BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2005)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (martin-27525-5-rel632453584251542420.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

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
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

RELEASE OF INFORMATION
IN RE: ROBERT LEE MARTIN, BPR # 18106
CONTACT: JESSE D. JOSEPH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500

February 28, 2005

NASHVILLE LAWYER CENSURED

Robert Lee Martin, of Nashville, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on February 22, 2005. The censure was issued by the Board pursuant to Rule 9,
Section 8 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Martin did not request a hearing on the
matter.

The Board opened its own disciplinary investigation in August of 2004 regarding
Martin’s targeted direct mail advertising to prospective clients in the area of DUI defense.
Martin’s advertising letter did not include the required wording “THIS IS AN
ADVERTISEMENT” in a conspicuous
print size in relation to the boldness of other print used in the ad, and Martin did not provide the
Board with a sample copy of an outside mailing envelope enclosing the targeted letter which
indicated inclusion of this same required wording in a conspicuous print size on the mailing
envelopes sent to prospective clients. Moreover, Martin did not deliver to the Board one copy of
both the targeted solicitation letter and the mailing list of individuals with addresses to whom the
targeted letter was sent, within 3 days after his distribution of the letter.

Martin’s characterization of his own DUI report enclosed within his targeted advertising
letter as “THIS SHOCKING FREE REPORT”, his exhortation that potential clients read such
report before calling other lawyers and his use of the word “WARNING” prefacing the report –
all included in bold type – were found by the Board to constitute language which is likely to
create in the minds of potential clients an unjustified expectation about results Martin could
achieve, as were Martin’s references to himself within the report as “DUI TOP GUN”
. . .”a true DUI pro” . . . and his “guarantee” to clients of a “First Offender Satisfaction Package.”
These claims, in addition to the comparisons of his services and abilities to those of other
lawyers who Martin alleged were “incompetent”, and who according to Martin “rip off the
public” and only “dabble” in the DUI area - - were found to be false and misleading given
Martin’s inability to factually substantiate such claims and comparisons.
Further, Martin inappropriately claimed within the subject advertising materials to be
“specializing” in the area of DUI defense, since he has not been certified as a specialist by the
Tennessee Commission on CLE & Specialization or by any other organization accredited or
recognized by the CLE & Specialization Commission. Finally, the Board considered Martin’s
claims within the subject advertising materials that his “clients are not criminals,” but instead are
“merely the products of overzealous police and bad public policy decisions” by the executive and
legislative branches of State government, to contain clear material misrepresentations of fact and
law.

JDJ:mw

Martin 27525-5 rel.doc

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