crabtree-33082.pdf (2011)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (crabtree-33082.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.
F ll. Eli
"201i on at Mitt: 25
TN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT III {jam} tit? pegfgeatottmâ
OF THE E! ' ï¬ï¬iiiiï¬liï¬itlluiât
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE sWMEXEe.eec'i*
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE '
IN RE: JOSEPH iâI. CRABTREE, JR., BPR NO. 11451 FILE NO. 33082-3âPS
Respondent, at: attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Monme County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaint was ï¬led against Joseph H. Crabt'ree, .112, an attorttey licensed to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
9, the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December
10, 2010.
The Respondent represented the husband in a divorce case. The Respondent, without his
clientâs permission, signed an agreed order which provided that the client would meet certain
ï¬nancial obligations within ï¬ve days, and, if he failed to do 505116 would be considered in willful
contempt of court. Not only did the Respondent not have his clientâs permission to Sign the
order, after he signed it, he did not inform his client ofihe order. Neither clicl he inform his client
that lie was required to be present for a hearing to deteimine the sanctions for failing to abide by
the terms of the agreed order.
By signing an agreed order without his clientâs knowledge or permission, the Respondent
violated RPC. 1.2 and 1.4. The Respondent continued in his violation of RFC 1.4 by failing to
inform his client of the existence of the order or the hearing date, which placed his client in
jeopardy of being held in contempt. By ailowing the order to be submitted to the court, the
Respcndent violated RPC 3.3 because the order had not been agreed to 12311153 client. All ofth
aforementioned conduct by the- Respondent was in violation of RFC 8.4%).
By the aforementioned facis, Joseph H. Crabtree, Jr. has violated Rule oflârofcssimml
Conduct 1.2 (scope of representatian), if: (diiigence), 1.4 {communication}, 3.3 (candor to the
tribunal), and 8.40:1} (misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Cetasured for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
mumï¬
Lela M Hoilabnughkélmir
*4 I