cox-35846-1-public-censure.pdf (2014)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (cox-35846-1-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

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.

IN mocmmmy DiSTRICTI
OF THE ,
BOARB‘ OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
0:? THE

.4“.‘ out...» ,
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

1
IN RE: Elizabeth Cathorfine Cox, BPR NO. 28834 FILE NO. 35846~1»RW
Respondent, an attomoy liconsod to praofioo »
Law in Tomosseo
(Soviet County)

PUBLIG CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Elizabeth Cathoone Cox, an attorney licensed to

praotioo law in Tonnessoo, afioging cortaio acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Suprome Court Ruio

9, the Board of I’mfossional Responsibility considorod these: mentors at its meeting on Doombor

6, 2013.

Ms. Cox was retainer} to reprogont a client in the: filing of a post-atrial Motion for

Rooonsidoration related to the client’s Fina} Doom: of fiivoroo. M3. Cox afiogod that she soot a

Motion for Rooonoidcmtion to the court via foosimflo prior to the 38—day filing deadline: and

reooivod confimtion from tho clerk‘o rofig‘ioo mat they had received the Motioo. Ms, Cox fan'éhor

aosortod that she: mafia} a copy of tho Motion to tho opposing ooonsei. Lastly, Ms. Cox alleged

that tho clerk’s office contacted her approximately 10 days ofier she faxed has: Motion to the

court and was advioed “by a clerk toot the grooming judge dismissed he!“ Motion wiflxout a

hearing. The £21me and Master conductod an internal investigation and éotomuioed that the court

never mooivod Ms. Cox’s Motion and "that no oiork would have called to advise an attorney as to

the outwme of a Motion. Tho prosiding judge: had no indication that a Motion was ova-r roooivod

and did not make a ruling on such Motion. {)pposing mongol stated that he never received a
copy of Ms. Cox’s Motion for Reconsideration. M3. Cox’s omission mm to presme the:

appeal rights of her client.

By the aforementiomd acts, Btizabem Catherine Cox, has violated Rules of I’mfessional

"""T
Conduct 1,3 (diligence), 1.4 (communifiatian), 8.1(a) (bar admission and dissiplinary mattm),

and 8.4(0) and (d) (Mswndum) and is hereby Pubiicly Censured for these Violations.

FOR 'I‘HB BQARD OF
?ROFESSi0NAL RBSPO — "'

arkesfhair '

_ v.“ “mm"..mm. . ..‘

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top