S:\Users\mw\Press Release_Word\Cohn 1084 rel 2.doc (2005)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (cohn-1084-rel-2632441721242763945.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
LANCE B. BRACY 1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730
CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL WILLIAM W. HUNT, III
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 CHARLES A. HIGH
LAURA L. CHASTAIN SANDY GARRETT
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
(800) 486-5714
FAX: (615) 367-2480 JESSE D. JOSEPH
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE THERESA M. COSTONIS
Consumer Counsel Director DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: WILLIAM A. COHN, NO. 5873
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500

January 10, 2005

CORDOVA ATTORNEY SUSPENDED BY SUPREME COURT

William A. Cohn, a Cordova attorney, was suspended from the practice of law for ninety
days, by Opinion and Judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee filed November 22, 2004. A
Petition for Rehearing filed by Cohn was denied by the Supreme Court on December 14, 2004.
Pursuant to Section 18.5 of Supreme Court Rule 9, the suspension became effective ten days
from the date of the denial of the Petition for Rehearing, or on December 24, 2004.

Cohn’s suspension arose out of a Petition for Discipline filed against him on October 28,
1998. A hearing was conducted by a Hearing Committee of the Board of Professional
Responsibility on February 25 –26, 2002. By Judgment of the Hearing Panel entered April 8.
2002, the Hearing Panel found that Cohn had violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6), DR 2-106(A),
DR 7-101(A)(3), (A)(4)(c), DR 7-102(A)(3)(8), and DR 7-106(C)(5), and required him to
disgorge to the US Bankruptcy Court within sixty days all funds received from the 61 clients
identified in the US Bankruptcy Court’s Opinion in In re Phillips, 219 B.R. 1001 (Bankr. W.D.
Tenn 1998). Second, the Panel ruled that should disgorgement not occur within sixty days,
Cohn’s license to practice should be suspended indefinitely until he presented proof of such
payment to the satisfaction of the reinstatement committee. Finally, the Panel ruled that Cohn
should receive a public censure and assessed costs against him.

Both Cohn and the Board requested judicial review of the Panel’s Judgment by filing
petitions for certiorari in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The Chancery Court required
Cohn to disgorge $13,996.73 in post-confirmation attorney fees collected from the 61 clients
which gave Cohn credit for $2,436.85 he had already paid to the Bankruptcy Court in settlement
of his clients’ active cases as of April, 1998. The Chancery Court also ruled that Cohen violated
the disciplinary rules set forth in the Panel’s Judgment, reversed the Panel’s imposition of an
indefinite suspension until Cohn made the required disgorgement, and affirmed the imposition of
a public censure.

Both Cohn and the Board appealed the decision of the Chancery Court. The Tennessee
Supreme Court in its November 22, 2004 Judgment and Opinion affirmed the findings of both
the Hearing Panel and Chancery Court that Cohn had violated the disciplinary rules ordered by
the Board in the Petition for Discipline.

For seven years between 1991 and 1998, Cohn, an experienced bankruptcy attorney,
collected post-confirmation attorney fees from his debtor clients using a creditors’ procedure
which the Bankruptcy Court found improper – by filing creditors’ proofs of claim for such fees
under 11 U.S.C. Section 1305 rather than detailed fee requests. Cohn was not permitted by
Section 1305 of the Bankruptcy Code to file such claims because he obtained no prior approval
from the Chapter 13 Trustee for such fees, and because such claims as Cohn’s for “routine legal
work” were not considered necessary and unforeseen expenses incurred by his debtor clients.
This procedure utilized by Cohn subverted the controlling principle inherent in all the workings
of the bankruptcy court to the effect that a full review of all attorney fees sought must occur, and
was not utilized by Cohn in good faith. Although the Bankruptcy Court acknowledged that both
the Chapter 13 Trustee and the Bankruptcy Court itself shared some responsibility for not
stopping Cohn’s practice earlier, the Hearing Panel and Tennessee Supreme Court found that the
primary responsibility should be borne by Cohn for initiating and continuing this improper
practice until he was stopped.

Given Cohn’s failure to provide meaningful notice of his post-confirmation claims to the
Bankruptcy Court, to the Chapter 13 Trustee, and to his clients, his practice of collecting post-
confirmation fees in this fashion was not open but was surreptitious and designed to avoid
scrutiny – particularly since Cohn fully realized that due to the volume of claims filed in the US
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee, his 61 proofs of claim would not be
meaningfully reviewed by either the trustee or the bankruptcy court. As to the question of
disgorgement, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the Chancery Court’s Order that Cohn
disgorge to the US Bankruptcy Court the $13,996.73 he received in post-conviction fees from all
61 clients and reasoned that the prudent course is to leave it up to the Bankruptcy Court to
decide whether Cohn may re-apply for any of the fees using Section 330 of the Bankruptcy
Code.

In light of the aggravating factors – Cohn’s four reprimands, his deceptive and
clandestine conduct and his substantial experience in the practice of law – and one mitigating
factor – that the bankruptcy trustee must share in some responsibility for not stopping the
practice earlier – the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court’s imposition of a
public censure and suspended Cohn from the practice of law for 90 days.

Cohn is required by Section 18 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 to notify by
registered or certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters, all co-counsel and
opposing counsel of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Order suspending his license. Section 18
also requires Cohn to deliver to all clients any papers and property to which they are entitled.

Cohn may resume the practice of law in Tennessee on March 24, 2005 without having to
initiate a reinstatement proceeding under Section 19 of Rule 9.

JDJ:mw

Cohn 1084 rel.doc

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