Willis 27108 rel.PDF (2004)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (018468-20041025.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
LANCE B. BRACY WILLIAM W. HUNT, III
CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730 CHARLES A. HIGH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217 SANDY GARRETT
LAURA L. CHASTAIN TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
FAX: (615) 367- 2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
BEVERLY P. SHARPE
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: JOHN A. WILLIS, BPR # 18468
CONTACT: SANDY GARRETT
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
October 25, 2004
KNOXVILLE ATTORNEY PUBLICLY CENSURED
Knoxville attorney John A. Willis was censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility on
October 18, 2004. Willis self-reported that in his representation of Kentucky National Insurance
Company, a trial was set for January 8, 2004 and as the date approached he was unprepared, yet
failed to seek relief from the trial date or the previously entered scheduling order. Willis failed
to file a response to adverse motions for summary judgment. Willis failed to advise his client of
one of the motions for summary judgment being overruled on the grounds that disputed issues
existed. Opposing counsel advised Willis that as a condition to mediation, his client would have
to agree to a dismissal to the declaratory judgment action. Willis prepared and circulated a
proposed stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. The proposed stipulation of dismissal was
never sent to or entered by the Court. Willis acknowledges that he did not discuss with or obtain
permission of his client to take a dismissal of the declaratory judgment action.
Willis mis-calendared the January 7, 2004 mediation and was unprepared. He attended the
mediation without any authority from his client or without having advised his client that
mediation was taking place. Willis proceeded to participate in the mediation as though he had
authority to participate even though he did not. Willis made an offer to settle two claims without
authority from his client. The offers were accepted. An unauthorized offer was also made by
Willis with regard to another client, however, that offer was not accepted.
At the mediation Willis contacted the Judgeâs law clerk and advised that the case was being
mediated and would likely settle. He asked the clerk to remove the case from the docket without
the knowledge or permission of his client.
At the mediation a defendant was present and Willis discussed the case with him but failed to
advise him he should obtain counsel prior to discussing the case.
After the mediation Willis attempted to obtain settlement authority from his client by writing a
letter advising that mediation had been scheduled but had not taken place. Willis also falsely
advised his client that a summary judgment motion was pending and that his client would likely
lose. Willisâ client, without knowledge that Willis had already made two settlement agreements,
advised that no authority for settlement other than nominal offers would be extended. Willis
then advised his law firm of the actions he had taken on the case. The law firm advised the
client, removed Willis from the case, and agreed to pay the full settlement amount to the client.
Willis has agreed to reimburse the firm for said payment.
Willis violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 4.3 and 8.4(a)(c)(d) of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct. The imposition of this censure declares Willisâ actions to be improper
ethical conduct, but does not limit his right to practice law.
LLC:mw
Willis 27108 rel.doc