thompson-33296-33228.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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (thompson-33296-33228.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.
4-thaiï¬âil
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICTV 231! ititHi PM 32 9{1
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 3
oneIFPUIISIBIU
at Ftï¬tti-Wett-
ITY
OF THE âEmil. SEC-W
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE New '
IN RE: GEORGE H. THOMPSON, III, BPR NO. 3 024 FILE NOS. 33228~S~RW
Respondent, an attorney licensed 3329606an
to practice law in Tennessee
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above complaints were ï¬led against George H. Thompson, an attorney 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.
In the ï¬rst complaint, the client retained Respondent in October 2009 for a probate matter
and. paid him $1900. Thereafter, Respondent failed to return the clientâs telephone calls or reply to a
certiï¬ed letter with his complaints. As a result, the client obtained other counsel.
In the second complaint, the client retained Respondent in April 2009 for a medical
malpractice action arising out ofa September 27, 2008 surgery. On September 9, 2009, Respondent
sent letters to the potential health care provider defendants giving them statutory notice of a potential
claim. In the letters, Respondent requested the docr.1nient(s)l the client signed consenting to the
removal of his colon. When Respondent received. the consent forms and spoke with the insurance
carrier representative, Respondent explained to the client that it was his opinion that the claim did
not have merit and he would not pursue it. However, Respondent did not mention the statute of
limitations. Respondent wrote the client a March 26, 2010, letter explaining the status of his
research and declining the case, but again he did not mention the statute of limitations. When he
accepted the casein April 2009, Respondent should have known the statute of limitations deadline
was on or about September 27, 200.9. Respondentâs letter to the potential defendants extended the
statute date by four months, which would have been approximately January 27, Bolt). Respondent
sent the client a March 26, 2010, letter declining the case approximately two months after the statute
of limitations ran. Respondentâs actions foreclosed the clientâs right to ï¬nd another lawyer before
the running otâthe statute and his claim was lost. Respondent has past disciplinaiy history for similar
conduct recited herein.
By the aforementioned facts, George H. Thompson, has violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 1 .1 (competence), 1 .3 (diligence) and 1.4 (communication) and is hereby Publicly Censured
for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
animate»
Lela]M. Hollabaugh, Ciliair
Jamaal/by AB, 90H
ate