BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2006)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (pittman-1407-1424-1451-1515-9-rel632846850854309495.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: MARK LEE PITTMAN, BPR #12753
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
May 31, 2006
CORDOVA LAWYER DISBARRED
Mark Lee Pittman, a Cordova attorney, was disbarred from the practice of law by
order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee filed on May 24, 2006. Pursuant to Section
18.5 of Supreme Court Rule 9, the disbarment becomes effective ten days after the
filing date of this order, or on June 3, 2006.
Pittmanâs disbarment arose out of four petitions for discipline which were filed
against him between 2003 and May of 2005, and which were consolidated and heard
before a Hearing Committee Panel of the Board on October 17, 2005. By Judgment of
the Hearing Panel entered on October 28, 2005, the Panel concluded that Pittman had
violated the authorities as cited by the Board in all four petitions and recommended that
Pittman be disbarred.
More than twenty former clients filed complaints against Pittman in the four
consolidated petitions, and the Hearing Panel found that he had engaged in a troubling
pattern of neglect and had knowingly failed to return unearned fees, costs and files to
his clients despite numerous requests. Moreover, he was adjudged to have knowingly
deceived clients as to the status of their legal matters, the locations of their files and
whether other counsel had been employed to represent them. Further, the Panel found
that Pittman had knowingly made false statements of fact to the Board and had
knowingly violated the requirements of both Supreme Court rules and an October, 2003
Supreme Court order temporarily suspending his law license. Finally, the Panel
concluded that Pittman had violated his duties owed to the profession by refusing to
withdraw in cases after his temporary suspension and by receiving fees where he
performed no services for clients.
The Hearing Panel also ordered that Pittman make restitution of unearned fees
and costs to five specified former clients, or to the Tennessee Lawyers Fund for Client
Protection (TLFCP) if said fund pays claims on behalf of these clients. Another
recommendation of the Panel included within its Judgment was that Pittman
demonstrate having made such restitution to the five former clients or to the TLFCP for
claims paid on behalf of the five specified former clients and those paid on behalf of any
other complainants who are named within the four consolidated petitions, as a
prerequisite to any future petition for reinstatement which Pittman may file.
Pittman did not appeal the Hearing Panelâs Judgment to the Circuit or Chancery
Court having jurisdiction within 60 days after the mailing of said Judgment to him, as is
required. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the October 28, 2005 Hearing
Panel Judgment was final and unappealable, and adopted the Panelâs Judgment in its
May 24, 2006 disbarment order.
This disciplinary matter was held pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 8 and 9. In
Tennessee, disbarred lawyers may, after five years, apply for reinstatement, but they
must carry the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that their reinstatement
will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, or the administration of
justice, or be subversive to the public interest.
Pittman 1407-1424-1451-1515-9 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