Hancock 1354 rel.PDF (2003)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (009476-20030331.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
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE FAX: (615) 367- 2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
CONSUMER COUNSEL/DIRECTOR E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: JOHN MARK HANCOCK, BPR #9476
CONTACT: WILLIAM W. HUNT, III
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615 361-7500
March 31, 2003
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT ISSUES SUSPENSION ORDER
RELATIVE TO A FORMER KNOX COUNTY ATTORNEY
On March 12, 2003, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an order relative to former
attorney John Mark Hancock, of Knox County. Mr. Hancock had previously received a
suspension of three years, seven months and ten days, which commenced on May 21, 1992. He
has never applied for reinstatement in regards to this suspension. On March 12 the Supreme
Court ordered that Mr. Hancock receive a five-year suspension. The Court ordered that this five -
year suspension commence on May 21, 1992.
Mr. Hancock cannot be reinstated to the practice of law until he has proven to a hearing
committee of the Board of Professional Responsibility by clear and convincing evidence that he
has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law to justify his return and that his
resumption of the practice of law would not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar
or the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest.
This suspension resulted from Mr. Hancock, during his earlier suspension, engaging in
activities that gave the appearance that he still maintained an active law license in Tennessee.
This suspension arose from an agreement between Mr. Hancockâs counsel and Disciplinary
Counsel. This agreement was approved by the Board of Professional Responsibility and the
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
WWH:mw
Hancock1354 rel.doc