rules or on the website for the Tennessee Board of Law
Examiners at http://www.tnble.org/tn-supreme-court-rule-7.

5

CLE Commission Proposes Changes to Rule 21
with Goal of Clarity and Simplification
By: Judy Bond-McKissack, Executive Director, Tennessee CLE Commission
Supreme Court Rule 21 was last amended on December 16, 2014 with an effective date of January
1, 2015. That revision was the first comprehensive revision to the rule on mandatory continuing
legal education since its inception. Since that time the staff of the Commission has engaged in
conversations with many attorneys licensed in Tennessee who reside in Tennessee as well as other
states. The questions asked in those conversations became the basis for the current proposal to
revise Rule 21. The staff of the Commission, with tremendous support and help from the members
of the Commission’s board, have attempted to create a rule that is as close to being self-explanatory
as possible. The rule has been completely reorganized with cross references to other relevant
provisions of the rule or regulations that also address the same topic being addressed.
Now that you know why we filed to amend the rule lets get to the heart of the proposed changes.
Elimination of the Five Hour In-Classroom CLE Credit Requirement – Effective January 1,
2015, Rule 21 was amended to require that five of the seven required live hours of CLE be earned
from live traditional in-classroom courses. After the enactment of the changes to Rule 21, when
the Commission began to compile statistics for the Annual Compliance Summary, the Commission
saw that most attorneys obtained their seven (7) live hours from in-classroom courses. The purpose
of the 5-hours requirement was to encourage live interaction between attorneys and to create a
bridge to civility among members of the bar. In theory it was a great idea but in practice it proved
to be a penalty against attorneys who were engaged in activities that the Supreme Court really
wanted to encourage, like doing pro bono work, indigent defense, public service, and writing
articles for legal publications. These are activities that the Court wants to promote however the 5hours live in-classroom rule reduced the CLE benefit received by attorneys doing these activities.
Claiming Military Exemption- The current rule does not provide any guidance to an attorney
who needs to claim the military exemption or how to do so. Unfortunately, many attorneys do not
communicate with the Commission at all and fail to respond to notices sent to them. That creates
a situation where the Commission does not know how long the active duty lasts and how long the
attorney remains eligible for the exempt status. In order for attorney records to accurately reflect
an attorney’s military status, the Commission proposes that section 2.04(b) be amended to require
that attorneys furnish a copy of their military orders to qualify for the military exemption. A review
of the CLE rules of other states reveals that many states require a copy of military orders to
establish an attorney’s military status. Military orders are provided to attorneys who are being
deployed within sufficient time for them to take care of personal matters before arriving at their
duty station. Military orders provide a specific date and time period for a deployment and are
always updated when a change of deployment occurs. Currently, the Commission is experiencing
a problem with attorneys who leave military service and fail to contact the Commission to update
their status. Sometimes years pass before the Commission can reach such an attorney and
determine their actual status. By adding the requested

6

CLE Commission Proposes Changes to Rule 21
with Goal of Clarity and Simplification
(continued from previous page)

provision to section 2.04(b) the Commission will know how long a tour of duty lasts and when the
attorney needs to recertify their exemption. Attorneys who leave military service prior to August
of the compliance year would have a continuing legal education obligation. Attorneys leaving
military service after August would not have a continuing legal education obligation for that
compliance year.
Exemption for Attorneys Holding Elective Office - Rule 21, Section 2.04(f) of the current rule
provides for an exemption for attorneys holding an elective office in the Executive or Legislative
branch of government who are prohibited from practicing law while holding such office. The
Commission has received requests to extend the exemption to attorneys who work in government
but who are not barred from practicing by municipal rules and have such demanding schedules
that they cannot practice. Such an attorney would be required to file a certification along with their
Annual Report Statement establishing government service and that he/she has not practiced law
during the compliance year. The Commission uses the definition of the practice of law as found in
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 10.3.
Why Does the CLE Commission Require Exemptions to be Claimed Annually? – The answer
is simple; it’s because situations change. Under Supreme Court Rule 9, an attorney must report
changes to their contact information to the Board of Professional Responsibility within thirty (30)
days of any change. A surprising number of attorneys neglect to provide this update resulting in
agency correspondence not being received from the Department of Revenue, the Board of
Professional Responsibility and the CLE Commission. Sometimes that means the attorney never
meets their obligations and results in the suspension of the attorney’s law license.
The CLE Commission experiences the same issue when an attorney returns to private practice after
serving in the military or moving to Tennessee from another state. We do not have any way of
knowing if an attorney has practiced Tennessee law in a compliance year. We rely on their veracity
in their response on the Annual Report Statement. We require exemptions to be claimed annually
except for a previously acknowledged Age exemption.
What types of Activities Qualify for Live and Distance Learning CLE credit? - After a
thorough review of the Commission’s regulations and the provisions of Rule 21, the Commission
identified twelve activities that provide attorneys with “Live credit.” The identified provisions
include traditional in-classroom course attendance, teaching, Pro Bono representation and indigent
defense, creating articles for legal publications, formal enrollment at educational institutions, and
public services activities. Because these various proposals are scattered throughout both the
regulations and the Rule, the Commission felt it would simplify and clarify what those various
provisions are by placing them in Rule 21. See Section 4; Section 5.01(g). In addition, the
Commission felt that the current requirement of earning seven (7) live hours of continuing legal
education each compliance year should also be stated specifically in section 3.01. The minimum
seven (7) hour requirement has been part of Rule 21 since March 4, 2008.

7

CLE Commission Proposes Changes to Rule 21
with Goal of Clarity and Simplification
(continued from previous page)

The Commission also felt it was necessary to expressly delineate the activities that qualify (and
do not qualify) for “Distance Learning credit” – i.e. credits earned on-line or via some form of
remote access technology.
Twelve (12) activities are eligible for Live CLE credit. See Section 3.01 of the proposed rule for
the requirement. The twelve (12) activities are:
1. Traditional in-classroom courses. A maximum of twelve (12) General credits and
three (3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. See Section 3.01(c) of
the proposed Rule;
2. Teaching at an approved CLE activity. A maximum of twelve (12) General credits
and three (3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. See section 4.03(a)
of the proposed Rule (includes video re-play with a qualified commentator); see
Regulation 3A for commentator requirements;
3. Teaching a law course at an approved educational institution. A maximum of
twelve (12) General credits and three (3) EP credits may be applied to any
compliance year. See section 4.03(b) of the proposed Rule;
4. Pro Bono representation. A maximum of three (3) EP credits may be applied to any
compliance year. See section 4.08(c) of the proposed Rule;
5. Indigent Defense representation (uncompensated portion only). A maximum of
three (3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. See section 4.08(d) of
the proposed Rule;
6. Published Legal Writing. A maximum of six (6) General and one and one-half (1.5)
EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. See section 4.08(b) of the
proposed Rule;
7. Formal enrollment and education of a postgraduate nature for credit or audit at an
approved educational institution. Credit is earned hour for hour. See section 4.04
of this Rule. For Live courses, a maximum of twelve (12) General credits and three
(3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. For online courses, via an
approved Distance Learning format, there is a maximum of eight (8) hours of credit
each compliance year. See section 3.01(c) of the proposed Rule;
8. Service as a Bar Examiner. A maximum of twelve (12) General credits and three
(3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year. See section 4.05 of the
proposed Rule;

8

CLE Commission Proposes Changes to Rule 21
with Goal of Clarity and Simplification
(continued from previous page)

9. Service on the Board of Professional Responsibility or one of its hearing
committees. Credit is limited to three (3) EP credits in any compliance year. See
section 4.07 of the proposed Rule;
10. Participation as a member of governmental commissions, committees, or other
governmental bodies. A maximum of six (6) General and one and one-half (1.5) EP
credits may be applied to any compliance year. See section 4.08(a) of the proposed
Rule;
11. Completion of Bar Review course. For Live courses, a maximum of twelve (12)
General credits and three (3) EP credits may be applied to any compliance year.
See section 4.06 of this Rule. For online courses, via an approved Distance
Learning format, there is a maximum of eight (8) hours of credit each compliance
year. See section 3.01(c) of the proposed Rule; and
12. Successful completion of a bar examination, specialist certification program, and/or
examination for admission to practice before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. A maximum of twelve (12) General credits and three (3) EP
credits may be applied to any compliance year. Bar review course credit and bar
exam credit cannot both be claimed in the same compliance year. See section
4.08(f) of the proposed Rule.
Two (2) categories of activities are eligible for Distance Learning CLE credit. See Section 3.01 of
the proposed rule for the requirement. Those two (2) categories are:
1. “real time” or “streamed” seminars whether through “conference call” or viewed through
a computer or portable video device via the internet (“webcast”), and
2. Online, computer-based audio/video presentations, whether pre-recorded or not, that
provide some form of interactive component and a completion certification from the
sponsor.
Activity that consists solely of the viewing or hearing of pre-recorded material will not be eligible
for CLE credit. The following types of courses and online formats are not eligible for CLE credit:
YouTube videos, self-study courses, pre-recorded courses without interactivity, courses delivered
as on-demand without interactivity, and courses delivered through an electronic device without
interactivity.
What Kind of Documentation Is Needed to Get A Course Accredited for CLE Credit? - An
attorney licensed to practice in Tennessee who has attended an out-of-state continuing legal
education activity not approved in advance by the Commission must submit a detailed agenda and
speaker biographies for the purpose of obtaining accreditation of the course after the program is

9

CLE Commission Proposes Changes to Rule 21
with Goal of Clarity and Simplification
(continued from previous page)

conducted. All rules pertaining to course accreditation shall apply. This information is only
requested for out of state courses that have never been accredited. Once a course has been
accredited, the need for the additional information no longer exits.
Implementation of a Late Fee for Late Reported Attendance - Rule 21 has contained a deadline
of thirty (30) days for providers to report an attorney’s attendance at a continuing legal education
program. Over the years the Commission has observed the length of time between the course
completion date and the date that the attendance is reported grow substantially. While most
providers report within the time limit established by the Rule, there are many in-state providers
and many more out of state providers who routinely report attendance months and, in several cases,
years after the CLE activity. The problem of late attendance is not only limited to providers but
also to non-compliant attorneys who need the credit hours reported to establish compliance. As
the compliance year draws closer to the date that the suspension order is submitted to the Court,
the number of requests to report attendance increases. However, it is not unusual for the
Commission to receive reports of attendance from a closed compliance period as far as 3 to 5 years
in the past. The Commission takes the position that one year is enough time for attendance to be
submitted. The Commission submits that the one-year limit should apply to both providers and
attorneys. In addition, the Commission is asking that a late fee of one additional dollar per credit
hour be charged to providers who submit late attendance either manually or electronically.
Move the date for publication of the Annual Compliance Summary- The Supreme Court Order
of December 16, 2014, effective January 1, 2015, created a new requirement that the Commission
st
publish an annual compliance summary by August 31 of the following year. During the first two
years, the Commission was able to complete this requirement in a timely manner. Over time, the
Commission realized that the due date for the Summary was being crowded out by multiple
obligations placed on the Commission by the State of Tennessee as well as the provisions of Rule
21. Currently the report is due within 2 weeks after the entry of the continuing legal education
suspension order which generates increased communication and work with non-compliant
attorneys. Other obligations include the preparation of the Commission annual budget, preparation
for Commission retreats and the heaviest period of requests for reinstatement. Since its
implementation, additional state mandated reporting requirements have been implemented that
require preparation during this same time creating an overwhelming burden on the staff of the
Commission while also trying to run various reports and queries, and to assemble the data
necessary for the Annual Compliance Summary.
Finally, as a clarification we added the name of the forms that attorneys need to submit, where to
find the forms and when they need to be submitted.

10

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2019-F-167

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion
regarding the ethical propriety of a settlement agreement, in a products liability case, which
contains as a material condition of the settlement that the subject vehicle alleged to be defective
be destroyed within 180 days with certification to defendant’s counsel of record of the destruction.
OPINION
It is improper for an attorney to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement, in a
products liability case, that requires destruction of the subject vehicle alleged to be defective 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 requires plaintiff to destroy the vehicle that was the subject of
the claim.
The parties agreed on a settlement amount, and the requirement of the destruction of the
vehicle 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 the requirement were discarded
because the client is the ultimate decision-maker to accepting settlement. 1 This created a conflict
between the lawyer and the client as well as other current and future clients. Such a provision
indirectly restricts the lawyer’s ability to fully and competently represent other current or future
clients with similar claims against the Defendants.
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.” 2
1
2

Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.2 (a).
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.6 (b).

11

In complex product liability cases involving an allegedly defective vehicle, the physical
vehicle itself is the most important piece of evidence in the case. The most compelling evidence
when establishing the existence of a defect in a vehicle is the existence of other similar incidents.
That is, instances in which a comparable vehicle or vehicle component has displayed evidence of
the same failure or defect that is the basis of the present claim. The ability to review and reinspect a similar vehicle, which had previously exhibited a similar defect, is extremely valuable
in prosecuting a potential future case.
Vehicles, such as the one involved in the instant case, are routinely used in subsequent
cases involving the same or similar vehicles or the same or similar components (such as
seatbelts, airbags, seats, etc.) in otherwise dissimilar vehicles. The inquiring lawyer’s firm
catalogues and preserves defective vehicles in order to establish a physical information base to
be used in subsequent cases.
The firm has a policy of acquiring possession of the subject vehicle as part of its initial
investigation into the case. This is normally done by purchasing the vehicle directly from an
insurance company that has possession of the vehicle post-accident. In the rare case that the
firm’s client has possession of the vehicle (and title), the firm requests that the client allow the
firm to retrieve the vehicle from them. If the client is not in possession of the vehicle, and the
firm is unable to purchase the vehicle directly from an insurer, the firm purchases the vehicle at
auction if possible.
The firm covers the expense of securing the vehicle, and said expense is treated like any
other case expense at that point. During the pendency of the case, the firm and the expert
witnesses for the case or for any other case turning on the same defect/vehicle model inspect the
vehicle, dissemble parts if need be, and catalogue the vehicle. It is the firm’s practice at the end
of the case to request from the client that the firm be allowed to retain ownership and possession
of the vehicle.
RPC 3.4 (a) states: “A lawyer shall not obstruct another party’s access to evidence or
unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary
value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act…” “Applicable
law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for the purpose of impairing its
availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen.” 3 “Tennessee
Courts have long applied a prerequisite of intentional misconduct in the context of spoliation of
evidence. This prerequisite originated with the common law “doctrine of spoliation” which
allowed a trial court to draw a negative inference against a party who destroys evidence.” 4
Clearly, in the context of a product liability case, the alleged defective product is key evidence in
other current or subsequent cases of a similar defect.
The firm has assured Defendant that the vehicle will not be placed back on the road, and
that when the firm decides no longer to retain the vehicle, it will provide a certificate of
destruction to Defendant, which should satisfy any safety concerns of Defendant. Given the
nature of the Defendant’s business and the practice area of the inquiring lawyer, demanding the
3
4

Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4 Comment [2].
Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., ET Al., 473 S.W.3d 734, 738 (Tenn. 2015).

12

destruction of key evidence can only be viewed as an attempt by the Defendant to disadvantage
the firm in other current or future litigation. “Any type of restriction of a plaintiff’s attorney on
representing future claimants against the same defendant are ethically inappropriate and violates
RPC 5.6(b) which pertains to impermissible restrictions on a lawyer’s practice.” 5
ABA Formal Opinion 93-371 articulates the three policy considerations underlying RPC
5.6(b). 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.
The American Bar Association has opined that the rule applies not only to such an
explicit limitation, 6 but also to other limitations that indirectly restricts a lawyer’s right to
practice. 7
By requiring destruction of the alleged defective product after settlement in a products
liability case, defense counsel would accomplish indirectly what they cannot accomplish directly
by precluding the attorney from representing other plaintiffs with similar claims.
Further, the firm’s file retention policy includes retaining material pieces of evidence as
part of the file because it may be evidence in any subsequent malpractice suit against the firm.
Without the ability to review the most important piece of evidence in the underlying products
liability suit, the law firm would be left essentially defenseless if a former client brought a
professional malpractice claim.
There is also a public policy consideration. 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. 8
CONCLUSION
Settlement conditions are prohibited by Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.6(b),
if such conditions 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 an attorney in a products liability lawsuit to destroy the product alleged to be
defective, as a material condition of settlement, if that action will restrict the attorney’s
representation of other clients.

Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-141 (Feb. 4, 1998) citing ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 93-371 (1993).
ABA Comm. On Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 93-371 (1993).
7
ABA Comm. On Ethics and Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 00-417 (2000).
8
49 U.S.C. Ch.301; 49 U.S.C. section 30103(e) (2010); TN Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F-166 (2018).
5
6

13

This 15th day of April, 2019.

ETHICS COMMITTEE
Dana Dye, Chair
John D. Kitch
Joe M. Looney

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

14

Disciplinary Actions
• (September 2018 – March 2019)
DISBARMENTS
PAUL JAMES SPRINGER, BPR # 021267
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective October 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Paul James Springer from the
practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to clients totaling $21,855.00. A Petition for Discipline
consisting of four (4) complaints was filed February 14, 2017, and a Supplemental Petition consisting of seven
(7) complaints was filed August 14, 2017.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petitions, a Hearing Panel determined Mr. Springer failed to
reasonably communicate with his clients, failed to attend scheduled meetings, failed to notify clients of court
dates, failed to respond to motions, discovery requests, and show cause orders, continued to practice law after
suspension of his license, failed to notify clients of his suspension, failed to withdraw as attorney of record,
failed to refund unearned retainers, failed to provide substantive professional services to his clients, failed to
file suit in a timely manner, and made material misrepresentations to clients regarding the status of their case.
Mr. Springer’s professional misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.2
(scope of representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4
(communication); 1.7 (conflict of interest); 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); 4.2 (communication
with a person represented by counsel); 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters); and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Springer must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.
ASCHALEW GUADIE NIGUSSIE, BPR # 032278
DECATUR, GEORGIA
Effective December 3, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Aschalew Guadie Nigussie of
Decatur, Georgia, from the practice of law in Tennessee and ordered him to pay restitution to one client as a
condition of reinstatement. Mr. Nigussie must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and
expenses and court costs within ninety days.

15

A Petition for Discipline consisting of two (2) complaints of misconduct was filed August 14, 2017.
The complaints allege Mr. Nigussie accepted fees from clients, performed little if any work on their behalf and
abandoned the cases when he ceased communicating with them. Mr. Nigussie did not respond to the Petition
for Discipline and an Order for Default Judgment was entered against Mr. Nigussie.
Mr. Nigussie’s professional misconduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5(f) (fees), 1.16 (d) (terminating representation), 8.1 (b) (disciplinary matters) and 8.4 (a)
and (d) (conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Mr. Nigussie must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

MICHAEL JOHN MCNULTY, BPR #025974
BRADLEY COUNTY
Effective December 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disbarred Michael John McNulty from
the practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to one client in the amount of $1,125.00. Mr. McNulty
is required to pay the costs and expenses of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the court costs within
ninety (90) days.
On January 29, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Michael John McNulty containing two
(2) complaints of ethical misconduct. In the first complaint, Mr. McNulty received $1,125.00 for legal services
but provided minimal services and ultimately abandoned the representation of the client. As a result of Mr.
McNulty’s abandonment, the client was compelled to hire new counsel. In the second complaint, Mr. McNulty
falsified an email communication related to a client’s matter. Mr. McNulty sent an email to a medical provider
which purported to be sent from an attorney who no longer worked at Mr. McNulty’s firm. Mr. McNulty did
not answer the Petition for Discipline or appear at the final hearing.
Mr. McNulty’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4,
Communications; 1.5(a), Fees; 1.16(d), Declining and Terminating Representation; 4.1(a), Truthfulness in
Statements to Others; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a) and (c), Misconduct.
Mr. McNulty was disbarred in a prior disciplinary matter on February 15, 2018. That disbarment
remains in effect. Mr. McNulty must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9,
Sections 28 and 30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

16

CASEY EUGENE MORELAND, BPR #011069
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On January 2, 2019, Casey Eugene Moreland, of Nashville, Tennessee, was disbarred by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court, consecutive to any period of incarceration.
The Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Mr. Moreland on June 5, 2018, pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3, based upon his guilty plea to obstruction of an official proceeding,
conspiracy to retaliate against a witness, conspiracy to commit theft, destruction of records and tampering with
a witness. The Board of Professional Responsibility instituted a formal proceeding to determine the extent of
final discipline to be imposed. Mr. Moreland entered a conditional guilty plea to disbarment and any restitution
ordered in United States of America v. Moreland.
Mr. Moreland’s actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and (b), Misconduct.
Mr. Moreland must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys. Mr. Moreland must pay the
Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.

WILIAM LAWRENCE MCKINNEY, BPR # 006419
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
On January 4, 2019, William Lawrence McKinney, of Los Angeles, California, was disbarred from the
practice of law by the Supreme Court of Tennessee retroactive to June 23, 2017. Mr. McKinney, licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, was disbarred by the Supreme Court of California by order entered June 23, 2017.
On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline
directing Mr. McKinney to demonstrate why the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of California should
not be imposed by this Court. Mr. McKinney provided no response to this Court.
Mr. McKinney must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys. Mr. McKinney must pay the
court costs within ninety days of the entry of the order.

17

LARRY JOE HINSON, JR., BPR # 023286
LEWIS COUNTY
On or by order filed January 9, 2019, Larry Joe Hinson, Jr., was disbarred by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court. This Order dissolves the Order entered October 18, 2018, temporarily suspending Mr. Hinson.
Mr. Hinson, the subject of a disciplinary investigation, delivered to the Board of Professional
Responsibility an affidavit in compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23.1,
acknowledging his misconduct and consenting to disbarment. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9, Section 23, Mr. Hinson’s affidavit in support of disbarment by consent is not to be publicly disclosed or
made available for use in any other proceeding except upon further order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Mr. Hinson 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.

HOWARD ROBERT CLYDE ORFIELD, BPR # 010567
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On February 19, 2019, Howard Robert Clyde Orfield was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court
pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.1. Mr. Orfield must pay restitution to one client and
consult with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program. Prior to his disbarment, Mr. Orfield was suspended
by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 6, 2017, and had not been reinstated from this
suspension. Mr. Orfield shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
After accepting fee payments for representation in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case, Mr. Orfield ceased
communicating with his client and failed to perform the services for which he was paid. Mr. Orfield later
offered to refund the full balance of the fee paid by the client, but has not done so.
Mr. Orfield’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (termination of representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary
matters), and 8.4 (a) and (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Orfield 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.

18

THOMAS PATRICK COOPER, #026251
MIAMI BEACH, FL
By order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 5, 2019, Thomas Patrick Cooper was
disbarred from the practice of law effective immediately. Mr. Cooper must pay the Board and court costs
within ninety days of the entry of the order.
On July 20, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court ordered the immediate suspension of Mr. Cooper from
the practice of law based upon his plea of nolo contendere to one count of Grand Theft and one count of
Defrauding a Financial Institution in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, in the matter
of The State of Florida v. Thomas Patrick Cooper. On August 9, 2018, the Board filed a Petition for Final
Discipline. A Hearing Panel determined the appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment.
Mr. Cooper violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).
Mr. Cooper 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.

MARTIN ALAN WEISS, BPR # 012295
SHELBY COUNTY
On March 26, 2019, Martin Alan Weiss was disbarred by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As
conditions of his reinstatement, Mr. Weiss must make restitution in the amount of $57,769.00. He must obtain
an evaluation by the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) and enter into a monitoring agreement,
if appropriate. Mr. Weiss must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days of
the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
On November 15, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Weiss alleging that he misappropriated funds from eighteen personal injury settlements. When distributing the money upon settling these
clients’ cases, Mr. Weiss withheld an amount sufficient to pay what each client owed to the clinic where they
had been treated. Rather than paying the money that had been withheld to the clinic, Mr. Weiss kept the money
for his personal use.
Mr. Weiss entered into a conditional guilty plea admitting that his actions violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.2(a), Scope of Representation; 1.4, Communication; 1.5(c), Fees; 1.15(a) and (d), Safekeeping
Property and Funds; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a) and (c), Misconduct.

19

On July 25, 2018, Mr. Weiss was temporarily suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court for posing
a threat of substantial harm to the public. As Mr. Weiss is now disbarred, the temporary suspension is
dissolved.
Mr. Weiss must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
30, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

JASON R. GRUBB, BPR #022818
BEAVER, WEST VIRGINIA
On March 29, 2019, Jason R. Grubb, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee and West
Virginia, was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Tennessee retroactive to May 18,
2016. Mr. Grubb’s license to practice law in West Virginia was annulled by the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia by order entered May 18, 2016, based upon his plea of guilty to violating 26 U.S.C. § 7202,
Failure to Collect, Account for, and Pay Over Employment Taxes.
On February 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline
directing Mr. Grubb demonstrate why the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia should not be similarly imposed by this Court. Mr. Grubb filed a response on February 28, 2019 but
failed to demonstrate reciprocal discipline was unwarranted.
Mr. Grubb 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 pay court costs within ninety
days of the entry of this order.

SUSPENSIONS
CARLA ANN KENT FORD, BPR # 014312
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
On October 2, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Carla Ann Kent Ford from the practice
of law for five (5) years. Ms. Ford must pay restitution to two former clients as a condition of reinstatement
to the practice of law. Ms. Ford must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and
court costs within ninety days.
On August 11, 2017, the Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Ms. Ford containing three
complaints of misconduct. The complaints allege Ms. Ford failed to communicate and diligently represent her

20

clients, and in two of the cases failed to provide written fee agreements. Further, following Ms. Ford’s
summary suspension in May 2016, Ms. Ford failed to adequately notify her client of her suspension. Ms. Ford
did not respond to the Petition for Discipline and an Order for Default Judgment was entered against Ms. Ford.
Ms. Ford’s misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication),
1.5(a) and (f) (Fees), and 1.16(d) (Terminating Representation).
Ms. Ford must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
CLAY M. MCCORMACK, BPR # 015559
SHELBY COUNTY
On October 5, 2018, Mr. McCormack was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court for five (5) years, with one (1) year of active suspension and the remainder to be
served on probation, effective ten (10) days from entry of the Order. As conditions of his probation, Mr.
McCormack must engage a practice monitor and commit no further acts of misconduct resulting in a
recommendation of discipline. Mr. McCormack must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs
before petitioning for reinstatement, or within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement, whichever
occurs first.
Mr. McCormack closed numerous real estate transactions involving Lee Bishop as the seller in which
Mr. McCormack prepared settlement statements showing Mr. Bishop’s mortgage being paid off from the
purchase money. Mr. McCormack prepared checks payable to Mr. Bishop’s lenders in order to pay off those
mortgages. Following the closings, Mr. McCormack voided the payoff checks and wrote new ones to Mr.
Bishop. Mr. McCormack wrote letters to the buyers’ lenders stating that the sellers’ mortgages had been paid
off when they had not. Mr. McCormack incorrectly believed that Mr. Bishop was going to obtain a release of
the liens on the property he was selling by substituting other pieces of property he owned as collateral for the
loans. In many such transactions, Mr. Bishop failed to obtain a substitution of collateral. When his lenders
foreclosed on those loans, the buyers’ lenders did not have first liens.
Mr. McCormack’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 4.1(a),
Truthfulness in Statements to Others; and 8.4(a) and (c), Misconduct.
Mr. McCormack 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.

21

MICHAEL GLEN HATMAKER, BPR # 005391
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On October 12, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending Michael Glen
Hatmaker from the practice of law for a five-year (5) period with a minimum of four (4) years served as
an active suspension and the remainder served on probation. The suspension is effective upon the entry of
the Order. The grant of probation is conditioned upon satisfaction of an outstanding judgment, the
engagement of a Practice Monitor pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.9(c) and
incurring no new disciplinary complaints resulting in a recommendation by the Board for discipline.
Mr. Hatmaker executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging he made material
misrepresentations to clients and opposing counsel, failed to expedite litigation and diligently represent
clients, failed to reasonably communicate with clients, and failed to properly maintain client funds in his
trust account. Mr. Hatmaker acknowledged his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3
(Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property and Funds), and 8.4
(Misconduct).
Mr. Hatmaker must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections
28 and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.
ELIZABETH CATHERINE VELASQUEZ, BPR# 028884
SEVIER COUNTY
On October 17, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Elizabeth Catherine Velasquez from
the practice of law for five (5) years with three (3) years served as an active suspension and the remainder on
probation. Ms. Velasquez must pay restitution to a former client and contact the Tennessee Lawyer’s
Assistance Program as a condition of reinstatement to the practice of law. During probation, Ms. Velasquez
must engage a practice monitor. Finally, Ms. Velasquez must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
costs and expenses and court costs within ninety days.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Elizabeth Catherine Velasquez on January 29, 2018,
containing one (1) complaint of ethical misconduct. A hearing panel determined that Ms. Velasquez failed to
communicate and diligently represent her client. Ms. Velasquez abandoned the client’s case. Ms. Velasquez
did not respond to the Petition for Discipline and an Order for Default Judgment was entered against her.

22

Ms. Velasquez’s misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, Competence; 1.2, Scope of
Representation and Allocation of Authority; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; 1.5(a), Fees; 1.16(d),
Declining or Terminating Representation; 3.2, Expediting Representation; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct.
Ms. Velasquez must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4 regarding
the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

GERALD STANLEY GREEN, BPR # 009470
SHELBY COUNTY
On January 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Memphis attorney Gerald Stanley
Green from the practice of law for six (6) months, with thirty (30) days to be served on active suspension and
the remaining five (5) months on probation with conditions. Mr. Green must have a practice monitor during
his probation. The suspension is effective immediately.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline and a Supplemental Petition
against Mr. Green. The Petitions for Discipline were based on complaints by three (3) clients alleging that Mr.
Green did not adequately communicate and failed to diligently represent them. In addition, Mr. Green was
charged with practicing law in Mississippi without complying with that state’s rule governing pro hac vice
admission.
The Hearing Panel found that Mr. Green violated four separate provisions of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.3 (Diligence), RPC 1.4 (Communication), RPC 8.4(a) and (d)
(Misconduct), and RPC 5.5 (a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law).
Mr. Green appealed the decision and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Hearing
Panel. The Court held that the Hearing Panel’s findings and sanctions were well-founded and supported by the
evidence. The Court also upheld the conditions of probation, including the practice monitor, noting its relation
to Mr. Green’s long history of failing to communicate adequately with his clients and failing to manage his
law practice well.
Mr. Green 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.

23

EARL FRANK JOHNSON, BPR # 019811
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective February 8, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Earl Frank Johnson from the
practice of law for six (6) months and required that he submit to an evaluation by the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program and follow any recommendations. Mr. Johnson must pay the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s costs and expenses and court costs within ninety (90) days.
On March 26, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against the Mr. Johnson including one complaint
of misconduct alleging Mr. Johnson appeared in General Sessions Court on behalf of a client when his law
license had been administratively suspended since August 2012. Mr. Johnson entered a conditional guilty plea
admitting to the misconduct.
Mr. Johnson’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law;
multijurisdictional practice of law), 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (a) and (d)
(misconduct).
Mr. Johnson 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.

RANDY PAUL LUCAS, BPR # 019907
SUMNER COUNTY
On February 8, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Randy Paul Lucas from the practice of
law for three (3) years, with six (6) months on active suspension and the remainder on probation. Mr. Lucas
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.
On June 28, 2017, the Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Mr. Lucas containing one complaint
of misconduct. The complaint alleged that Mr. Lucas agreed to represent a client in a personal injury case but
failed to take any action on his client’s behalf thereby allowing the statute of limitations in this case to expire.
Mr. Lucas failed to maintain consistent communication with this client and made repeated misrepresentations
to this client. Mr. Lucas entered a Conditional Guilty Plea in this matter, and made a payment to the affected
client as compensation for his loss.

24

Mr. Lucas’ misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.8 (conflict of interest), and 8.4 (a) (c) and (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Lucas must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4 regarding the
obligations and responsibilities suspended attorneys.

DAPHNE MICHELLE DAVIS, BPR # 028128
WILSON COUNTY
On April 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Daphne Michelle Davis from the
practice of law for three years. Ms. Davis must pay restitution to a former client as a condition of reinstatement
to the practice of law. Ms. Davis must pay the Board of Professional Responsibility’s costs and expenses and
court costs within ninety (90) days of the date of the order.
A Petition for Discipline was filed against Ms. Davis on May 18, 2018, alleging that Ms. Davis missed
a court date in General Sessions Court resulting in a default judgment against her client in the amount of
$25,151.50. After appealing the case to Circuit Court, she unilaterally cancelled a mediation and failed to
inform her client of the date the case was set for hearing. Ms. Davis failed to appear, and the appeal was
dismissed. Ms. Davis did not inform her client who learned about the dismissal when he received a copy of
the judgment from opposing counsel. In another complaint, Ms. Davis promised to refund a fee to her client,
but failed to do so until the client filed a complaint with the Board. Finally, Ms. Davis was appointed to
represent a client in Criminal Court who entered into a diversion program and, as part of probation, was
required to pay $1,968.50 in court costs. The client requested Ms. Davis’ assistance in seeking a waiver or
reduction of the court costs. Ms. Davis sent the client a questionnaire to complete and return, which the client
did. Thereafter, Ms. Davis ceased communicating with her client. Ms. Davis did not respond to the Board in
this case.
Ms. Davis entered a Conditional Guilty Plea admitting her guilt of violating Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.2(a) (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5(a), (b) and (f), (fees), 1.16
(d) and (f) (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation) 8.1(b) (bar and disciplinary matters) and
8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (misconduct).
Ms. Davis must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the obligations
and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

25

KURT JOSPEH POMRENKE, BPR # 015327
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On March 15, 2019, Kurt Joseph Pomrenke, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee and
Virginia, was suspended for nine (9) months from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Mr. Pomrenke’s license to practice law in Virginia was suspended for nine (9) months by decision of the
Disciplinary Board of the Virginia State Bar dated November 27, 2018.
On March 12, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline
directing Mr. Pomrenke to demonstrate why the discipline imposed by the Disciplinary Board of the Virginia
State Bar should not be similarly imposed by this Court. On March 14, 2019, Mr. Pomrenke provided the
Court his response stating that he does not contest the reciprocal discipline.
Mr. Pomrenke 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 pay court costs within
ninety (90) days of the entry of this order.

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS
LARRY JOE HINSON, JR., BPR # 023286
LEWIS COUNTY
On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Larry Joe Hinson, Jr.
from the practice of law upon finding Mr. Hinson 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 in cases of an attorney’s misconduct.
Mr. Hinson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by November 18, 2018. After November 18, 2018, Mr. Hinson shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk or maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Hinson 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. Hinson is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
Mr. Hinson 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.

26

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Hinson
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 November 21, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order denying the request of Brian
Phillip Manookian for dissolution of temporary suspension. Mr. Manookian was temporarily suspended from
the practice of law on September 21, 2018, upon a finding that he poses a threat of substantial harm to the
public.
On September 28, 2018, Mr. Manookian filed a Verified Petition for Dissolution or Amendment of
Order of Temporary Suspension. A hearing was held on October 11 and 19, 2018, before a panel of the Board
of Professional Responsibility. On November 7, 2018, the panel entered its Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Verified Petition for Dissolution or Amendment of Order of Temporary Suspension be
denied. On November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court entered an order adopting the panel’s Report and
Recommendation.
Following the temporary suspension on September 21, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an
Order on October 17, 2018, staying the requirement that Mr. Manookian cease representing existing clients
pending further orders of the Court. Upon entry of the November 21, 2018 Order, the stay is lifted and Mr.
Manookian must cease representation of existing clients within ten (10) days of this Order. 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 cocounsel 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.

CANDACE LENETTE WILLIAMSON, BPR # 028933
SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI
On December 21, 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

27

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. Williamson is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease
representing existing clients by January 20, 2019. After January 20, 2019, 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.

JOHN HARLEY FOWLER, BPR #001831
KNOX COUNTY
On January 2, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended John Harley Fowler from
the practice of law upon finding Mr. Fowler failed to respond to the Board regarding complaints of misconduct
and posed a threat of substantial harm to the public. Section 12.3 of Supreme Court, Rule 9, provides for the
immediate summary suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law in cases of an attorney’s failure to
respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct or posing a threat of substantial harm to the public.
Mr. Fowler is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by February 1, 2019. After February 1, 2019, Mr. Fowler shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Fowler 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. Fowler is required to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

28

This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Fowler
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

STEPHEN KENNETH PERRY, BPR # 022540
EVERGREEN PARK, ILLINOIS
On January 2, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Stephen Kenneth Perry
of Evergreen Park, Illinois, from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Perry 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.
Mr. Perry is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by February 1, 2019. After February 1, 2019, Mr. Perry shall not use any indicia of lawyer,
legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted.
Mr. Perry 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. Perry 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. Perry
may for good cause request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

MATTHEW DAVID DUNN, BPR # 030759
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On February 14, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Matthew David Dunn
from the practice of law for failing to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility 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.
Mr. Dunn is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing
existing clients by March 16, 2019 (thirty days). After March 16, 2019, Mr. Dunn shall not use any indicia of
lawyer, legal assistant, or law clerk nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Dunn
must also notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel

29

of the Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license and 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. Dunn
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 February 27, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order denying the request of Brian
Phillip Manookian for dissolution of his temporary suspension. Mr. Manookian was temporarily suspended
from the practice of law on September 21, 2018, upon a finding that he poses a threat of substantial harm to
the public.
On September 28, 2018, Mr. Manookian filed a Verified Petition for Dissolution or Amendment of
Order of Temporary Suspension. A hearing was held on October 11 and 19, 2018, before a panel of the Board
of Professional Responsibility. On November 7, 2018, the panel entered its Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Verified Petition for Dissolution or Amendment of Order of Temporary Suspension be
denied. On November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court entered an order adopting the panel’s Report and
Recommendation.
On January 22, 2019, Mr. Manookian filed a second Petition for Dissolution of Order of Temporary
Suspension.

A hearing was held on January 30, 2019, before a panel of the Board of Professional

Responsibility. On February 15, 2019, the panel entered its Report and Recommendation recommending that
the Petition for Dissolution of Order of Temporary Suspension be denied. On February 27, 2019, the Supreme
Court entered an order adopting the panel’s Report and Recommendation.
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.
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.

30

PUBLIC CENSURES
JULIE WILLIAMS LAMPLEY, BPR # 012845
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On October 8, 2018, Julie Williams Lampley, Davidson County, Tennessee, was publicly censured by
Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court further ordered Ms. Lampley to pay costs and expenses to
the Board of Professional Responsibility.
On February 21, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Ms. Lampley based upon her selfreport immediately following her discovery that she failed to pay her 2015 annual registration fee. Ms.
Lampley was administratively suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court on November 23, 2015, based upon
non-payment of her 2015 annual registration fee. Thereafter, Ms. Lampley engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law until the reinstatement of her license. Ms. Lampley executed a conditional guilty plea
acknowledging her conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 (unauthorized practice of
law).
For this violation, the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Ms. Lampley. A public censure
is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to practice law.
WENDELL CORNELIUS DAWSON, BPR # 012960
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On October 15, 2018, Wendell Cornelius Dawson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Dawson represented a client applying for cancellation of removal before the immigration court.
Although Mr. Dawson presented documentation to the court concerning his client’s presence in the United
States, he failed to call any witnesses other than his client at the final hearing to satisfy the significant burden
of showing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Likewise, Mr. Dawson did not diligently represent
his client in his appeal. He did not meet with his client to discuss the appeal, and his brief was one page in
which he generally argued, without citations to authority or the record, that his client had testified to his
presence in the country and the hardship his children would suffer if he were removed from the United States.
By these acts, Mr. Dawson, has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and is hereby
Publicly Censured for this violation.

31

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
DOUGLAS NEIL BLACKWELL, II, BPR # 019298
BRADLEY COUNTY
On October 15, 2018, Douglas Neil Blackwell, II, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Blackwell accepted a refundable retainer fee from a client in a conservatorship proceeding without
depositing the fee into his client trust account until earned. Mr. Blackwell failed to diligently represent his
client’s interest and failed to properly communicate with his client. Mr. Blackwell failed to include critical
documentation with legal pleadings. After he was removed from representation, Mr. Blackwell failed to
provide his former client with the client file. Mr. Blackwell’s fee affidavit was found to be unreasonable and
based upon misrepresentations.
By these acts, Douglas Neil Blackwell, II, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16 (terminating
representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3 (candor toward tribunal), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters), and
8.4(a)(c)(d) (misconduct) 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.
CLEVELAND C. TURNER, BPR # 002346
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
On October 15, 2018, Cleveland C. Turner, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Turner practiced law for five business days when his license was administratively suspended,
including an appearance in court at a hearing.
By these acts, Mr. Turner is in violation of Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct 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.

32

JAMES GREGORY KING, BPR # 17439
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On October 18, 2018, James Gregory King, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In the representation of a client in a domestic relations proceeding, Mr. King failed to take proper action
to comply with a scheduling order which led to the dismissal of the client’s petition. Prior to the hearing on
the motion to dismiss, Mr. King made misleading statements to his client about the nature and significance of
the motion and hearing. Mr. King also accepted a refundable fee from a relative of the client without the
client’s knowledge and consent and failed to deposit this fee into his escrow account.
By these acts, James Gregory King, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3
(diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.8(f) (accepting fees or direction from a third party), 1.15(c)
(safeguarding client funds), and 3.2 (expediting litigation), and is hereby Publicly Censured for this violation.
Additionally, as a condition of the Public Censure, Mr. King shall refund $2,500.00 in attorney fees to the
relative of the client within sixty (60) 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.
CHARLES MATTHEW BATES, BPR # 20609
LAWRENCE COUNTY
On October 24, 2018, Charles Matthew Bates, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Bates practiced law by appearing in court on behalf of a number of clients while his license to
practice law was administratively suspended for failure to comply with his annual registration and IOLTA
reporting requirements.
By these acts, Charles Matthew Bates, 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.

33

TIMOTHY ALAN TULL, BPR # 028113
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On January 2, 2019, Timothy Alan Tull, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court conditioned
upon payment of restitution of $2,000.00 and engagement of a practice monitor.
Mr. Tull, prior to the client’s execution of a written waiver, failed to advise the client of potential
conflicts of interest or the desirability of seeking independent legal advice, and further failed to provide the
client with the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. Mr. Tull also failed to reasonably communicate
with another client regarding the resolution of a discovery motion and the imposition of sanctions against the
client.
Mr. Tull executed a conditional guilty plea in which he acknowledged his misconduct violated
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication) and 1.8(a)(2) (conflict of interest).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
JERE F. OWNBY, BPR # 014979
KNOX COUNTY
On January 14, 2019, 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 July 7, 2017. Mr. Ownby did not timely notify a divorce
client of the suspension, and he did not notify opposing counsel or the court of the suspension until September
2018. Mr. Ownby’s conduct resulted in harm to his client, the opposing party, and the court. Mr. Ownby has
also failed to provide a written response to this disciplinary complaint.
By these acts, Mr. Ownby has violated Rules 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice), 8.4(g)
(knowingly failing to comply with a court order in a proceeding in which attorney is a party), and Rule 8.1
(disciplinary matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and he 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.

34

WILLIAM JEFFREY BARNES, ESQ.
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA
On January 16, 2019 William Jeffrey Barnes, of Boca Raton, Florida, received a Public Censure from
the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Between May 2011 and August 2017, Mr. Barnes was admitted to practice pro hac vice in nine
foreclosure actions in state and federal court in Tennessee. In each of the nine matters, Mr. Barnes’ supporting
affidavit stated that a copy of the filing was being sent to the Board of Professional Responsibility
contemporaneously.

Mr. Barnes, however, failed to send the materials to the Board of Professional

Responsibility and failed to timely pay his pro hac vice registration fee as required under Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 19(f).
By these acts, Mr. Barnes has violated Rules 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 3.3 (candor
to the tribunal) and 8.4(c) (conduct involving misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 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.
DONALD BRENT GRAY, BPR # 027263
CAMPBELL COUNTY
On January 23, 2019, Donald Brent Gray, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received
a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Gray was appointed to represent an indigent criminal client in General Sessions Court and was
required to represent the client throughout the proceedings, including any appeals, until the case had been
concluded or he was granted permission to withdraw by the court. After the conclusion of the General Sessions
case, the client was indicted and Mr. Gray improperly advised the client that he could no longer represent him
unless a $10,000.00 retainer fee was paid. The client paid $2,750.00 toward the fee and no written fee
agreement was memorialized nor did Mr. Gray deposit the funds into his trust account until the fee had been
earned. Mr. Gray also failed to inform the Circuit Court that he had been appointed to represent the client in
that court.
By these acts, Donald Brent Gray has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 1.5
(fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16(c) (terminating representation), 3.3 (candor toward tribunal), and

35

8.4(a)(c)(d) (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. As a condition of the Public
Censure, Mr. Gray shall be required to reimburse $2,750.00 in fees directly to John Stephens at the rate of
$150.00 per month beginning February 1, 2019.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
PAMELA ANDERSON TAYLOR, BPR # 012264
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On January 23, 2019, Pamela Anderson Taylor, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee,
received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In the representation of a client in a divorce action, Ms. Taylor issued a subpoena in noncompliance
with applicable law. While representing a client in another divorce action, Ms. Taylor failed to comply with
discovery deadlines established by the Court and otherwise failed to expedite litigation. Ms. Taylor was also
nonresponsive to requests for information from the Board in its investigation of these matters.
By these acts, Pamela Anderson Taylor has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4(c) (knowing violation of an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal), and 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a request for information from a disciplinary authority),
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.
KIMBERLY DIANE RUSSELL, BPR # 018435
BLOUNT COUNTY
On February 19, 2019, Kimberly Diane Russell, a Tennessee licensed attorney, was publicly
censured by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Additionally, Ms. Russell must engage a practice monitor
at her own expense and meet with the practice monitor on a monthly basis to review basic office
procedures. Ms. Russell was ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the Board.
The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline on May 23, 2018
concerning one (1) complaint of misconduct. Ms. Russell, while administratively suspended for CLE noncompliance, accepted a flat fee to prepare divorce documents for pro se divorce. Ms. Russell prepared

36

documents for the divorce and did not enter a written fee agreement for the non-refundable fee. Ms. Russell
executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging her misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.4 (a) (5) (communication), 1.5 (fees), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(a)
(misconduct).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
TERRY RENEASE CLAYTON, BPR # 012392
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On February 19, 2019, Terry Renease Clayton was publicly censured by Order of the Tennessee
Supreme Court. Mr. Clayton must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and the court costs within ninety days
of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Clayton represented the plaintiffs in a personal injury case. In a Court of Appeals brief, and a
Court of Appeals oral argument, Mr. Clayton attributed a statement to defense counsel that does not appear in
the record.
Mr. Clayton’s ethical misconduct violates Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, Meritorious Claims and
Contentions; and 3.3(a)(1), Candor toward the Tribunal.
THOMAS W. THOMPSON, BPR # 030659
TAMPA, FLORIDA
On March 25, 2019, Thomas W. Thompson, of Tampa, Florida, was publicly censured by Order of the
Tennessee Supreme Court. As a condition of his public censure, Mr. Thompson must withdraw from all
Tennessee cases where he is attorney of record. Mr. Thompson must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and
the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
On July 6, 2018, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Thompson alleging that he committed
ethical misconduct by practicing law while suspended for failing to comply with continuing legal education
requirements. Mr. Thompson resides in Florida where he is licensed to practice law. He is also licensed to
practice law in Tennessee. He was suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court on August 16, 2016, for failing
to comply with continuing legal education requirements. While suspended, four lawsuits were filed in
Tennessee naming him as the attorney for the plaintiffs. The lawsuits were prepared and filed by Mr.
Thompson’s nonlawyer staff without his knowledge. Mr. Thompson has not yet withdrawn from the cases.

37

Mr. Thompson entered into a conditional guilty plea admitting that his actions violated Rules of
Professional Conduct 5.5(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law; and 8.4, Misconduct.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.
ERICH WEBB BAILEY, BPR # 032614
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On March 25, 2019, Erich Webb Bailey was publicly censured by Order of the Tennessee Supreme
Court. As a condition of his public censure, Mr. Bailey must enter into a monitoring agreement with the
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP). Mr. Bailey must pay the Board’s costs and expenses and
the court costs within ninety days of the entry of the Order of Enforcement.
On October 4, 2017, a Petition for Discipline was filed against Mr. Bailey alleging that when he
represented the mother in a child custody dispute, he failed to communicate with his client and failed to appear
in court when the matter was set for hearing. Mr. Bailey entered into a conditional guilty plea admitting that
his actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communication; and 8.4, Misconduct.
On July 17, 2017, Mr. Bailey was temporarily suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court for
substantial noncompliance with a previous TLAP monitoring agreement. Mr. Bailey is reinstated from that
suspension by this Order.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability
to practice law.

JERRY D. HOLMES, JR., BPR # 016150
NORTH CAROLINA
On March 28, 2019, Jerry D. Holmes, Jr., a Tennessee licensed attorney residing in North Carolina,
was publicly censured by the Supreme Court of Tennessee and ordered to 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 concerning one (1) complaint
of misconduct. Mr. Holmes, while administratively suspended from the practice of law in Tennessee, prepared
and sent an email in which he improperly designated himself as an attorney at law in Tennessee. Mr. Holmes
executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional

38

Conduct 7.1 (communications concerning lawyer’s services) and 8.4 (misconduct of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct).
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
JERRY FRANCIS TAYLOR, BPR # 007943
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 8, 2018, the law license of Jerry Francis
Taylor was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Taylor 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.
MONICA JOY FRANKLIN, BPR # 015461
KNOX COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 8, 2018, the law license of Monica Joy
Franklin was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Franklin 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.
SAMUEL LEE PERKINS, BPR # 011857
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 8, 2018, the law license of Samuel Lee
Perkins was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.

39

Mr. Perkins 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.
HARRY B. GILLEY, BPR # 002295
COFFEE COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 26, 2018, the law license of Harry B. Gilley
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Gilley 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.
CARLA L. AREVALO, BPR # 031003
DAIVDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered November 21, 2018, the law license of Carla L.
Arevalo was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Arevalo cannot practice law while on disability inactive status. She may not return to the practice
of law until 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.
On January 11, 2018, Ms. Arevalo was temporarily suspended by order of the Tennessee Supreme
Court. Ms. Arevalo has not requested nor been granted reinstatement from that suspension. In addition to
reinstatement from disability inactive status, Ms. Arevalo may not return to the practice of law until after
reinstatement by the Tennessee Supreme Court from this suspension.
MICHAEL DONALD TREACY, BPR # 023192
QUINCY, MASSACHUSSETTS
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered December 3, 2018, the law license of Michael
Donald Treacy was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.

40

Mr. Treacy 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.
GRANT WELLS SMITH, BPR # 003713
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered January 16, 2019, the law license of Grant Wells
Smith was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Smith 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.
CHERIE S. MONSON, BPR #015503
SULLIVAN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered January 25, 2019, the law license of Cherie S.
Monson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Ms. Cherie S. Monson 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 LEE KENNEDY, BPR # 009109
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered January 25, 2019, the law license of John Lee
Kennedy was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. John Lee Kennedy 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.

41

BILLY DUDLEY COBB, BPR # 003604
STEWART COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered January 25, 2019, the law license of Billy Dudley
Cobb was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
9.
Mr. Cobb 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.
LAWRENCE DOYLE WILSON, BPR # 004076
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 12, 2019, the law license of Lawrence
Doyle Wilson was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9.
Mr. Wilson 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.
ROBERT MARK MORGAN, BPR # 016389
JACKSONVILLE, FL
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered March 20, 2019, the law license of Robert Mark
Morgan was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9.
Mr. Morgan 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.

42

REINSTATEMENTS
LARRY EDWARD PARRISH, BPR # 008464
SHELBY COUNTY
On October 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Larry Edward Parrish to the practice
of law. Mr. Parrish had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on August 14, 2018, for a period
of six (6) months, with thirty (30) days to be served as an active suspension and the remainder on probation.
Mr. Parrish 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. Mr. Parrish must serve the remaining five (5) months on probation.

CANDACE LENETTE WILLIAMSON, BPR # 028933
SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered October 19, 2018, the Tennessee law license of
Candace Lenette Williamson of Southaven, Mississippi, was reinstated. Ms. Williamson is ordered to pay the
Board’s costs in this matter.
Ms. Williamson was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court
on July 18, 2018, for failing to respond to the Board regarding a complaint of misconduct. On August 30,
2018, Ms. Williamson filed a Response to Petition for Temporary Suspension. On October 3, 2018, a Board
Panel entered a recommendation that the temporary suspension be dissolved.
MICHAEL GIBBS SHEPPARD, BPR #019868
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On October 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Michael Gibbs Sheppard to the
practice of law. Mr. Sheppard was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on August 13, 2018, for a
period of sixty (60) days, followed by two (2) years of probation. Mr. Sheppard filed a Petition for
Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c). The Board
of Professional Responsibility found that the Petition was satisfactory and submitted an Order of Reinstatement
to the Court. Mr. Sheppard must serve the remaining two (2) years on probation under the supervision of a
practice monitor and take fifteen hours of continuing legal education on law office management and trust
accounting procedures.

43

JAMAAL L. BOYKIN, BPR #031037
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On January 23, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Jamaal L. Boykin to the practice of
law. Mr. Boykin had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on June 19, 2018, for a period of
two (2) years, with six (6) months to be served as an active suspension, and the remainder to be served on
probation. Mr. Boykin 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.

WILLIAM CLARK BARNES, JR., BPR # 011399
MAURY COUNTY
On January 25, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated William Clark Barnes, Jr., to the
practice of law effective immediately. Mr. Barnes had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee
for three years on March 31, 2015, with six months active suspension and the remainder on probation with
conditions. Mr. Barnes 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. Barnes 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. Based upon the Hearing
Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Barnes’s license to practice law. As conditions of
his reinstatement, Mr. Barnes must have a practice monitor for one year, and enter into a new, two-year
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring agreement. Mr. Barnes must pay the costs of the
reinstatement proceeding.

ASHLEY DENISE PRESTON, BPR # 025642
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On February 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Ashely Denise Preston to the
practice of law effective immediately. Ms. Preston had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee
for four years on October 20, 2017, with two years active suspension, retroactive to February 23, 2016, with

44

conditions. Ms. Preston 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 Ms. Preston complied with the terms and conditions of her suspension, and
further found that she had demonstrated the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required
for the practice of law, and that her 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. Based upon the Hearing
Panel’s recommendation, the Supreme Court reinstated Ms. Preston’s license to practice law. As conditions
of her reinstatement, Ms. Preston must continue to engage a practice monitor and engage a licensed counselor
to assist her. Ms. Preston must pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding.

GERALD STANLEY GREEN, BPR # 009470
SHELBY COUNTY
On March 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reinstated Gerald Stanley Green to the practice
of law effective February 24, 2019. Mr. Green had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on
January 24, 2019, for a period of six (6) months, with thirty (30) days served on active suspension and the
remainder served on probation with conditions. Mr. Green 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. Mr. Green’s probation will end on July
24, 2019.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
ANDY LAMAR ALLMAN, BPR # 017846
SUMNER COUNTY
By order entered October 23, 2018, the Supreme Court adopted the report of a Special Master and held
Andy Lamar Allman in criminal contempt and sentenced him to serve twenty (20) days in jail and pay a fine
of $100.00.
The Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) filed a Second Amended Petition for Contempt on
May 10, 2018, alleging Mr. Allman engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and failed to comply with the
Order of Temporary Suspension entered by this Court on September 9, 2016, and Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, Section 28. Thereafter, Mr. Allman entered a plea agreement agreeing to plead nolo contendere to two
separate counts of criminal contempt alleging he violated the Order of Temporary Suspension by undertaking

45

new representation of two separate clients two months after the effective date of his temporary suspension
from the practice of law and accepting retainer fees totaling $9,000.00. Pursuant to a hearing held August 30,
2018, the Special Master entered his report on September 6, 2018, accepting the plea and determining the
maximum sentence of ten days and a $50.00 fine for each count was appropriate and the sentences should run
concurrently.
On September 13, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order requiring Mr. Allman to show cause why
the Court should not enter a judgment of contempt and impose the sentence determined by the Special Master.
After considering the responses filed by Mr. Allman and the Board, the report of the Special Master and the
transcript of the hearing, the Supreme Court adjudged Mr. Allman guilty of two counts of criminal contempt
and sentenced him to a total of twenty (20) days in jail and a fine of $100.00 pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 299-103. Mr. Allman was further ordered to surrender himself to the Sumner County Sheriff’s Department within
fifteen (15) days of October 23, 2018, or be subject to arrest.

46

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Creator	Butterfield, Kayleigh (Std Univ - butterfike)
Description	empty
Keywords	empty
ModifyDate	Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:11 AM -05:00
PageCount	46
PDFVersion	1.6
Subject	empty
Title	empty

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Category	empty
Comments	empty
Company	empty
CreateDate	Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:10 AM -05:00
CreatorTool	Acrobat PDFMaker 19 for Word
DocumentID	uuid:b982730e-000d-4ee9-8c98-f67e8bc2b130
FileName	board_notes_spring_2019.pdf
FileSize	424 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Format	application/pdf
InstanceID	uuid:cd6324d7-b424-4c89-b8ff-60fc63c4be1b
Language	EN-US
Linearized	Yes
Manager	empty
MetadataDate	Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:11 AM -05:00
MIMEType	application/pdf
PageLayout	OneColumn
Producer	Adobe PDF Library 19.10.131
SourceFile	board_notes_spring_2019.pdf
SourceModified	Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:28 PM +00:00
TaggedPDF	Yes
XMPToolkit	Adobe XMP Core 5.6-c016 91.163616, 2018/10/29-16:58:49

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