barnes-32050-6-public-censure.pdf (2010)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference. The original PDF remains the official record for legal purposes.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (barnes-32050-6-public-censure.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
amen
@192. {Q
#41 {5g ESPGN SIBlLiTY
BOAR OF PROFESSIONAL
U F THE
Emomive Secretary
]N DIS CIPLINARY DISTRICT VI
. OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF, TENNESSEE
IN RE: WILLIAM BARNES, IR., BPR NO. 11399 FILE NO. 32050â6âIV
Respondent, an attomef.r licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Maury County}
ensue (reissues
The above complaint was ï¬led against William Barnes, In, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts ofmisconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the Board
of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on March 12, 2010.
Respondent represented Complainant in child legitimation and visitation matters.
Complainant serves in the U.S. Anny and was deployed to Iraq during part ofthe representation. In
August 2008, Complainant and the childâ s mother agreed on visitation during Complainantâs military
leaves. Respondentâ a draft of an" Agreed Order memorializing the agreement was incorrect.
Respondent said several times that he would correct it, but he never did. Respondent admits his
eiror in allowing opposing counsel to sign his name and ï¬le-the Agreed Order without'Resp ondent
reviewing it. The incorrect Agreed Order was ï¬led and entered in October 2008, two months after
the agreement.
Respondent failed to send die tiled Agreed Order to Complainant, who received a copy ofit
from the child s mother five months after ï¬ling. In themeantimd in December 2008, Respondent
had Complainant sign a Petition allowing Complainant visitation onhis military leaves, buthe never
set it for hearing. The Petition contains an extol? and. is inadequate to address the contested issue.
Beginning in mid~Deeember 2008, Respondent stopped communicating with Complainant or his
father about the status ofthe matter. The Agreed Order is adverse to Complainantâs rights and his
relationship with his child. Respendent has past disciplinary history for similar conduct.
By the aforementioned facts, William Barnes, In, has violated Rules ofProfessional Conduct
1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (commmiioa âonlind is hereby Publicly Censured for these
violations .
a \ n
pi, i os/ \\
ssésonsmmwâ
fiegâerydn
/7C§air /0
4â Date