board_notes_fall_2025.pdf (2025)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (board_notes_fall_2025.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD NOTES
FALL 2025
Published by The Board of Professional Responsibility
of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

GREETING FROM
JUSTICE HOLLY KIRBY

SPOTLIGHT:

After completing my term as Chief Justice, it’s good to come home
to once again serving as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the Board of
Professional Responsibility. I’m especially grateful to have the
opportunity to thank Tennessee’s legal community for supporting last
year’s increase in the registration fee for lawyers.

Supreme Court Amends Rule
21 to Align BPR, CLE
Statuses

The Court recognizes the financial challenges facing lawyers today,
and the increase to $270 per year in your registration fee was
significant. But under Tennessee’s system, taxpayers don’t cover the
cost of enforcing ethics rules for lawyers. Instead, your registration
fees fund the operations of the Board of Professional Responsibility.
Your registration fees also fund the Tennessee Lawyers Fund for
Client Protection (TLFCP), which reimburses clients whose lawyer
steals from them. In addition, your registration fees fund the
important work of our Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program
(TLAP) in helping lawyers and judges who face mental or emotional
struggles, or substance abuse.
Most of Tennessee’s lawyers never face discipline by the BPR, never
are the subject of a claim against the TLFCP and never need the
services of TLAP. But you perform the highest public service by
funding all of these important entities through your registration fees.
And most of all, you raise up the legal profession by the good work
you do every day, serving your clients with honor and integrity. Thank
you for all that you’re doing for our citizens.

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AT A
GLANCE
MARCH 2025- SEPT 2025
Disbarments

Suspensions

Temporary Suspensions

25
13
6

4

Public Censures

Read More

WHAT’S INSIDE
(2) Spotlight: Supreme Court Amends Rule
21 to Align BPR, CLE Statuses
(5) The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s Order
Soliciting Public Comments on Potential
Regulatory Reforms to Increase Access to
Quality Legal Representation
(6) Article: The Provision of Law Related
Services
(15) The Board of Professional
Responsibility’s Succession Planning CLE
(16) The Board of Professional
Responsibility’s Ethics Workshop
(19) The Board of Professional
Responsibility’s Trust Account Workshop
(20) Disciplinary Actions March 2025 –
September 2025
(46) Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Protection Payments

Spotlight: Supreme Court Amends Rule 21 to Align BPR,
CLE Statuses
By: Michele Wojciechowski
Executive Director
Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education

As attorney mobility continues to increase and
more lawyers practice in multiple states, the
Tennessee Supreme Court has amended
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 21 and its
accompanying regulations to ease the
requirements for attorneys who hold a
Tennessee law license but may not have an
active practice here.



Starting with the 2026 compliance year, the
Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal
Education will not require attorneys to claim
an annual exemption if they meet certain
requirements with the Board of Professional
Responsibility (BPR). In addition, attorneys
who live and practice in another state may be
able to use their continuing legal education
(CLE) compliance in that state to satisfy the
Tennessee requirements.

The Commission will duplicate the BPR status
of attorneys who have opted for the Rule 9
exemption and make them inactive with the
Commission. During the period of inactivity,
attorneys will have no annual reporting
requirement, will not be required to file an
annual report statement, and will not be subject
to noncompliance fees.

Inactive or Exempt Status with
the Board of Professional Responsibility
Attorneys have long expressed confusion
about CLE obligations while inactive.
Currently, attorneys with an inactive Tennessee
law license may still have a requirement to
report annually to the CLE Commission,
usually in the form of claiming an exemption.
Although these recent amendments to Rule 21
eliminate all CLE exemptions other than the
age exemption, attorneys who are inactive or
exempted from Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9 under Section 10.3 will no longer have
an annual reporting requirement to the CLE
Commission. This includes attorneys who:




serve as a justice, judge, or magistrate judge
of a federal court or who serve in any
federal office in which the attorney is
prohibited by federal law from engaging in
the practice of law,
are on active duty with the armed forces, or
are faculty members of Tennessee law
schools and do not practice law.

To reactivate an inactive law license, the
Commission will look to the last two years of
an attorney’s professional activity. In most
cases, the attorney will not need to earn CLE
to return to active status with the BPR and the
Commission if they are inactive under these
conditions.
Attorneys not engaged in the practice of law
who do not fall into one of the three categories
above and who take an exemption under Rule
9, Section 10.3(e) will be required to earn up to
two years of CLE to reactivate, a change from
the previous requirement of five years of CLE.
Out-of-State Attorneys
Attorneys who are licensed in another state and
meeting that state’s CLE requirements may
2|Page

qualify for comity compliance, a new offering
that permits attorneys in states approved by the
Commission to use that state’s compliance to
meet Tennessee’s CLE obligation.
The Commission reviews each state’s
requirements to determine that jurisdiction’s
eligibility for comity compliance in Tennessee.
Attorneys who qualify will submit proof of
compliance from an approved jurisdiction in
lieu of reporting hours directly to Tennessee.

2027 when compliance for 2026 is verified.
The Commission will share communication
tailored to each attorney based on their status
with the BPR to assist them in navigating their
individual situation.
Attorneys who typically claim an exemption
other than the age exemption may wish to
consider their options regarding their license
status in 2026 if their license is active with the
BPR.

Age Exemption

Additional Amendments

The threshold for an age exemption (the
compliance year in which an attorney turns 71)
will not change, but the Commission will
automatically apply the exemption to every
attorney in the year they become eligible. The
Commission will continue to maintain
accounts for age-exempt attorneys and
welcomes them to continue to earn and report
CLE.

Some other changes that take effect for the
2026 compliance year:




Disability & Exceptional Relief
Rule 21 will no longer require attorneys who
have a disability to file an annual Request for
Substitute Program Based Upon Disability
under Section 3.02. This provision of the Rule
is obsolete, as the Court permitted all hours to
be earned remotely several years ago. In
addition,
attorneys
needing
other
accommodations can apply for Exceptional
Relief with the Commission under Rule 21,
Section 2.04.
Effective Date
These changes will go into effect for the 2026
compliance year, which ends December 31,
2026. All current compliance rules remain in
effect until attorneys have completed their
obligation or claimed an exemption for 2025,
so most attorneys will notice little change until



The Commission no longer will require an
affidavit for published writings credit
under Rule 21, Section 4.08(b).
The Commission will no longer grant
credit for passing a bar exam. Attorneys
who are admitted after September 1 are
automatically exempt from the CLE
requirement that year.
Attorneys who are exempt from the CLE
requirement, such as new attorneys, who
earn CLE may carry those hours forward
to the next compliance year under the
amendment.

Fees & Funding
Compliance fee rates remain unchanged, as
they largely have for decades. Attorneys are not
required to pay any fees to the Commission
unless they are noncompliant or seek credit for
unaccredited out-of-state courses. The
Commission is self-funded, with about 60% of
its budget coming from providers who pay $2
per hour, per attorney to report CLE
attendance.
In addition to funding the
Commission’s operations, CLE supports

3|Page

Access to Justice initiatives each year through
grants totaling more than $350,000.
Have Questions?
For questions about how these updates affect
your
CLE
or
BPR
status,
visit

CLE.TNCourts.gov
or
contact
the
Commission at info@cle.tncourts.gov. The
Commission will provide individualized
guidance to ensure attorneys transition
smoothly under the amended Rule 21 starting
with the 2026 compliance year.

4|Page

The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s
Order Soliciting Public Comments on Potential Regulatory Reforms
to Increase Access to Quality Legal Representation
On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court
of Tennessee issued an Order Soliciting
Public Comments on Potential Regulatory
Reforms to Increase Access to Quality Legal
Representation.
The deadline for submitting written
comments to the Court is March 16, 2026.
Written comments may be submitted either
by email to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov
or by mail addressed to:
James Hivner, Clerk
Re: Regulatory Reform
100 Supreme Court Building
401 7th Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37219-1307.
Click here to read the Court’s full Order.

5|Page

The Provision of Law-Related Services
By: Steven Christopher
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations
The Board of Professional Responsibility
Most ethical rules only apply when an attorney
is engaged in the practice of law. This is
evident through inclusion of language in the
text of the rule confirming its limited
applicability to the attorney-client relationship.
For example, Tennessee Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.3 requires attorneys to provide
diligent representation “in connection with the
representation of the client,”1 making the rule
inapplicable to an attorney’s conduct when
volunteering for a non-profit organization
where no legal services are provided.
There are limited ethical rules that apply
regardless of whether the conduct occurs in an
attorney-client relationship. The applicability
of these rules outside the context of the
attorney-client relationship is evident by the
absence of circumscribing language. RPC
8.4(b) provides that it is professional
misconduct for an attorney to commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as
a lawyer in other respects, both within and
outside the context of an attorney-client
relationship. RPC 8.4(c) prohibits an attorney
from engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,

and contains no language limiting the scope of
the rule to the attorney-client relationship.
Law-Related Services
Whether conduct occurs when an attorney is
engaged in the practice of law is normally selfevident. However, not all circumstances
clearly fall within or outside the bounds of an
attorney-client relationship. An increasing
number of attorneys provide services to clients
that do not require law licensure but are
provided in conjunction with or otherwise
related to the provision of legal services. These
ancillary services are referred to as “law-related
services.”2 For example, an attorney whose
practice is limited to patent litigation may also
provide patent consulting services to clients. A
law firm that represents a business entity in
their transactional work may provide financial
planning and consulting services that do not
require law licensure.
The provision of law-related services is
governed by RPC 5.7. Tennessee’s Rule 5.7
was adopted September 29, 2010, effective
January 1, 2011. Tennessee follows American
Bar Association Model Rule 5.7, originally
adopted in 1991.3 Research revealed thirty-

1

TENN. SUP. CT. R. 8, 1.3. The Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct, codified at Rule 8 of the
Tennessee Supreme Court Rules, will be cited as
RPC _._.
2

The provision of law-related services is governed by
RPC 5.7.

3

For analysis of Model Rule 5.7’s legislative history,
see Howard D. Reitz, Model Rule 5.7: A Well
Intentioned but Misdirected Reform, 5 GEO. J. LEGAL
ETHICS 975 (1992); Stephen Gillers Et Al.,
REGULATION OF LAWYERS: STATUTES AND
STANDARDS, 435-36 (Supp. 2016); Hugh D. Spitzer,

6|Page

eight (38) state jurisdictions that have adopted
the model rule either verbatim or with
modified language.4
Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.7(b)
defines law-related services as services that
might reasonably be performed in conjunction
with and in substance are related to the
provision of legal services but are not
prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law
when provided by a nonlawyer.5 RPC 5.7 is
applicable to law-related services provided by a
lawyer even where the lawyer does not provide
any legal services to the recipient of the lawrelated services, and whether the law-related
services are provided through the attorney’s
law practice or a separate entity.6
Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.7
provides a framework for defining when the
ethical rules limited to the attorney-client
relationship apply to the provision of lawrelated services. As discussed infra, RPC 5.7
creates a default rule that all of Tennessee’s
ethical rules will apply when an attorney
provides law-related services, unless the
attorney provides the law-related services
distinct from their law practice, and where the
attorney employs reasonable measures to
ensure that the recipient of the services
understands that the protections of the
attorney-client relationship do not exist.7

Model Rule 5.7 and Lawyers in Government Jobs, 30
GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 45, 52-53 (2017).
4
See ABA Jurisdictional Rules Comparison Charts,
available at
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_res
ponsibility/policy/rule_charts/.
5
RPC 5.7(b).
6
RPC 5.7, Comment [2].
7
RPC 5.7(a)(1)-(2).

While the provision of law-related services
creates potential ethical problems, RPC 5.7
also acknowledges and reflects the potential
benefit derived by the general public when an
attorney provides such ancillary services.8 By
clarifying the circumstances when Tennessee’s
ethical rules relating to the attorney-client
relationship are applicable to law-related
services, RPC 5.7 seeks to provide attorneys
with clarity about how to provide such services
consistent with their overriding ethical
obligations.
Circumstances Where Law-Related
Services Are Provided
Law-related services are provided in a number
of different circumstances.
Law-related
services may be integral to the attorney’s
ongoing work and provided on a regular basis
through their law practice. Attorneys regularly
providing law-related services may also provide
these services through the creation and
operation of a separate entity under their
control.9 This is routinely done by real estate
closing attorneys that maintain a separate entity
for the provision of title insurance services.
The provision of law-related services is not
limited to circumstances where such services
are regularly provided to clients. Attorneys
who do not incorporate law-related services
into their usual legal work may occasionally
encounter circumstances where they are asked

8

RPC 5.7, Comment [9] acknowledges that “a broad
range of economic and other interests of clients may
be served by lawyers’ engaging in the delivery of law
related services.”
9

RPC 5.7, Comment [4] confirms that law-related
services may be provided through an entity distinct
from that through which the lawyer provides legal
services.

7|Page

to provide services to clients that do not
require law licensure. Consider an attorney
whose practice is limited to probate matters.
Probate attorneys may occasionally be asked to
serve as trustees or may be appointed by a
tribunal to serve as the personal representative
of an estate.
Potential Ethical Problems When
Providing Law-Related Services
The principal ethical issue created through the
provision of law-related services is the danger
that attorneys that provide law-related services
and clients that receive them may not be
cognizant of the ethical rules that apply.
Because law-related services bear some
relationship to the provision of legal services,
they fall within the ambiguous middle ground
between an attorney’s law practice and their
conduct in a personal capacity. Absent
cognizance of RPC 5.7, attorneys providing
law-related services might proceed with the
assumption that the protections of the
attorney-client relationship are not applicable
to law-related services.

rules. The attorney may not maintain file
materials and other information consistent
with their fiduciary duties over client property
imposed by RPC 1.15, Comment [1]10 or the
duty to safeguard client information imposed
by RPC 1.6(d).11 The attorney may engage in
the solicitation of persons for law-related
services that violates Tennessee’s advertising
rules, such as live person to person solicitation
of an individual that is not a lawyer, a person
who routinely uses for business purposes the
legal services offered by the lawyer, pursuant to
a court-ordered class action notification, or
where the recipient of the solicitation has a
family, close person, or prior professional
relationship with the lawyer.12

Attorneys who proceed on the assumption that
the ethical rules relating to the representation
of a client do not apply to law-related services
may inadvertently violate ethical rules and
deprive clients of the protections afforded by
the attorney-client relationship. An attorney
providing law-related services may decline to
apply the conflict analysis used for their legal
clients, and on this basis, provide law-related
services that run afoul of Tennessee’s conflict

A corresponding danger is that clients
receiving law-related services may assume that
the protections of the attorney-client
relationship are applicable. Particularly when
the law-related services are provided by an
attorney when employing an attorney’s indicia
or where the attorney is also providing legal
services for the same client, such an
assumption would be thoroughly reasonable.
Most clients are not sufficiently knowledgeable
about Tennessee’s ethical rules to be aware of
most ethical duties governing law practice,
such as obligation to provide diligent
representation and to maintain good
communication.
However, clients may
generally understand that communications
with an attorney are confidential and
privileged. On this basis, the client may make
sensitive disclosures to the attorney in
connection with the law-related services,

10

11

RPC 1.15, Comment [1] imposes a fiduciary
obligation upon attorneys when in possession of
client property, including client file materials.

RPC 1.6(d) requires attorneys to create office
policies and protocols to ensure the safeguarding and
nondisclosure of client information.
12
RPC 7.3(b)(1)-(4).

8|Page

believing these disclosures are protected by
attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality
protections defined at RPC 1.6.

needs to be given to the substantive
relationship between the services and related
legal services.

Determining Whether Services are LawRelated Services

The second prong of the definition limits lawrelated services to those services that are not
prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law
if provided by a non-lawyer. The unauthorized
practice of law in Tennessee is defined by
statute.14 The statute prohibits individuals
from engaging in the “practice of law” or “law
business” absent appropriate law licensure.15
The “practice of law,” has the following
statutory definition:

Determining whether services are law-related
services is not always straightforward. The
definition of law-related services provided at
RPC 5.7(b) is broad, as it was intended to
encompass a wide variety of services ancillary
to law practice. RPC 5.7 Comment [9]
provides a list of examples of law-related
services, which includes title insurance,
financial planning, accounting, trust services,
real estate counseling, legislative lobbying,
economic analysis, social work, psychological
counseling, tax preparation, and patent,
medical, or environmental counseling.
However, this list is not intended to be
exhaustive.13
Determining whether services not identified in
the list of examples in Comment [9] are lawrelated services requires an analysis of the twopart definition at RPC 5.7(b). The first prong
of the definition limits law-related services to
those “that might reasonably be performed in
conjunction with and in substance are related
to the provision of legal services.” Considering
whether services fall within this standard will
require analysis of the manner that the services
are typically provided in the overall service
marketplace, and particularly whether the
services are frequently provided as ancillary
services in the legal field. Consideration also
13

RPC 5.7, Comment [9].
TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-103(a). See also In re
Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995).

Practice of law means the appearance
as an advocate in a representative
capacity or the drawing of papers,
pleadings or documents or the
performance of any act in such capacity
in connection with proceedings
pending or prospective before any
court, commissioner, referee or any
body,
board,
committee
or
commission constituted by law or
having authority to settle controversies,
or the soliciting of clients directly or
indirectly to provide such services.16
“Law Business” is defined as follows:
“Law business” means the advising or
counseling for valuable consideration
of any person as to any secular law, the
drawing or the procuring of or assisting
in the drawing for valuable
consideration of any paper, document
15

Id.

16

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-101(3).

14

9|Page

or instrument affecting or relating to
secular rights, the doing of any act for
valuable
consideration
in
a
representative capacity, obtaining or
tending to secure for any person any
property
or
property
rights
whatsoever, or the soliciting of clients
directly or indirectly to provide such
services.17
The Tennessee Supreme Court has clarified
that conduct within the scope of these
definitions will only constitute the
unauthorized practice of law if the act(s) at
issue require the “professional judgment of a
lawyer.”18 This statutory construction is
evident in In Re Petition of Burson, which
involved the challenge of a statute that
permitted non-attorney agents to appear on
behalf of taxpayers before boards of
equalization.19 The Tennessee Supreme Court
concluded that the statute at issue did not
sanction the unauthorized practice of law, as
the services performed for the taxpayers did
not require the professional judgment of a
lawyer.20 In contrast, in State of Tennessee ex
rel. Slatery v. the Witherspoon Law Group
PPLC, et al., the Tennessee Court of Appeals
concluded that non-attorneys engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law by making
statements to prospective clients about the
anticipated settlement range of their cause of

17

TENN. CODE ANN. § 23-3-101(1).
In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d at 776 (the
Court noted that “the essence of professional
judgment is the lawyer’s educated ability to relate the
general body and philosophy of law to a specific
legal problem of a client”); State of Tennessee ex rel.
Slatery v. the Witherspoon Law Group PPLC, et al.,
700 S.W.3d 370, 384 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022); See also
Fifteenth Judicial District Unified Bar Ass’n v.
Glasgow, No. M1996-00020-COA-R3-CV, 1999 WL
18

action, concluding that such analysis required
the professional judgment of a lawyer.21
As the determination of whether services are
law-related services or legal services is not
always
self-evident,
there
may
be
circumstances where an attorney provides
services or decides to begin incorporating
services through their law practice or a separate
entity that at least arguably fall within the
definition. If the services at issue do not clearly
fall within the definition of law-related services
and could instead reasonably be construed as
legal services, the attorney should exercise
caution in availing themselves of the exception
to the applicability of all of Tennessee’s ethical
rules available at RPC 5.7(a)(1)-(2). If the
services at issue are deemed to be legal services
rather than law-related services, the exemption
provided at RPC 5.7(a) becomes inapplicable.
Providing Law-Related Services Distinct
from Legal Services
RPC 5.7 imposes a default rule that all of
Tennessee’s ethical rules will apply to the
provision of law-related services. Attorneys
providing law-related services seeking
exemption from the ethical rules that apply to
attorney-client relationships must fulfill two
requirements. The first requirement is that the
law-related services must be provided in a

1128847, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 1999)(“[t]he
purpose of the statutory prohibition against the
unauthorized practice of law protects the public by
ensuring that the public receives high quality legal
services”).
19
In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d at 776.
20
Id. at 777.
21
State of Tennessee ex rel. Slatery v. the
Witherspoon Law Group PPLC, et al., 700 S.W.3d at
384.

10 | P a g e

manner distinct from the lawyer’s provision of
legal services.22

of both legal services and law-related services
in the same matter.27

The term “distinct” is not defined in
Tennessee’s ethical rules. The Comments to
RPC 5.7 provide that a principal means of
creating the distinction between legal services
and law-related services is to provide the lawrelated services through an entity under the
lawyer’s control separate from their law
practice.23 However, Comment [3] clarifies that
the creation of such a separate entity is not
required to facilitate the distinction between
legal services and law-related services, as it
provides, as examples of means to effect this
distinction, the creation of a separate entity or
“different support staff within the law firm.”24

In some circumstances, it may not be
logistically feasible to distinguish between the
provision of legal services and law-related
services due to the way the law-related services
are provided.28 Consider a legal services
program that provides representation to
indigent domestic violence victims in divorce
and order of protection matters. In addition to
providing the required legal services, the
assigned staff attorney and support staff
coordinate with local non-profit organizations
to provide the client with direct services, such
as placement in a domestic violence shelter.
The staff attorney and support staff may also
assist the client with application for public
assistance benefits. These ancillary services
would likely be deemed to fall within the
definition of law-related services, particularly
as the list of examples provided in RPC 5.7,
Comment [9] includes “social work.”

Guidance on creating requisite distinction
between legal services and law-related services
was provided by the Colorado Bar Association
Ethics
Committee
(hereinafter,
the
“Committee”) in Formal Opinion 98 (Adopted
17, 2015).25
The Committee, applying
Colorado’s codification of Model Rule 5.7,
identified a number of factors to determine
whether law-related services were provided in
a manner distinct from legal services, including
the use of separate advertising, business cards,
signage, telephone reception services, and
internet domain names.26 The Committee
further recommended avoiding the provision

22

RPC 5.7(a)(1); RPC 5.7, Comment [3]: “When
law-related services are provided by a lawyer under
circumstances that are not distinct from the lawyer’s
provision of legal services to clients, the lawyer in
providing the law-related services must adhere to the
requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
23
RPC 5.7, Comment [3]-[4]. The lawyer may
exercise sole control over the entity, or the control

Given the logistics of how these services would
be provided, creating the distinction required
by RPC 5.7(a)(1) may not be feasible. If
separate staff are not used exclusively for the
law-related services, many communications
between the client and the assigned staff
attorney or support staff would likely concern
both the law-related services and legal services.
Similarly, creating separate filing systems for

may be shared by the lawyer with others. RPC
5.7(a)(2).
24

RPC 5.7, Comment [3].
Colo. Formal Op. 98 (Jan. 17, 2015).
26
Id.
25

27
28

Id.
RPC 5.7, Comment [8].

11 | P a g e

the legal services and law-related services might
not be logistically feasible.
The Reasonable Measures Required by
RPC 5.7(a)(2)
Even when an attorney provides law-related
services in a manner distinct from the
provision of legal services, the attorney will
remain subject to all of Tennessee’s ethical
rules unless the lawyer also takes reasonable
measures to provide assurance that the person
receiving the law-related services knows that
the services are not legal services and the
protections of the attorney-client relationship
do not exist.29 The burden is upon the lawyer
to show that the lawyer has taken these
reasonable measures.30
In order to meet this requirement, the attorney
must communicate the implications of the fact
that the relationship between the recipient of
law-related services and the attorney will not be
an
attorney-client
relationship.31
The
Comments to RPC 5.7 recommend, but do not
require, that this notification be reduced to
writing.32 It is recommended that this
notification reference the principal distinctions
of the attorney-client relationship, such as
attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, and
conflicts of interest. Care should be taken to
communicate the inapplicability of the ethical
rules relating to the attorney-client relationship
in a manner that avoids the use of legal jargon,
with the goal that the notice be comprehensible
to the typical recipient of law-related services.33
29

RPC 5.7(a)(2). RPC 5.7, Comment [3].
RPC 5.7, Comment [7].
31
RPC 5.7, Comment [6].
32
Id.
33
The measures employed to fulfill the attorney’s
obligations at RPC 5.7(a)(2) must be “reasonable,”
30

Notification to clients of the inapplicability of
the ethical rules relating to the attorney-client
relationship should be provided prior to
entering into the agreement for the provision
of law-related services.34 If the recipient is not
provided with this clarification prior to the
commencement of the services, the recipient
may make an unintended utterance of sensitive
information, believing that such information is
confidential and privileged, or otherwise
engage in a manner detrimental to their
interests.
The attorney should consider the legal
sophistication of the recipient of the services in
determining the nature of the reasonable
measures.35 While the reasonable measures
required by RPC 5.7(a)(2) are applicable
regardless of the client’s sophistication, a
publicly traded corporation with in-house
counsel will have less of a need for explanation
of the inapplicability of the attorney-client
relationship than a first-time purchaser of
residential realty who receives title insurance
services.36
Referral of Clients to A Separate Entity for
the Provision of Law-Related Services
A lawyer providing legal services to a client
may refer the client to an entity controlled by
the lawyer that provides law-related services.
However, if the client enters into a contractual
relationship with the entity to receive lawrelated services, the transaction must comply
which is defined in Tennessee’s ethical rules as
consistent with the conduct of a reasonably prudent
and competent lawyer. RPC 1.0(h).
34
Id.
35
RPC 5.7, Comment [7].
36
Id.

12 | P a g e

with RPC 1.8(a), which governs the
circumstance when a lawyer enters into a
business transaction with a client.37 RPC 1.8(a)
imposes requirements on the transaction to
mitigate the risk that the lawyer will use their
legal training and the confidence established in
the attorney-client relationship to exert
improper influence on the client in the
negotiation of a contractual relationship.38
RPC 1.8(a) specifically requires that the
transaction and terms of the contractual
agreement are fair and reasonable to the client,
and fully disclosed in writing in a manner that
the client can understand.39 The written
instrument governing the transaction must
advise the client of the suitability of seeking
and a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice
of independent counsel.40 The client must
additionally give informed consent to the
essential terms of the transaction and the
lawyer’s role in the transaction.41
Applicability of Ethical Requirements
Beyond Tennessee’s Ethical Rules in the
Provision of Law Related Services

regulatory requirements that govern the
provision of counseling in the respective
counseling field. Attorneys who act in a
fiduciary capacity will be bound by applicable
law relating to the execution of fiduciary
responsibilities.43
As an additional consideration, an attorney
exercising the exemption available at RPC
5.7(a) will remain subject to the limited ethical
rules that apply outside the context of an
attorney-client relationship when they provide
law-related services. An attorney that makes a
false statement in advertising law-related
services will not be deemed to violate RPC 7.1,
which prohibits an attorney from making a
false or misleading statement about their
services. However, a false statement regarding
the law-related services could potentially fall
within the scope of RPC 8.4(c), which generally
prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation regardless of the
context where the conduct occurs.
Creating and Maintaining Office
Protocols When Providing Law-Related
Services

Even when an attorney meets the requirements
of RPC 5.7(a)(1)-(2) and Tennessee’s ethical
rules that apply to the representation of a client
are not applicable in their provision of lawrelated services, the attorney should be
cognizant of ethical responsibilities that may
exist independent of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct through other applicable
law.42 Attorneys providing tax, financial, or
other counseling services may be subject to

If an attorney providing law-related services
exercises the exemption provided at RPC
5.7(a)(2), particular care should be taken to
create and maintain office protocols to ensure
that the law-related services are distinct from
any provision of legal services, and that the
reasonable measures required by RPC 5.7(a)(2)
are provided to the recipients of law related
services in a manner that can be understood by

37

41

RPC 5.7, Comment [5].
RPC 1.8, Comment [1].
39
RPC 1.8(a)(1).
40
RPC 1.8(a)(2).
38

RPC 1.8(a)(3). See RPC 1.0(e) for the definition
of “Informed consent.”
42
RPC 5.7, Comment [11].
43
See id.

13 | P a g e

the recipients. Integral to these protocols is the
need to properly train staff regarding the
inapplicability of the ethical rules relating to the
attorney-client relationship.
Non-attorney
staff hired to provide law-related services may
not have requisite training or experience in the
legal field and may otherwise not be conversant
with Tennessee’s ethical rules. The nuanced
distinction between legal services and lawrelated services may otherwise not be intuitive
to staff. Absent adequate training, staff may
mistakenly believe that attorney-client privilege
attaches in communications relating to lawrelated services and communicate this to the
recipient of the services.

law-related services. RPC 5.1(a) requires
attorneys with managerial authority to make
reasonable measures to ensure that the firm has
in effect measures giving reasonable assurance
that all lawyers in the firm conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 5.3(a)
imposes the same obligation to ensure that
non-lawyers act in a manner consistent with
Tennessee’s ethical rules. Attorneys with
managerial authority may be vicariously
responsible for disciplinary violations by
subordinate attorneys or support staff arising
out of a failure to create and maintain
appropriate protocols.45
Further Inquiry

If an attorney does not avail themselves of the
exemption available at RPC 5.7(a), their
obligation to create and maintain protocols to
ensure that the office proceeds consistent with
all of Tennessee’s ethical rules in the provision
of law-related services implicates RPC 5.1 and
RPC 5.3.44 Even experienced legal staff will
require appropriate training that all of
Tennessee’s ethical rules apply to the office’s

44

RPC 5.1 and RPC 5.3 apply only in connection
with the operation of a “firm,” which is defined at
RPC 1.0(e) as a lawyer or lawyers in a law
partnership, professional corporation, sole
proprietorship, or other association authorized to
practice law, or lawyers employed in a legal services

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

organization or the legal department of a corporation,
government agency, or other organization. RPC 5.1
and RPC 5.3 thereby apply only in connection with
the provision of legal services.
45

See RPC 5.1 and RPC 5.3.

14 | P a g e

The Board of Professional Responsibility’s
Succession Planning CLE

The Board of Professional Responsibility

someone else's practice. John Dupree, a

has developed and made available on the

Knoxville attorney who has previously

Board’s website a one-hour succession

served as a receiver, outlines best practices

planning continuing legal education (CLE)

for successfully closing a practice. This

presentation. Available to all attorneys at no

succession planning CLE joins the Board’s

cost, this one-hour CLE, presented by

Proactive Management Based Regulation

Disciplinary Counsel Eileen Burkhalter

(PMBR) self-assessment as the second

Smith, addresses how an attorney protects

online CLE offered on the Board’s website

their own interests, as well as interests of

at no charge to Tennessee attorneys.

their clients and the profession; by

Attorneys completing the succession

proactively planning for the transition,

planning CLE will receive a confirmation

closing or selling of a law practice. The

email that the attorney submits to the

Board’s CLE emphasizes the importance of

Tennessee Commission on Continuing

planning ahead by designating in advance a

Legal Education and Specialization to

receiver or successor attorney and provides

receive one-hour dual credit.

checklists for closing one’s own office or

15 | P a g e

Friday, November 21, 2025
8:00AM - 4:10PM Central Time

Nashville School of Law
4013 Armory Oaks Drive, Nashville, TN 37204

Purchase Tickets here
This is a hybrid event, with 6.5 hours dual credit, offering both in person and remote attendance
options. In-person attendance is limited to 100 attendees. The cost of attendance is $100.

Presentations:
Longevity and Brain Health: How to Empower Cognitive Fitness
Debra Austin, JD, PhD

Bio: Dr. Debra Austin, JD, PhD is a nationally
recognized expert in professional well-being. She
writes and speaks about how neuroscience and
psychology research can help law students, lawyers,
and other professionals improve their performance
and well-being by enhancing brain health and mental
strength. Full bio.

Presentation: The brain is the lawyer’s most
important asset, and neuroscience research can help
us understand how to empower cognitive fitness
during all stages of life. This session will include
information on brain function; stress and other risks
to cognitive capacity; and a menu of science-based
recommendations to protect brain health and
enhance longevity.

Threats and Attacks on Judges, the Justice System, and Legal Institutions: Our Ethical
Obligations
Justice Holly Kirby

Bio: In 1995, at the age of 38, Justice Holly Kirby
became a gender milestone, the first woman in
Tennessee history to serve on the Tennessee Court
of Appeals. In 2014, after she had served on the

Presentation: Justice Kirby will explore individual
and collective ethical obligations in the face of threats
and attacks on legal institutions, on our justice
system, and on our judges.
16 | P a g e

intermediate appellate court for almost 19 years,
Justice Kirby was appointed to the Tennessee
Supreme Court by Governor Bill Haslam. She served
as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 2023
through September 2025. Full bio.

The Changing Face of Technology and its Impact on the Practice of Law
Bill Ramsey

Bio: Bill Ramsey joined Womble Bond Dickinson in
August of this year after a successful career with Neal
& Harwell in Nashville. He is highly regarded in the
entertainment industry for representing prominent
artists, entertainers, and key figures in the music
business, including business managers, financial
advisors, talent agents, publishers, and record labels.
Full bio.

Presentation: Just when we thought we had a grip
on the use of technology in the practice of law, along
came AI DeepFakes, social engineering, and
increasing privacy invasions. It is easy to get lost.
This session will explore practical solutions and
explore ways to avoid getting lost in the hype and
technical jargon.

Recent Developments in Lawyers Assistance Program
Buddy Stockwell

Bio: Buddy Stockwell was appointed by the
Tennessee Supreme Court on July 1, 2020, as the new
Executive Director of the Tennessee Lawyers
Assistance Program (TLAP). Stockwell comes from
south Louisiana where he was volunteer and
program monitor for the state’s Committee on
Alcohol and Drug Abuse since 1993, and Executive
Director of Louisiana’s LAP from 2010 to 2020. Full
bio.

Presentation: This program will highlight the
following topics relating to recent developments by
TLAP: Mental Health Challenges in the Legal
Profession; Confidential TLAP Assistance Behind
the Scenes; and, Best Practices in Monitoring Fitness
to Practice.

AI and Ethics
Lucian Pera

Bio: Lucian Pera is a partner with the Memphis
Office of Adams & Reese, LLP. His practice includes
legal ethics, media law, and commercial litigation. He
represents lawyers, law firms, and others on issues of
legal ethics and lawyer professional responsibility.
The ABA Center for Professional Responsibility has
bestowed on him the prestigious Michael Franck
Award, their highest award for work in the field of
ethics and professional responsibility over his career.
Full bio.

Presentation: AI seems to be everywhere, in
everything, including all sorts of tools for lawyers.
Some are useful and cool; some maybe not so much.
Some are dangerous; some are safer. How can
lawyers use AI effectively, comply with the ethics
rules ranging from competence to confidentiality,
meet their obligations to clients, and not wind up as
the next front-page example of lawyer stupidity? Find
out.

17 | P a g e

Not so Secret an Agent
Jim Grogan

Bio: James J. Grogan is an Illinois lawyer and
educator who concentrates his practice in
professional responsibility and lawyer ethics law. Mr.
Grogan received an undergraduate degree from
Lewis University in 1977 and his J.D. degree from
the Loyola University of Chicago School of Law in
1980. He retired in 2019 as the Deputy Administrator
and the Chief Counsel of the Attorney Registration
and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court
of Illinois (ARDC) where, for almost 40 years, he
investigated and prosecuted hundreds of charges of
lawyer misconduct and argued dozens of disciplinary
cases in the Supreme Court of Illinois. Full bio.

Presentation: Lawyers are not spies, but they do
serve as agents for a principal. This sixty-minute
session provides a comprehensive overview of the
obligations owed by a lawyer, as a fiduciary, to clients.
There will be a focus on attorneys who represent
clients with diminished capacity and a discussion of
recent efforts to modify the ethics rules governing
the representation of children, cognitively impaired
adults, and others with certain challenges. A
summary of significant recent trends in lawyer
regulation will also be featured.

18 | P a g e

Wednesday, December 3, 2025
9AM - 12:30PM (Central Time)
Nashville School of Law
4013 Armory Oaks Drive, Nashville, TN 37204
Purchase Tickets here
In person participation is limited to 50 participants. Remote participation by livestream is also available. The
cost of attendance is $50.
Steven Christopher, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations, and John Gilliland, Disciplinary
Counsel in Investigations, will be presenting this CLE. The Board has received approval from the Tennessee
Commission on Continuing Legal Education for attendees to receive 3 hours of dual CLE credit for
completion of the workshop.
This CLE Program will cover the following topics:




A summary of best practices for trust account management
An analysis of the ethical rules governing trust accounts
How to Prevent Trust Account Scams

Speaker Biographies
Steven J. Christopher is Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Investigations for the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Steve earned his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in
2002, and also holds a Master of Divinity degree from Vanderbilt University Divinity School. Prior to being
hired at the Board in 2016, Steve was a Managing Attorney at the Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and
the Cumberlands, a private non-profit law firm that provides free legal representation to indigent persons in
civil and administrative legal matters. Steve handled a wide range of legal matters as a legal services attorney,
including landlord tenant, domestic relations, and public benefits cases.
John E. Gilliland is an Investigations Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of Professional Responsibility of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee. John earned his J.D. degree from the University of Memphis in 2001. Prior
to being hired at the Board in 2025, John was a civilian attorney with the US Army then the US Air Force
after retiring as a judge advocate from the US Air Force in 2020. He has extensive experience in government
ethics, administrative law, and criminal law.

19 | P a g e

Disciplinary and Licensure Actions
(April 2025 – September 2025)

PERMANENT DISBARMENTS

ANDY LAMAR ALLMAN, BPR NO. 017857
SUMNER COUNTY
Effective July 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Andy Lamar Allman from
the practice of law and ordered him to pay restitution to certain complainants and all costs incurred by the
Board of Professional Responsibility in the investigation and litigation of this disciplinary matter.
The Hearing Panel found Mr. Allman failed to provide competent and diligent representation to
complainants; failed to keep them informed about their respective cases; charged certain clients an
unreasonable fee; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended by the Supreme Court; failed
to respond to the Board regarding disciplinary complaints; failed to notify clients of his suspension from the
practice of law; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation during the
representation. Mr. Allman filed a petition for review, which the Trial Court dismissed with prejudice.
The Hearing Panel found the conduct of Mr. Allman violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (declining and terminating representation),
5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1 (bar admissions and disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (misconduct).

JOSEPH HOUSTON CRABTREE, JR., BPR NO. 011451
MCMINN COUNTY
Effective May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred attorney Joseph Houston
Crabtree, Jr., from the practice of law and ordered him to pay all costs and fees of the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petition, a Hearing Panel determined that, while representing a client in
a personal injury matter, Mr. Crabtree abandoned his client and the pending litigation, failed to respond to
subsequent communications from his client, and failed to turn over the client’s file to successor counsel after
the client necessarily retained a new attorney. Further, when Mr. Crabtree was suspended from the practice of
law, on November 22, 2022, in unrelated disciplinary proceedings, he failed to notify either his client or
opposing counsel of the suspension, as required under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 28 and per the terms of the
Supreme Court’s Order of Suspension. Finally, Mr. Crabtree failed to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility regarding these disciplinary complaints.
The appointed Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Crabtree’s actions and omissions violated Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication); 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); 3.2
(expediting litigation); 3,4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters); and 8.4(g)
(misconduct involving failure to comply with a final court order).
20 | P a g e

Mr. Crabtree must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding
the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

JAMES DANIEL MARSHALL, BPR NO. 025541
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred James Daniel Marshall from
the practice of law and ordered restitution to former client Barbara Covington in the amount of $2,000 and
ordered Mr. Marshall to return all property taken from Ms. Covington within thirty (30) days of the entry of
the Supreme Court’s Order of Enforcement in this matter.
In a Petition for Discipline consisting of two (2) complaints, Mr. Marshall failed to communicate with his
clients, failed to respond to multiple motions filed against his clients, failed to submit timely provided
discovery responses, and failed to participate in court-scheduled conference calls. Mr. Marshall caused his
client's lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice, failed to comply with a Court Order requiring response, failed
to preserve his client’s property, failed to respond to his disciplinary investigations, and failed to move his
clients’ cases forward.
The Hearing Panel found Mr. Marshall knowingly violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property
and funds), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 8.1 (bar admission and
disciplinary matters), and 8.4(a),(b),(c),(d) and (g) (misconduct).
Mr. Marshall must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding
the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

ALAN CHRISTOPHER NORTON, BPR NO. 037410
HAMILTON COUNTY
Effective June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Alan Christopher Norton
from the practice of law. Mr. Norton delivered to the Board of Professional Responsibility his Declaration in
support of Disbarment by Consent, in compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23.1 and
consented to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself against charges detailed in pending
disciplinary file No. 100694-2024-3-ES-INV. Mr. Norton forged a chancellor’s signature on three court
orders, forged the name of a Tennessee attorney on a fake motion, and forged the deposition transcript he
provided to his client in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 8.4(b) (criminal
conduct), and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty).
On December 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Alan Christopher Norton
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Norton posed a threat of substantial harm to the public. Mr.
Norton’s temporary suspension was dissolved by the June 4, 2025, Order of Enforcement.
Mr. Norton must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 (2024),
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and is not eligible for reinstatement to the
practice of law in this state.

21 | P a g e

JOEL DAVID RAGLAND, BPR #012222
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Effective October 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred Joel David Ragland from
the practice of law. Mr. Ragland delivered to the Board of Professional Responsibility his Declaration in
support of Disbarment by Consent, in compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 23.1 and
consented to disbarment because he could not successfully defend himself against charges detailed in pending
disciplinary petition, No. 2024-3419-6-DB. Mr. Ragland misappropriated funds by writing unauthorized
checks against his firm’s trust account in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Ragland must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 (2024),
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and is not eligible for reinstatement to the
practice of law in this state.

MELVIN JACOB WERNER, BPR NO. 015909
KNOX COUNTY
Effective May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee permanently disbarred attorney Melvin Jacob
Werner from the practice of law and ordered him to pay all costs and fees of the Board of Professional
Responsibility.
After a hearing upon the disciplinary petitions filed against Mr. Werner arising from two (2) separate
complaints of ethical misconduct, a Hearing Panel determined Mr. Werner committed fraud; made false
representations of fact; knowingly violated Massachusetts law by engaging in unlawful, unfair, or deceptive
acts or practices; misled a client in order to induce her to enter into a fraudulent investment agreement,
resulting in a loss to the client of $650,000.00; misappropriated and converted client funds without his client’s
knowledge or consent; impermissibly commingled client and personal funds; and made knowing
misrepresentations of fact to his client.
The Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Werner’s actions and omissions described herein violated
Massachusetts Rules of Supreme Judicial Court 8.4(a) (misconduct) and 8.4(c) (misconduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15
(safekeeping property and funds) and 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation).
Mr. Werner must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding
the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys.

22 | P a g e

SUSPENSIONS

JONATHAN MARK BENFIELD, BPR NO. 018541
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective September 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Jonathan Mark Benfield from the
practice of law for six (6) years with five (5) years being an active suspension pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9,
Section 12.2, the remainder served on probation conditioned upon the appointment of a practice monitor.
As a prerequisite to seeking reinstatement from active suspension, Mr. Benfield must report to the Tennessee
Lawyers’ Assistance Program within thirty (30) days of the suspension order, attend the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s ethics workshop, take and receive a passing score on the Multistate Professional
Responsibility (MPRE) exam, provide restitution to his mother or her estate in the amount of $103,080.00
and pay all costs. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in complaint # 7462-9-MB and 74907-9MB, publicly censured Mr. Benfield.
Mr. Benfield, while acting as power of attorney, took advantage of his elderly and vulnerable mother, abused
his fiduciary relationship with his mother as power of attorney, failed to comply with court rules, and
knowingly violated his duties as a professional. Mr. Benfield practiced law while subject to an order of
suspension and failed to comply with a court order. A Hearing Panel determined the conduct of Mr. Benfield
violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 1.14
(diminished capacity); 1.15 (safekeeping of property and funds); 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and
counsel); 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(a), (b), and (c) (misconduct).
Mr. Benfield must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

ARTHUR C. GRISHAM, Jr. BPR NO. 001071
HAMILTON COUNTY
Effective May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Arthur C. Grisham, Jr. from the practice
of law for five (5) years pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9. As a condition precedent to reinstatement Mr.
Grisham must pay restitution to both complainants. Following successful reinstatement Mr. Grisham shall
be required to use a practice monitor for one (1) year.
A Petition for Discipline containing two (2) complaints was filed by the Board alleging Mr. Grisham failed to
reasonably communicate with his clients regarding the status of their case; failed to act in a diligent manner
and expedite the clients’ litigation; failed to abide by court orders, charged unreasonable fees; failed to
safeguard client funds; failed to provide required information to successor attorneys; was found in both civil
and criminal contempt; and abused his position as executor by withdrawing estate funds without court order
and caused estate insolvency. A Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Grisham’s conduct violated Tennessee
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 3.2
(expediting litigation); 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel); and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Grisham must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.
23 | P a g e

LINN MARIE GUERRERO, BPR NO. 033320
KNOX COUNTY
Effective May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Linn Marie Guerrero from the practice
of law for five (5) years, with two (2) years to be served as an active suspension, pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder to be served on probation with conditions including
engagement of a practice monitor and payment of all Board costs and expenses.
In disciplinary matters arising from five (5) separate complaints of misconduct, Ms. Guerrero engaged in
conduct that involved significant conflicts of interest between clients in adverse positions, entered into fee
agreements without client authorization, charged excessive and unreasonable fees unsupported by billing
records, and abused her fiduciary relationship. Ms. Guerrero further failed to reasonably communicate with
or diligently represent clients, failed to protect her client’s interests after withdrawing from matters, and
abandoned client matters without returning the client’s property or otherwise protecting their interests.
Ms. Guerrero executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging her misconduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communications), 1.5 (fees),
1,7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8 (conflict of interest: specific rules), 1.9 (duties to former clients),
1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct).
Ms. Guerrero must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

STEVEN MICHAEL HODGEN, BPR NO. 025456
HAMILTON COUNTY
Effective August 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Steven Michael Hodgen from the
practice of law for six (6) years with five (5) years as an active suspension pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9,
Section 12.2, and the remainder served on probation conditioned upon the appointment of a practice
monitor.
A Petition for Discipline containing one complaint was filed by the Board alleging Mr. Hodgen indicated in
court pleadings that he represented a party that he had never spoken with and that following the improper
representation then failed to reasonably communicate with the client regarding the status of the case; failed to
act in a diligent manner and expedite the client’s litigation; failed to timely respond to dispositive motions;
failed to discuss any aspects of the case and filings with the complainant; abandoned the complainant and/or
prejudiced the rights of a third party. After a hearing on the merits, the Hearing Panel determined the
conduct of Mr. Hodgen violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence); 1.2 (scope of
representation); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 3.3 (candor to the tribunal);
3.4(d) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).
Mr. Hodgen must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

24 | P a g e

RAY HAL JENKINS, BPR NO. 019113
KNOX COUNTY
Effective August 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Ray Hal Jenkins from the practice of
law for two (2) years as an active suspension with conditions precedent to reinstatement pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2.
A Petition for Discipline was filed by the Board, containing one complaint that Mr. Jenkins committed
professional misconduct by consuming alcohol on several occasions while performing his duties as Judicial
Magistrate for Knox County. By these actions, Mr. Jenkins violated Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct
8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Jenkins must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

JAMES BRODERICK JOHNSON, BPR NO. 015509
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended James Broderick Johnson for three (3)
months, with thirty (30) days served as an active suspension and the remaining time served on probation.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Davidson County Circuit Court and the disciplinary Hearing
Panel, finding that Mr. Johnson violated the Rules of Professional Conduct when he publicly filed
confidential communications between him and his client as an exhibit to a motion to withdraw. The Court
found Mr. Johnson’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (confidentiality of information);
1.16 (declining or terminating representation); and 8.4(d) (misconduct).
Mr. Johnson must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

MITCHELL RAY MILLER, BPR NO. 036126
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Effective September 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Mitchell Ray Miller, who now
works in Williamson County, from the practice of law for two (2) years, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, with a four (4) month period served as an active suspension, and the remainder
served as a probationary suspension with conditions including engagement of a practice monitor and
obtaining additional continuing legal education.
In seven (7) separate matters, Mr. Miller represented clients in civil matters and accepted payment for
attorney fees but then either failed to perform the work for which he was retained, failed to appear at
scheduled hearings, failed to reasonably communicate with clients, or unreasonably delayed matters through a
pattern of neglect, resulting in actual or potential harm to multiple clients. Additionally, Mr. Miller on
repeated occasions failed to respond timely to Board inquiries. However, Mr. Miller did ultimately refund all
unearned attorney fees.

25 | P a g e

Mr. Miller executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communications), 1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Mr. Miller must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

DALE GERARD NOWICKI, BPR NO. 036672
TENNESSEE
Effective May 13, 2025, Dale Gerard Nowicki, a resident of La Mirada, California was suspended by Order of
Reciprocal Discipline entered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on May 13, 2025. A two (2) year
suspension with ninety (90) days active suspension and remainder on probation with certain conditions, was
imposed by the Supreme Court of California by judgment entered January 6, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the
Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline suspending Mr. Nowicki for two
years, with the first ninety (90) days served on active suspension retroactive to the date of suspension in
California, and the remainder on probation, subject to the conditions specified in the January 6, 2025, Order.
Mr. Nowicki was also ordered to pay court costs within thirty (30) days of the entry of the order.
Mr. Nowicki 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 reinstatement.

ANDRE CHASE RABIDEAU, BPR NO. 036907
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Effective August 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Andre Chase Rabideau from the
practice of law for seven (7) years, the entirety of which is an active suspension pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2. Mr. Rabideau must satisfy certain conditions prior to seeking
reinstatement, including completion of a practice and professional enhancement program, contacting the
Tennessee Lawyer Assistance Program, completing any requirements imposed by the Tennessee Lawyer
Assistance Program, and paying restitution payments to the four (4) former clients. Upon his reinstatement to
the practice of law, Mr. Rabideau must engage a practice monitor for two (2) years.
A Petition for Discipline containing seven (7) complaints was filed by the Board of Professional
Responsibility against Mr. Rabideau. The Hearing Panel concluded that Mr. Rabideau failed to represent his
clients in a diligent manner; failed to reasonably communicate with his clients regarding the status of their
case; repeatedly made misrepresentations to clients concerning court dates and filings with the court;
misrepresented the status of his license to a court; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; accepted fees
but failed to provide the professional services for which he had been retained; failed to inform his clients of
his administrative suspension from the practice of law and withdraw from representation; and abandoned his
representation of clients without notice to clients or permission of court. The Hearing Panel found Mr.
Rabideau violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 1.16 (declining or terminating
representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law), 8.1(b) (misconduct), and 8.4 (c), (d), and (g) (misconduct).
26 | P a g e

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

ARCHIE SANDERS, III, BPR NO. 012784
SHELBY COUNTY
Effective May 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Archie Sanders, III, from the practice of
law for one (1) year, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, with a two (2) month period
served as an active suspension, and the remainder served as a probationary suspension under the terms
below.
In a probate matter, Mr. Sanders unreasonably delayed filing the petition to probate, unreasonably delayed
seeking partition of certain real property in the estate, failed to communicate reasonably with his clients, and
failed to properly conclude representation of the clients. In a separate matter involving litigation with an
insurance company which extended over a period of twenty (20) years, Mr. Sanders failed to communicate
reasonably with his clients, failed to diligently perform the work necessary for the representation, and failed to
reasonably expedite the litigation.
Mr. Sanders executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communications), 1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Mr. Sanders must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

WESLEY SHELMAN SPEARS, BPR NO. 009291
TENNESSEE
By Order of Reciprocal Discipline entered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on September 16, 2025,
Wesley Shelman Spears, a resident of Hartford, Connecticut, was suspended for one (1) year, consecutive to
the two (2) year suspension Mr. Spears is currently subject to in Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Wesley S.
Spears, Docket No. CV-22-6160733-S. Mr. Spears received the one (1) year suspension in Office of Chief
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wesley S. Spears, Docket No. UWY-CV-24-6081813-S, from the State of Connecticut
Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury by Memorandum of Decision entered April 3, 2025. On July
15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline directing Mr. Spears to
demonstrate to the Court why the discipline imposed by the State of Connecticut Superior Court should not
be imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Mr. Spears failed to respond to the directive of the Court.
Mr. Spears must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

27 | P a g e

JARED MICHAEL STREICH, BPR NO. 034551
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Effective June 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Jared Michael Streich from the practice
of law for six (6) years with five (5) years being an active suspension pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, Section
12.2, restitution to two former clients and, if successfully reinstated, the remainder served on probation
conditioned upon the appointment of a practice monitor.
A Disciplinary Petition containing two (2) complaints was filed by the Board of Professional Responsibility
against Mr. Streich. The Hearing Panel concluded that Mr. Streich failed to reasonably communicate with his
clients regarding the status of their case, failed to act in a diligent manner and expedite the clients’ litigation,
failed to act competently, failed to comply with his requirements as a suspended attorney, failed to return
client property, charged an unreasonable fee, and provided false information to the Board of Professional
Responsibility. The Hearing Panel found Mr. Streich violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5 (fees); 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds); 1.16
(declining or terminating representation); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and
counsel); and 8.4 (misconduct).
Mr. Streich must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 and 30.4,
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for reinstatement.

SAMUEL ERVIN WHITE, BPR NO. 029973
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Effective June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended Samuel Ervin White from the practice
of law for five (5) years pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, with two (2) years active
suspension, and the remainder served on probation pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section
14.1. The Supreme Court further ordered Mr. White to engage a practice monitor and pay restitution to
clients and costs in the disciplinary matter.
A Petition for Discipline containing five (5) complaints was filed by the Board alleging Mr. White
failed to reasonably communicate with his clients regarding the status of their case, failed to act in a diligent
manner, failed to expedite client litigation, failed to timely respond to discovery requests, charged a nonrefundable fee without the client executing a written agreement, charged an unreasonable fee, comingled
client assets, misappropriated client funds, and failed to withdraw from representation following suspension.
Mr. White executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (terminating
representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying obligation under rules of tribunal), 4.1
(truthfulness in statements to others), and 8.4(a)(d) (misconduct).
Mr. White must comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28
and 30.4, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys and the procedure for
reinstatement.

28 | P a g e

TEMPORARY SUSPENSIONS

ANDREWNETTA MELISSA BOYD, BPR NO. 025894
SHELBY COUNTY
On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Andrewnetta Melissa Boyd
from the practice of law upon finding that Ms. Boyd failed to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility concerning one (1) complaint of misconduct. This temporary suspension is in addition to Ms.
Boyd’s administrative suspension, entered August 20, 2024, for failure to complete her annual Continuing
Legal Education obligations.
Ms. Boyd shall 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. Boyd may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the temporary suspension by petition to the Supreme
Court.

WILLIAM SHEA FORGETY, BPR NO. 034235
SUMNER COUNTY
On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended William Shea Forgety from
the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Forgety failed to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility concerning a complaint of misconduct.
Mr. Forgety is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients by October 9, 2025. After October 9, 2025, Mr. Forgety shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Forgety shall
notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel, of the
Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license and shall deliver to all clients any papers or property to
which they are entitled.
Mr. Forgety shall comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and 12.3(d),
regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended attorneys and the procedure for
reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Forgety may,
for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

29 | P a g e

MICHAEL LLOYD FREEMAN, BPR NO. 028698
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Michael Llyod Freeman
from the practice of law upon finding that Mr. Freeman failed to respond to the Board of Professional
Responsibility concerning four (4) complaints of misconduct.
Mr. Freeman is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and he must cease representing existing
clients by October 3, 2025. After October 3, 2025, Mr. Freeman shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Mr. Freeman shall
notify all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel, of the
Supreme Court’s Order suspending his law license and shall deliver to all clients any papers or property to
which they are entitled.
Mr. Freeman shall comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Sections 28 and
12.3(d), regarding the obligations and responsibilities of temporarily suspended attorneys and the procedure
for reinstatement.
This suspension remains in effect until dissolution or modification by the Supreme Court. Mr. Freeman may,
for good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

MARY KATHRYN KENT, BPR NO. 016774
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee temporarily suspended Mary Kathryn Kent from the
practice of law upon finding that Ms. Kent failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility
concerning a complaint of misconduct.
Ms. Kent is immediately precluded from accepting any new cases, and she must cease representing existing
clients by August 14, 2025. After August 14, 2025, Ms. Kent shall not use any indicia of lawyer, legal
assistant, or law clerk, nor maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. Ms. Kent shall notify
all clients being represented in pending matters, as well as co-counsel and opposing counsel, of the Supreme
Court’s Order suspending her law license and shall deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they
are entitled.
Ms. Kent shall 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. Kent may, for
good cause, request dissolution or modification of the suspension by petition to the Supreme Court.

30 | P a g e

PUBLIC CENSURES

DANIEL OLEN BARHAM, BPR NO. 034103
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
On March 20, 2025, Daniel Olen Barham, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.
Mr. Barham, along with two other attorneys in his firm, represented two clients in a breach of contact related
to the manufacturing and sale of COVID-19 Test Kits. On or about July 3, 2020, the Court appointed a
Custodian and entered an Order enjoining the clients from dissipating any corporate assets outside the
ordinary course of business. The Order further directed that any profits collected or derived from the sale of
the Test Kits be surrendered to the Custodian. In or about February 2021, the clients received $700,000.00 in
partial settlement of a claim against a third party related to the sale of certain Test Kits sold prior to the entry
of the July 3, 2020, Order. The funds were deposited into the law firm’s trust account without notice to the
Custodian, opposing counsel, or the Court. A motion for contempt was filed by opposing counsel and a
hearing was held on April 6, 2022. At the contempt hearing, Mr. Barham argued the court order was unclear
but acknowledged the Test Kits at issue were the subject of the original hearing wherein the injunction was
issued.
Mr. Barham’s failure to timely notify the Court, the Custodian and opposing counsel of the receipt of an asset
subject to the Order entered by the Court on July 3, 2020, and request authorization from the Court to
deposit the settlement funds in the law firm’s trust account for his clients’ use in the ordinary course of
business violated Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel) and 8.4(d)
(Misconduct).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

WILLIAM CLARK BARNES, JR., BPR NO. 011399
MAURY COUNTY
On July 24, 2025, William Clark Barnes, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Barnes was representing a juvenile at a detention hearing in juvenile court. As part of the detention
hearing, the parties were looking for viable options to place the juvenile as an alternative to Juvenile
Detention. Eventually, Mr. Barnes was able to secure placement for the juvenile with a family member. Mr.
Barnes informed the Magistrate that there was an agreement between the parties for placement of the
juvenile; however, Mr. Barnes had not discussed this placement with the opposing attorney. The Magistrate
drafted the Order and gave it to Mr. Barnes to sign. Mr. Barnes signed his name and also signed the opposing
attorney’s signature. Mr. Barnes did not have permission to sign the opposing attorney’s signature.
By these acts, Mr. Barnes has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor towards the tribunal), 3.4
(fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4 (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations.
31 | P a g e

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

LENA ANN GRAVES BUCK, BPR NO. 014764
DEKALB COUNTY
On July 9, 2025, Lena Ann Graves Buck, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Buck provided consultation regarding a workers’ compensation case to a client. While the client never
signed a retainer agreement nor paid an attorney fee, between late 2020 and mid-2021, Ms. Buck met with the
client on three (3) occasions, where she provided legal advice regarding workers’ compensation and social
security disability issues. Their second meeting was held the month before client’s statute of limitations ran
to file his workers’ compensation claim with the third meeting being held the month after the statute ran.
During that time and over the next three (3) years, while Ms. Buck represented the client in a disability claim,
the client believed Ms. Buck was also acting as client’s attorney in the workers’ compensation matter. Ms.
Buck discussed the workers’ compensation issue with the client at both 2021 meetings, but failed to keep the
client apprised of the statute of limitations deadline. The client did not discover the deadline had passed until
mid-2024.
Thereafter, Ms. Buck entered into a business transaction with the client without first advising the client in
writing of the desirability of seeking or giving the client a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of
independent legal counsel on the transaction.
By these acts, Ms. Buck has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
(communication), 1.8(a)(2) (conflict of interest), and 8.4(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.

ZACHARY TY CARDEN, BPR NO. 036752
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 9, 2025, Zachary Ty Carden, #036752, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Carden represented a client in a contested divorce action. Mr. Carden failed to take proper action to
submit his client’s discovery responses, resulting in the entry of a judgment against his client for opposing
counsel’s fees. After the divorce action settled through mediation, Mr. Carden failed to take action to facilitate
entry of the final divorce decree and did not respond to his client’s requests for information, resulting in delay
in the finalization of the divorce action.
By these acts, Mr. Carden has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), and 3.2
(expediting litigation) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.

32 | P a g e

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 NO. 012392
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 28, 2025, Terry Renease Clayton, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Mr. Clayton engaged in the unauthorized practice of law between January 22, 2024, and February 22, 2024,
while his license was suspended by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Clayton entered a
Conditional Guilty Plea admitting his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5
(unauthorized practice of law) and 8.4(a) (misconduct). Mr. Clayton is responsible for Board costs and
Tennessee Supreme Court fees.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

ZACHERY STEVEN DARNELL, BPR NO. 035914
HAMILTON COUNTY
On March 20, 2025, Zachery Steven Darnell, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.
Mr. Darnell, along with two other attorneys in his firm, represented two clients in a breach of contact related
to the manufacturing and sale of COVID-19 Test Kits. On or about July 3, 2020, the Court appointed a
Custodian and entered an Order enjoining the clients from dissipating any corporate assets outside the
ordinary course of business. The Order further directed that any profits collected or derived from the sale of
the Test Kits be surrendered to the Custodian. In or about February 2021, the clients received $700,000.00 in
partial settlement of a claim against a third party related to the sale of certain Test Kits sold prior to the entry
of the July 3, 2020, Order. The funds were deposited into the law firm’s trust account without notice to the
Custodian, opposing counsel, or the Court. A motion for contempt was filed by opposing counsel and a
hearing was held on April 6, 2022. At the contempt hearing, Mr. Barham argued the court order was unclear
but acknowledged the Test Kits at issue were the subject of the original hearing wherein the injunction was
issued.
Mr. Darnell’s failure to timely notify the Court, the Custodian and opposing counsel of the receipt of an asset
subject to the Order entered by the Court on July 3, 2020, and request authorization from the Court to
deposit the settlement funds in the law firm’s trust account for his clients’ use in the ordinary course of
business violated Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel) and 8.4(d)
(Misconduct).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

33 | P a g e

JONATHAN WILLIAM DOOLAN, BPR NO. 024397
KNOX COUNTY
On July 15, 2025, Jonathan William Doolan, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Doolan filed a lawsuit for a client in Knox County Circuit Court, and an answer was filed. Mr. Doolan
took no further action. Three years later, the Court issued a notice of a trial date. Mr. Doolan did not appear
at the scheduled trial. Neither opposing counsel nor the Court was aware of the suspension of Mr. Doolan’s
license. The lawsuit was dismissed.
By these acts, Jonathan William Doolan has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3
(diligence), 1.16 (termination of representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party), 8.1
(disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (prejudice to the administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for
these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

RICHARD LAMAR DUGGER, BPR NO. 006605
BEDFORD COUNTY
On April 9, 2025, Richard Lamar Dugger, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Dugger represented one client in a bankruptcy case and a second client in a landlord tenant case. In the
first complaint, Mr. Dugger failed to include his client’s home in the bankruptcy matter which resulted in his
client’s home being foreclosed. In the second file, Mr. Dugger failed to appear in court, failed to take action
following the entry of an adverse judgment against his client, and delayed the outcome of the case.
By these acts, Mr. Dugger has violated Rules of Professional Conduct Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel) 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.

MITCHELL JEFFERY FERGUSON, BPR NO. 024960
WILSON COUNTY
On April 17, 2025, Mitchell Jeffery Ferguson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Ferguson was court appointed to represent a client who was charged with several felonies, including First
Degree Murder, which carried a potential life sentence. During the representation, Mr. Ferguson failed to
appear for multiple court hearings and failed to communicate with the Court and his client about hearing
dates and absences. Mr. Ferguson failed to provide communication or copies of any legal documents to the
client and failed to meet with the client for trial preparation. Mr. Ferguson’s inaction resulted in multiple
continuances, the Court’s removal of Mr. Ferguson from the client’s case, and postponement of the client’s
34 | P a g e

murder trial, thereby prejudicing the administration of justice. The Court also instructed Mr. Ferguson that
he was no longer permitted to appear on matters pending before that Court.
By these acts, Mr. Ferguson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication),
3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(d) (prejudice to administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured
for this violation.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

STEVEN CARL FRAZIER, BPR NO. 007098
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On April 17, 2025, Steven Carl Frazier, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Frazier was retained by a client for representation in a property boundary dispute in Hawkins County.
Mr. Frazier received a $5000 retainer fee from the client, which he deposited directly to his operating account.
Because Mr. Frazier did not obtain a writing signed by the client explaining the parties’ intent and amount of
non-refundable funds the payment was not a non-refundable retainer. As a minimum retainer fee, Mr.
Frazier failed to deposit the funds into his trust account and wrongfully commingled the client funds with his
own. Mr. Frazier did not track his time nor issue an invoice reflecting the legal services provided to the client
nor his fees earned. Mr. Frazier did not communicate to his client the basis or rate of his fee and expenses
for which the client would be responsible, making his fee unreasonable. While Mr. Frazier offered to refund
one-half of the client’s fees, the offer was after three years following the client’s filing of a disciplinary
complaint, and the fees were never refunded. In addition, while Mr. Frazier was under an obligation to
maintain communication with his client until the representation was terminated or complete, he stopped
responding to the client’s requests for updates and took no further action on the client’s behalf.
By these acts, Mr. Frazier has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a) (communication), 1.5(a) & (b)
(fees), and 1.15(a) & (b) (safekeeping property and funds) and for these violations is hereby Publicly Censured
with the condition that he refund to the client $2500.00 within thirty (30) days hereof.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

ROBERT ANDREW FREE, BPR NO. 030513
DEKALB COUNTY
On July 24, 2025, Robert Andrew Free, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Free was representing a client in immigration court and agreed to assist the client in the filing of a U visa
if retained but failed to clearly communicate and memorialize the agreement with the client, such that it left
the client under the inaccurate impression that he would provide this service. Mr. Free failed to file the
appropriate paperwork with the agency and failed to communicate with his client throughout the
35 | P a g e

representation. Additionally, Mr. Free either lost or misplaced the client’s file and was never able to provide
her with a copy of her file.
By these acts, Mr. Free has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15
(safekeeping property and funds), and 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 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.

MARK STEVEN GRAHAM, BPR NO. 011505
KNOX COUNTY
On July 29, 2025, Mark Steven Graham an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Graham wrote a check from his trust account to pay an office expense. Five months later, three
automated withdrawals were attempted from the trust account, one of which was paid. Mr. Graham’s law
license is suspended, and he failed to deactivate his office website for at least 20 months. His social media
has incorrectly indicated for at least 34 months that his law license is active.
By these acts, Mark Steven Graham has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (safekeeping funds), 7.1
(communications concerning a lawyer’s services), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party), and 8.4(g) (failure to
comply with a court order) 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.

ROBERT GREENE, BPR NO. 006515
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On June 25, 2025, Robert Greene, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Greene represented clients in defense of a lawsuit in General Sessions Court. Due to an error in his
calendaring of the trial date, Mr. Greene and his clients did not appear at trial, resulting in the entry of a
default judgment. Mr. Greene was not forthright in his subsequent communications with his clients that the
trial date was missed solely due to his own scheduling error.
Mr. Greene filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The motion was frivolous, as it was untimely
filed and did not recite any legal authorities to support tolling of the statutory deadline. In an affidavit affixed
to the motion, Mr. Greene falsely claimed that the trial date was missed due to confusion with opposing
counsel rather than Mr. Greene’s own scheduling error. Mr. Greene also later filed a motion to withdraw that
falsely claimed that Mr. Greene’s clients failed to provide documentation in support of their factual position
that would have been asserted at trial.

36 | P a g e

Mr. Greene paid a significant portion of the judgment out of his own personal funds, without prior notice or
consent from his clients. A settlement was subsequently reached where Mr. Greene’s clients paid the
remaining portion of the judgment.
By these acts, Mr. Greene has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.2(a) (complying with a
client’s decision regarding a settlement), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.8(e) (financial assistance to a client in connection
with pending or prospective litigation), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.3(a)(1)
(misrepresentation to a tribunal), and 8.4 (dishonesty) 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.

DARRYL WAYNE HUMPHREY, BPR #016471
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 3, 2025, Darryl Wayne Humphrey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Humphrey took over representation of a personal injury client in his colleague’s absence, entering his
appearance as attorney of record. During his representation, Mr. Humphrey negligently failed to file all of the
discovery responses and to reply to opposing counsel’s discovery inquiries, which led to a motion to compel
being filed against the client. Mr. Humphrey failed to notify the client of the motion and of the subsequent
court ruling that the client pay the opposing party’s attorney fees. Mr. Humphrey’s failure to maintain
communication with opposing counsel regarding discovery resulted in injury or potential injury to the client
through the motion to compel and attorney fee sanction issued to the client.
By these acts, Mr. Humphrey has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a)
(communication), and 8.4(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.

ROGER DAVID HYMAN, BPR NO. 011002
KNOX COUNTY
On April 28, 2025, Roger David Hyman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee and was ordered to pay the costs and fees of the Board of
Professional Responsibility.
Mr. Hyman represented a client in a contested divorce matter. After a settlement was reached, Mr. Hyman’s
client instructed him to withdraw from the tentative agreement. However, Mr. Hyman failed to promptly
communicate with opposing counsel as to his client’s desire to withdraw from the agreement and failed to
take any other action to protect his client’s interests, causing his client potential injury.
Mr. Hyman executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.2 (scope of representation) and 1.4 (communication).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.
37 | P a g e

MARTI LEE KAUFMAN, BPR NO. 011555
SHELBY COUNTY
On April 25, 2025, Marti Lee Kaufman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Kaufman represented a client in a car wreck matter in which the insurer for the other driver accepted
responsibility. Ms. Kaufman delayed 17 months in filing the lawsuit and then failed to properly serve the
defendant. Ms. Kaufman later entered into an agreement with the client to settle a potential malpractice
claim. In a second matter, Ms. Kaufman represented a client in a car accident matter in which she took no
action for 17 months, and then took no further action after filing a complaint. In a third matter, Ms.
Kaufman was hired to represent a client in a civil fraud matter, and she failed to take any action for 30
months. Ms. Kaufman later refunded the client’s retainer.
By the aforementioned acts, Marti Lee Kaufman has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence),
1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (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.

TERRANCE EARL MCNABB, BPR NO. 002592
CHEATHAM COUNTY
On September 18, 2025, Terrance Earl McNabb, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In April 2024, Mr. McNabb was hired to file a child custody modification with the Robertson County
Juvenile Court. In his representation of a client in Juvenile Court, Terrance McNabb failed to assert multiple
constitutional claims that by law may have resulted in the temporary order being thrown out based on lack of
service and lack of validity past 72-hours allowed for an ex parte order. Mr. McNabb also failed to raise a
claim for failure to prosecute and for father’s lack of parentage being established, which under Tennessee law
could have resulted in an immediate return of custody to his client. Mr. McNabb’s failure to assert these
various claims and defenses resulted in lost opportunity for his client, as once he filed the petition to modify,
the court treated it as a counter-petition to the 2021 petition. Mr. McNabb’s actions also resulted in financial
harm to his client who paid an unnecessary filing fee and additional attorney fees to a second attorney to
address Mr. McNabb’s errors.
By these acts, Mr. McNabb has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence),
1.4(a) (communication), and 8.4(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.

38 | P a g e

MITCHELL RAY MILLER, BPR NO. 036126
DAVIDSON COUNTY
On July 14, 2025, Mitchell Ray Miller, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Miller was hired to probate an estate. The client paid a fee of $2,996.50. Respondent met with the client
but never filed a petition to probate the estate. Mr. Miller failed to respond to four communications from the
client over the course of one month. The client hired new counsel to file the petition to probate the estate.
By the aforementioned acts, Mitchell Ray Miller has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence)
and 1.4 (communication) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations with the condition that he
make restitution to the client in the amount of $2,996.50 within 90 days.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

TOMMY JOE NORTON, BPR NO. 032282
SEVIER COUNTY
On April 15, 2025, Tommy Joe Norton, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Norton represented two separate clients in custody cases; another client in civil contempt claim; and a
fourth client in a divorce case. During these representations, Mr. Norton closed his office and changed his
phone number. Mr. Norton failed to inform his clients of these changes which caused all his clients to have
no way to contact him. In all four cases, Mr. Norton failed to maintain communication with his clients and
failed to diligently represent his clients.
Additionally, in the first case, Mr. Norton failed to appear in court and incorrectly advised his client not to
appear. In the second case, Mr. Norton asked for multiple continuances which delayed the proceedings. In
the fourth case, Mr. Norton essentially abandoned his client and failed to show up in court.
By these acts, Mr. Norton has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication),
3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4(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.

39 | P a g e

ASHLEY SATTERFIELD PATTERSON, BPR NO. 030614
SHELBY COUNTY
On July 29, 2025, Ashley Satterfield Patterson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a
Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Ms. Patterson testified in court on April 22, 2022, concerning a personal matter relating to a parenting plan.
During that hearing, Ms. Patterson lied under oath.
By these acts, Ms. Patterson has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and
8.4 (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.

JOSHUA HOWARD POLK, BPR NO. 021647
WAYNE COUNTY
On July 9, 2025, Joshua Howard Polk, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Polk was retained to defend clients in a water rights case out of Wayne County Chancery Court. In early
2022, a third party joined the litigation and upon consulting with his clients, Mr. Polk determined that a
conflict of interest was created by the joinder. The information that Mr. Polk previously learned from his
former co-counsel could have materially impacted his continued representation of his current clients and
there was a risk that the information Mr. Polk gained would materially limit his ability to continue in the case.
This created a concurrent conflict of interest and a mandated withdrawal by Mr. Polk. While it was
reasonable for Mr. Polk to want to help his clients identify subsequent counsel, he waited fourteen (14)
months to withdraw resulting in unnecessary delay in the litigation, halting any progress on the case, and
postponing a hearing on the opposing party’s Motion for Summary Judgment that had been pending for
several months.
By these acts, Mr. Polk has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of
interest), 1.16(a) (declining or terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(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.

ROBERT ANDREW POPE, BPR NO. 041875
SHEBLY COUNTY
On April 16, 2025, Robert Andrew Pope, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Pope was terminated by the Tennessee Department of Corrections in March 2024 while his application
for bar admission was still pending. Mr. Pope failed to supplement his pending bar admission application to
disclose this material fact.
40 | P a g e

By this act, Mr. Pope has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) (misrepresentation to a bar admission
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.

CARL ALLEN ROBERTS, JR., BPR NO. 033509
CARTER COUNTY
On July 21, 2025, Carl Allen Roberts, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Roberts represented a client in a divorce which was completed. Mr. Roberts informed the client in
writing that he would file a petition for contempt against the opposing party. Mr. Roberts then failed to
respond to eight communications from the client. In another matter, Mr. Roberts received a cash retainer
from a client, and he took the cash to his home for 39 days before returning it to the firm’s trust account. In
another matter, Mr. Roberts failed to appear at a scheduled mediation without notice to his client, the
mediator, or the opposing counsel.
By the aforementioned acts, Carl Allen Roberts, Jr. has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence),
1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping funds), 1.16 (termination of representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation),
and 8.4(dg) (prejudice to the administration of justice) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

STACEY ALLEN TERRAL, BPR NO. 023054
RUTHERFORD
On October 8, 2025, Stacey Allen Terral, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public
Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Mr. Terral represented a client in a custody matter in the Rutherford County Juvenile Court. In preparing to
submit discovery responses, Mr. Terral advised his client that with permission, he could sign the discovery
attestation on the client’s behalf to save some time. Believing that he had his client’s permission, Mr. Terral
engaged the services of his wife, who is a Notary Public, to notarize the document. Mr. Terral told his wife
that the client had approved the discovery answers and they were ready to be notarized. Mr. Terral showed
his wife a copy of the client’s driver’s license and signed the verification, which his wife then notarized. In
signing the document, Mr. Terral signed the client’s name and did not indicate that the document was being
signed by him with client’s permission nor in any way indicate that the document was signed by anyone other
than the client. Mr. Terral has been practicing law for over twenty (20) years and claims not to have known
such action was improper.
By these acts, Mr. Terral has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.2(d) (scope of
representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer), 3.4(b) (fairness to opposing party and
counsel), 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and
8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
41 | P a g e

A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorney’s ability to
practice law.

MICHAEL JAMES THOMPSON, BPR NO. 028041
TENNESSEE
On July 9, 2025, Michael James Thompson, #028041, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee and
Kentucky, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee
Supreme Court.
Mr. Thompson represented a client in a custody proceeding in Kentucky state court. Mr. Thompson
exchanged sexualized communications with his client during the representation, evidencing a concurrent
conflict of interest. Mr. Thompson also communicated with his client about the subject matter of the
custody proceeding through Instagram messaging without any privacy controls.
By these acts, Mr. Thompson has violated Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (protecting confidential
information) and 1.7(a)(2)(concurrent conflict of interest) and is hereby Publicly Censured 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.

REINSTATEMENTS

BRIAN KIRK KELSEY, BPR NO. 022874
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 20, 2025, Biran Kirk Kelsey was reinstated to the
active practice of law.
On December 8, 2022, Mr. Kelsey was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3 after entering a plea of guilty to one (1) count of Conspiracy to Defraud
the United States, in violation of Title 18 United State Code Section 371 and one (1) count of Aiding and
Abetting the Acceptance of Excessive Contributions, in violation of Title 52 United State Code, Sections
30116(a)(1)(A), 30116(a)(7)(B)(i), 30116(f) and 30109(d)(1)(A)(i) and 18 United State Code, Section 2. The
Supreme Court referred the case to the Board of Professional Responsibility for the institution of formal
proceedings to determine the extent of final discipline.
On March 11, 2025, Mr. Kelsey received a full and unconditional presidential pardon for those offenses
against the United States enumerated in United States v. Kelsey et. al., Case No. 3:21-cr-00264 (Middle District of
Tennessee). Thereafter, Mr. Kelsey filed a declaration with the Supreme Court seeking immediate
reinstatement to the practice of law. After briefing by the parties, the Supreme Court concluded Mr. Kelsey
should be immediately reinstated from his December 8, 2022 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section
22.3(a) suspension; however, his reinstatement will not terminate any formal proceedings pending against
him, the disposition of which shall be determined by the hearing panel and the Board on the basis of the
available evidence in accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 22.3(b).

42 | P a g e

DALE GERARD NOWICKI, BPR NO. 036672
TENNESSEE
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered July 14, 2025, Dale Gerard Nowicki was reinstated to the
active practice of law.
On May 13, 2025, Dale Gerard Nowicki was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for two (2) years
with ninety (90) days active suspension retroactive to the date of suspension in California, and the remainder
on probation. Mr. Nowicki filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on June 6, 2025. The Board found the petition to be satisfactory and
submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
Mr. Nowicki’s reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon his continuing compliance with,
and timely satisfaction of, the conditions set forth in the Order of the Supreme Court of California entered
January 6, 2025.

ARCHIE SANDERS, III, BPR NO. 012784
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered September 3, 2025, Shelby County attorney Archie
Sanders, III, was reinstated to the active practice of law.
On May 27, 2025, Archie Sanders, III, was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee for one (1) year
with two (2) months to be served as an active suspension and the remainder on probation subject to
conditions including employment of a practice monitor during the probationary period and repayment of all
Board costs. Mr. Sanders filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(c) on August 5, 2025. The Board found the petition to be satisfactory
and submitted an Order of Reinstatement to the Court.
Mr. Sanders’ reinstatement to the active practice of law is conditioned upon his continuing compliance with,
and timely satisfaction of, the conditions set forth in the Order of the Supreme Court entered May 27, 2025.

GERALD DENNY WAGGONER, JR., BPR NO. 013988
SHELBY COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 8, 2025, Gerald Denny Waggoner was reinstated
to the active practice of law with conditions.
Gerald Denny Waggoner, Jr. was suspended by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on August 1, 2017, (M201701434-SC-BAR-BP), and July 11, 2023, (W2022-01294-SC-R3-BP). On October 17, 2024, Mr. Waggoner
filed a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 30.4(d). After a final
hearing on the merits, the Hearing Panel recommended Mr. Waggoner be reinstated to practice law with
conditions. The Panel determined specifically that Mr. Waggoner demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence he had the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission to practice
43 | P a g e

in this state, and his resumption of the practice of law within the state would not be detrimental to the
integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest.
Accordingly, the Board of Professional Responsibility shall cause notice of this reinstatement to be published
as required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28.11.

DISABILITY INACTIVE

LORETTA MADELINE CALVERT BPR NO. 024858
SUMNER COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 13, 2025, the law license of Loretta Madeline Calvert
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Calvert cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that her disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

WILLIAM BOYETTE DENTON, BPR #013768
HARDEMAN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered April 11, 2025, the law license of William Boyette Denton
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Denton cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

JOHN SIDNEY MCLELLAN, III, BPR NO. 000427
SULLIVAN COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 13, 2025, the law license of John Sidney McLellan,
III, was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. McLellan cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
44 | P a g e

Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

JAMES DARREN MCWILLIAMS, BPR NO. 024152
TENNESSEE
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered May 21, 2025, the law license of James Darren
McWilliams of Washington, Georgia, was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. McWilliams cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements
of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

SORNAVIDYA SABA SANKAR, BPR NO. 037964
DAVIDSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 8, 2025, the law license of Sornavidya Saba Sankar
was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Ms. Sankar cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. She may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

STEVEN R. SEIVERS, BPR NO. 005456
ANDERSON COUNTY
By Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered August 27, 2025, the law license of Steven R. Seivers was
transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.3 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
Mr. Seivers cannot practice law while on disability inactive status and shall comply with the requirements of
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 28 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of attorneys
transferred to disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after reinstatement by the
Tennessee Supreme Court upon showing that his disability has been removed in accordance with Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 27.7.

45 | P a g e

TENNESSEE LAWYERS’ FUND PAYMENTS

GARY LEE ANDERSON BPR NO. 004515
KNOX COUNTY
On June 16, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Gary Lee Anderson, in the amount of $3,500.00.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Mr. Anderson is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee.

ANGELA JOY HOPSON BPR NO. 022500
MADISON COUNTY
On April 11, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Angela Joy Hopson, in the amount of $2,022.00.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Ms. Hopson is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee.

GEORGE SKOUTERIS, JR. BPR NO. 013417
SHELBY COUNTY
On June 16, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against George Skouteris, Jr., in the amount of $17,609.40.

46 | P a g e

Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Mr. Skouteris is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee.

DOUGLAS A. TRANT BPR NO. 006871
KNOX COUNTY
On April 11, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Douglas A. Trant, in the amount of $7,500.00.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Mr. Trant is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee.

MELVIN JACOB WERNER BPR #015909
KNOX COUNTY
On May 29, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Melvin Jacob Werner, in the amount of $100,000.00.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Mr. Werner is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme
Court of Tennessee.

47 | P a g e

SAMUEL ERVIN WHITE BPR NO. 029973
SULLIVAN COUNTY
On September 2, 2025, the Tennessee Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers’ Fund) paid a claim filed
against Samuel Ervin White, in the amount of $1,100.00.
Lawyers’ Fund, financed by Tennessee lawyers and judges, was established by the Tennessee Supreme Court
to reimburse individuals for losses caused by the rare instances of dishonest conduct by attorneys. The
Tennessee Supreme Court appoints a Lawyers’ Fund Board, consisting of six lawyers and three non-attorney
members, who serve without compensation in considering and paying claims pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 25.
Mr. White is required to reimburse Lawyers’ Fund for the amount paid to any claimant pursuant to Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 25 Section 16 and/or the Order of Enforcement entered by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee.

48 | P a g e

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Author	Dana Dunn
Creator	Dana Dunn
ModifyDate	Wednesday, October 29, 2025 9:32 AM -05:00
PageCount	48
PDFVersion	1.5
Title	board_notes_fall_2025

Additional Meta Data for PDF File

Key	Value
Company	Board of Professional Responsibility
CreateDate	Wednesday, October 29, 2025 9:32 AM -05:00
CreatorTool	Power PDF Create
DocumentID	uuid:25624356-88fc-c6cc-869c-b3ffd2873565
FileName	board_notes_fall_2025.pdf
FileSize	1301 kB
FileType	PDF
FileTypeExtension	pdf
Format	application/pdf
InstanceID	uuid:b208c583-34b8-1ad9-1f2c-b2f0362cb7ab
Language	en-US
Linearized	Yes
MetadataDate	Wednesday, October 29, 2025 9:32 AM -05:00
MIMEType	application/pdf
PageMode	UseNone
Producer	Power PDF Create
SourceFile	board_notes_fall_2025.pdf
TaggedPDF	Yes
XMPToolkit	3.1-701

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