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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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)
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 ,
BOARBâ OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
0:? THE
.4â.â out...» ,
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1
IN RE: Elizabeth Cathorï¬ne Cox, BPR NO. 28834 FILE NO. 35846~1»RW
Respondent, an attomoy liconsod to praoï¬oo »
Law in Tomosseo
(Soviet County)
PUBLIG CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against Elizabeth Cathoone Cox, an attorney licensed to
praotioo law in Tonnessoo, aï¬oging cortaio acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Suprome Court Ruio
9, the Board of Iâmfossional Responsibility considorod these: mentors at its meeting on Doombor
6, 2013.
Ms. Cox was retainer} to reprogont a client in the: ï¬ling of a post-atrial Motion for
Rooonsidoration related to the clientâs Fina} Doom: of ï¬ivoroo. M3. Cox aï¬ogod that she soot a
Motion for Rooonoidcmtion to the court via foosimï¬o prior to the 38âday ï¬ling deadline: and
reooivod conï¬mtion from tho clerkâo rofigâioo mat they had received the Motioo. Ms, Cox fan'éhor
aosortod that she: maï¬a} a copy of tho Motion to tho opposing ooonsei. Lastly, Ms. Cox alleged
that tho clerkâs ofï¬ce contacted her approximately 10 days oï¬er she faxed has: Motion to the
court and was advioed âby a clerk toot the grooming judge dismissed he!â Motion wiï¬xout a
hearing. The £21me and Master conductod an internal investigation and éotomuioed that the court
never mooivod Ms. Coxâs 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. Coxâs Motion for Reconsideration. M3. Coxâs omission mm to presme the:
appeal rights of her client.
By the aforementiomd acts, Btizabem Catherine Cox, has violated Rules of Iâmfessional
"""T
Conduct 1,3 (diligence), 1.4 (communiï¬atian), 8.1(a) (bar admission and dissiplinary mattm),
and 8.4(0) and (d) (Mswndum) and is hereby Pubiicly Censured for these Violations.
FOR 'IâHB BQARD OF
?ROFESSi0NAL RBSPO â "'
arkesfhair '
_ v.â âmm"..mm. . ..â