Ray1142-1221-1255 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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (007803-20030116.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: DAVID RANDOLPH RAY, BPR #7803
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
January 16, 2003
FORMER MEMPHIS LAWYER DISBARRED
David Randolph Ray, formerly of Memphis and currently residing in Tampa, Florida, has been
disbarred from the practice of law by Order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered on
January 14, 2004.
Mr. Ray misappropriated thousands of dollars from the operating account of his former Memphis
law firm without authorization from the partnership to pay for professional baseball season
tickets, his own personal credit cards and personal cell phone accounts. He also failed to
reimburse to his former partner one-half of the final pay of a former law firm employee due in
February 1999, which the former partner paid in full out of a new private practice account after
the dissolution of the partnership. During the existence of the partnership through February of
1999, Ray had issued all firm employeesâ payroll checks out of the firmâs operating account.
In other client matters which came before the Board, Ray was found to have taken action on
behalf of clients without obtaining their consent, and he failed to invest nearly $500,000 in
proceeds from the sale of real estate within a separate interest bearing account. Instead, Ray
maintained these funds in his IOLTA account for a considerable period of time while awaiting
entry of a bankruptcy court order requiring the funds to be deposited with the Clerk of the Court.
During late 1998 and early 1999, Ray routinely had several drinks at the office approximately
three to four days per week during afternoon business hours while some clients were present in
the firmâs offices, and on one occasion, drank excessively while enroute to his own presentation
on the status of real estate titles sponsored by an auctioneer.
Mr. Ray neglected several clientsâ adoption and real estate matters he was entrusted with and did
not move with reasonable diligence and promptness in such cases. He engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law in Shelby County for three months until late May of 2000 in
violation of a February 16, 2000 Supreme Court Order suspending his law license for failing to
obtain required continuing legal education. Further, Ray also negligently disclosed secretive
information (including Social Security numbers) from former real estate clientsâ closing
documents to a paralegal education institute for inclusion within course seminar materials, by
failing to excise or redact from such materials all identifying information as to his former clients
before disclosing them to the paralegal education institute. This action proximately caused injury
to certain of his former clients, due to identity fraud. Finally, Ray did not respond to the Board
regarding many of the disciplinary complaints filed against him.
Disciplinary Counsel filed three petitions for discipline against Ray which were consolidated for
hearing on March 14, 2002. Ray filed an answer to the first petition, but not to the second two
and did not appear at his own disciplinary hearing. The Hearing Panel of the Board in its
Judgment ordered Ray suspended from the practice for three years and found that he had shown
an indifferent attitude toward the Board and the Panel, and a failure to cooperate.
On May 12, 2003, the Board of Professional Responsibility appealed the Hearing Panelâs
Judgment to the Chancery Court for Shelb y County, contending that the proof at hearing
warranted a disbarment of Rayâs law license, and that the Hearing Panel erred in failing to find
the existence of four aggravating circumstances in the case. Ray never filed any answer in
Chancery Court, and on September 15, 2003, the Chancery Court entered a Default Judgment of
Disbarment against Mr. Ray and ordered that he be required to make restitution to his former
partner for the misappropriations from his prior law firmâs operating account, and for one- half of
the final pay of the law firmâs former employee. The Chancery Court also required Ray to make
restitution to one former client or the Lawyersâ Fund for Client Protection in the total amount of
$1,650 representing fees paid while Ray engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in 2000
during the period of his prior suspension. Ray filed a Motion to Alter or Amend and for Relief
from the Chancery Courtâs disbarment order alleging that his voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition imposed a stay on these disciplinary proceedings. On September 25, 2003, the Chancery
Court entered an Order denying Mr. Rayâs Motion to Alter or Amend and for Relief from the
disbarment order.
Ray did not appeal the Chancery Courtâs disbarment order to the Supreme Court.
Section 18 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 requires Mr. Ray to notify by registered or
certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters; all co-counsel and opposing
counsel of the Supreme Courtâs Order disbarring him. Section 18 also require Mr. Ray to deliver
to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.
This disciplinary matter was held pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 8 and 9. In Tennessee,
disbarred lawyers may, after five years, apply for reinstatement, but they must carry the burden of
proof by clear and convincing evidence that their reinstatement will not be detrimental to the
integrity and standing of the bar, or the administration of justice, or be subversive to the public
interest.
JDJ:mw
Ray 1142-1221-1255 rel.doc