himmelberg-33727.pdf (2010)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (himmelberg-33727.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.
FEM: E?
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICTV 23â OCT 27 W h 3'8
0? THE . MAEâEB i}? PKGFâESSEâQHM
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ï¬Eï¬PUï¬SiBEUTY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE ' âWww «WEXEB. 3E5â
IN RE: Marvin D. Himmelberg, BPR NO. 15199 FILE Nor 33727w-5-KB
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice km in TemreSSee
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against Marvin I). Himmelberg, an attorney licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain sets of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
9, the Board of Professional Responsibility considered this matter at its meeting on September 9,
2011.
On January 20, 2010, Complainant received e ï¬ve (5) day suspension and a demotion at
her place of employment. Complainant hired Respondent to perfect the appeal} to the Civil
Service Conunission (CSC) within 15 calendar days of the date of notiï¬cation. Complainant
called Respondentâs ofï¬ce several times to check on the sppesi and Respondent assured her that
the appeal had been ï¬led.
Responéent had instructed his paralegal to type and mail the appeal letter. The paralegal
assured him it had been mailed. Aï¬er later ï¬ring his yardage! for performance failures,
Respondent discovered the tin-mailed Letter for Complainantâs appeal. Respondent learned that
the appeal was not perfected on March 8, 2010, and immediately sent a ietter to the CSC
requesting an. appeal on Complainantâs behaâif. Compiainant conï¬rmed to request a status report
on her appeal.
Respondent submitted an undotod lottol' toquosting an appeal which was received by tho
CSC on April 29, 2010. This was lllnotyunmo (9 9) days after the notiï¬cation of Complainantâs
suspension and demotion and almost two months after discovering the appeal had not boon
porfooâcod. Tllononnnwlranvo Law Judge disnï¬ssod the Complainants appeal as limo-barred.
Complainant coiled Ronpondont 5 ofï¬ce and was told that Rospondonâcâs former paralegal had
iâallod to ï¬lo tho apgool I
Respondent failod to not with reasonable diligence and promptnoss in roprooonï¬ng
Complainant, failed to keep tho Complainant reasonably informed or comply with requests for
information and failed to reasonably sup owisc his paralegal.
By the aforomontloncd acts, Marvin D. IâIinnnolborg has violatod Ruins; of Professional
Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), and 5.3(rosponoibilities wcganling nonlowyor
assistants), and is hereby Publicly Censored for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF .
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSXBEITY
Lola-{gifgaugm Chailé
(M: [an M, nor!
Data ,