BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (ferguson-27291-rel.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 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: CLAIBORNE H. FERGUSON, BPR # 20457
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
December 15, 2004
MEMPHIS LAWYER CENSURED
Claiborne H. Ferguson, of Memphis, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on November 29, 2004. The censure was issued by the Board pursuant to Rule 9,
Section 8 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Ferguson did not request a hearing on
the matter.
In one complaint filed against Ferguson, the Board found that he improperly threatened
to file criminal charges of theft of services against a client who had not paid all attorney fees due.
Moreover, the Board found the clientâs failure to pay attorney fees when due in this instance did
not rise to the level of criminal fraud so as to constitute theft of services, and that Fergusonâs
remedy should have been civil in nature for an alleged breach of contract. The Board also
concluded that Fergusonâs threats to present criminal charges against this former client and to
have the clientâs judicial diversion revoked in the very case in which he obtained this result for
the client, were made to gain an advantage in his civil dispute with the client.
JDJ:mw
Ferguson 27291 rel.doc