King 1421 rel.PDF (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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (011267-20040706.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
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
IN RE: MARY FORRESTER KING, BPR #11267
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
July 6, 2004
MEMPHIS LAWYER PUBLICLY CENSURED
Mary Forrester King, of Memphis, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on June 30, 2004.
Disciplinary Counsel, acting on the authority of the Board, filed a Petition for Discipline
against King. The petition alleged that King entered into corporate business transactions with
long-standing former clients beginning in 2000 where her interests clearly differed from those of
her former clients in such transactions, and where it was clear that the former clients still
considered her to be their lawyer and expected her to exercise her professional judgment for their
protection. The Board also alleged in the petition that King did not make full disclosures to
these former clients that she was not acting as their lawyer or that the exercise of her professional
judgment on their behalf might reasonably be affected by these differing interests. Further, the
petition alleged that King represented one of her own family members regarding these corporate
transactions in a fashion adverse to the interests of her former clients.
Disciplinary Counsel and King entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby King
agreed to the imposition of a public censure. The Board found that King represented multiple
persons with differing interests without any full disclosures to all of them that the exercise of her
professional judgment on behalf of all might reasonably be affected by the differing interests,
that she improperly entered into corporate business transactions with long-standing former
clients and allowed her own property, business or personal interests to prevail over the interests
of her former clients.
The Board found mitigating Kingâs lack of a prior disciplinary history, the fact that she
did not understand the applicability of the disciplinary rules to her entry into business
transactions with former clients, her remorse and good faith cooperation with Disciplinary
Counsel, and the dismissal of a Chancery Court suit (and countersuit) between King and her
former clients relative to the dissolution of the corporation which was created. The Board also
found mitigating Kingâs agreement to obtain in 2004 six (6) hours of Ethics Continuing Legal
Education in the area of recognition of conflicts of interests (as to business and individual
clients) in addition to her annual requirements, and her agreement to attend and complete the
Boardâs Ethics Workshop in August of 2004.
JDJ:mw
King 1421 rel.doc