dilustro-35585-2-and-35752c-2-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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (dilustro-35585-2-and-35752c-2-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 DI$CIPLINARY DISTRICT]!
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE -
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: Thomas Francis Dilustm, BPR NO. 18624, FILBNOS. 35585«2âAW
Respondent, an attorney licemted to practice 35752câ2âRW
Law in Tennessee
(Knox County)
PUBLIC CBNSURE
. The above ccmplaints were ï¬led against Thomas Francis Dilustrc, en atmmey licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts (if-misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Ccurt Rule
9, the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these mettere at its meeting on December
6, 2013. 5
In the ï¬rst case, Mr. Dilustro accepted feel to tept-esent e client in her diverce but failed
to tile executed divorce pleadings which were given to Mr. Dilustro by his client. Mr. Dilustro
failed to commriicate with his client and later deceived his client into believing that he had filed
her divoi'ce when he had not. Mr. Dilualte constructively withdrew from representatien of his
client without returning unearned fete to her and failed to respond to requests for information
ï¬nm the Board of Professional Responsibility.
In the eeccnd case, Mr. Dilustro wee appointed to represent a client in a criminal matter.
Mr. Dilestrc failed to adequately cmmnunicnw with his client regarding his appeal and failed to
turn over his clientâs ï¬le upon request. Mr. Dilustro else failed to reepontl to requests for
infannaticn from the Beard cmeteesional Responaibility.
By the aforamentioned acts, Thomas Francis Dilustro, has violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (coï¬munication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (terminating representation),
8.103} (bar admission and (Eisciplinary matters), and 8.4(3), {0) and (d) (misconduct) and is
hereby Publicly Cemured for mesa violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
0%
J.USBéH Purkos, Chair
gig/Avâ