BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2011)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (miller-31644-and-32340-rel.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.
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500
(800) 486-5714
FAX: (615) 367-2480
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
Website: www.tbpr.org
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: RANDY K. MILLER, BPR# 21321
CONTACT: RACHEL L. WATERHOUSE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
January 24, 2011
MORGAN COUNTY LAWYER CENSURED
On January 21, 2011, Randy K. Miller, of Morgan County, Tennessee, was publicly censured by the
Board of Professional Responsibility.
There were two complaints before the Board. In the first matter, Mr. Miller was hired to represent a
client in a divorce. On May 28, 2008, the client returned the divorce papers prepared by Mr. Miller, which he
had signed and notarized. On June 26, 2008, Mr. Miller requested $170 from the client for filing fees, which
the client paid. Mr. Miller told the client more than once that he had filed the divorce papers and there would be
a hearing. The client began calling and e-mailing Mr. Miller after learning his divorce had not been filed with
the court, but with no response. To date, Mr. Miller has not refunded the $170 filing fee paid by the client.
Also, Mr. Miller told the client that he would return his papers to him, but he has not.
In the second matter, Mr. Miller filed a pleading in court stating that he could not receive a fair and
unbiased hearing before two particular judges because he claimed both had shown blatant and open personal
bias against him by filing ethics complaints against him and because one was a former political opponent of his.
Mr. Miller claimed defamation by one of the judges.
Mr. Miller's actions violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 8.2(a)(1) (reckless
statement about the integrity of judges) and 8.4 (a), (c) and (d) (misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
A Public Censure is a rebuke and warning to the attorney, but it does not affect the attorneyâs ability to
practice law.
Miller 31644-2; 32340-2 rel.doc.
PLEASE NOTE
YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES, FORMAL ETHICS
OPINIONS, NEWSLETTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT
THE BOARDâS WEBSITE
www.tbpr.org/Subscriptions