BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2006)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (deas-28124-2-rel632817251259883766.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217
TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500
(800) 486-5714
FAX: (615) 367-2480
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org
Website: www.tbpr.org

RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: CHARLES DAVID DEAS, REG. NO. 2049
CONTACT: THERESA M. COSTONIS
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

April 25, 2006

MARYVILLE LAWYER CENSURED

Charles David Deas, a Maryville attorney, received a Public Censure from the Board of
Professional Responsibility on April 20, 2006.

The wife and unborn child of Complainant, Mr. Deas’ client, were killed in a car
accident in February, 2002, and Complainant was severely injured. Complainant hired Mr. Deas
to file suit and Mr. Deas did so on July 1, 2002. A summons was issued to the defendant but
never served; on July 23, 2002, this summons was returned indicating an inability to locate the
defendant. Mr. Deas only made this one attempt to have the defendant served. Mr. Deas
contended that despite the severity of Complainant’s losses, there was little or no chance of
recovery of damages in this case, since the defendant’s insurance coverage had lapsed for non-
payment. A declaratory judgment action later confirmed this, in a ruling by the Blount County
Chancery Court on December 8, 2004. Mr. Deas stated that before one year from the issuance of
the initial process had expired, Complainant told him that he intended to hire another attorney.
However, Mr. Deas did not actually hear from another attorney on Complainant’s behalf until
November, 2004. In the meantime, he did not move to withdraw but remained counsel of record
for Complainant until after the one-year deadline within which to obtain re-issuance of process
(per Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3) had expired. The defendant was local and
Complainant’s successor counsel was able to obtain service, but it was already too late by the
time he took over the case, and the January 27, 2005, Order dismissed Complainant’s case for
this reason. While Mr. Deas remained Complainant’s counsel of record, he retained his ethical
responsibilities to Complainant as his attorney, and violated those responsibilities by neglecting
to have the summons re-issued within the one-year deadline. Mr. Deas’ arguments that
Complainant would not have been able to collect on a judgment, had the case not been
dismissed, because of the lack of insurance, was based on the decision in the insurance
declaratory judgment action that did not occur until long after the one-year deadline for the re-
issuance of the summons expired. Thus, at the time Mr. Deas engaged in the neglect that
ultimately lead to the dismissal of his client’s case, whether the defendant had insurance
coverage was unknown. Moreover, Mr. Deas has a prior Public Censure which is an aggravating
factor.
By the aforementioned facts, Charles David Deas violated Disciplinary Rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibility 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); 6-101(A)(1)(2)(3); 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4);
and Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.4 and was Publicly Censured
for those violations.

A Public Censure is a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer
improper but does not limit the lawyer's right to practice.
Deas 28124-2 rel.doc

PLEASE NOTE

YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES,
FORMAL ETHICS OPINIONS, NEWSLETTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS
ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT THE BOARD’S WEBSITE
www. tbpr.org/Subscriptions

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top