anderson-31391-9-public-censure.pdf (2008)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (anderson-31391-9-public-censure.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.
BOA D 0 PHDFEEâgsri-gï¬IELRESPONSlBILlTY
SUPBEME COURT OF TENNESSEE
' IN DISgrammar DISTRICT
â
IX Exeouuve Secrets; - I
orras â 1 y r â
BOARD Q]? PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: LENAL ANDERSON, BPR NO. 5376 FILE NO. 31341-9-TH
â Respondent, an attorney licensed ' '
to practice law in Tennessee "
(Shelby County)
PUBLIc CENSURE
The above complaint was filed against Lenal Anderson, 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 11,
2009.
Respondent agreed to represent Complainant concerning'a slip and fall in May; 2003
While at a McDonaldâs restaurant in Martinique, a Caribbean Island. At ï¬rst, Respondent
thought that the restaurant was owned by the corporation located in the [1.8. When he found out
that suit would have to be ï¬led in Martinique, Respondent Waited until lMay l, 2008, to attempt
to locate a Martinique lawyer to assist him with Complainantâs case. Suit was never ï¬led. It is
unclear. as to whether the statute of limitations had actually run, but Respondent informed
Complainant that the statute ran on May 5, 2008.
Respondent has violated RPC 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to diligently pursue Conrplainantâs
litigation. Respondent failed to keep complainant informed about the status of the matter.
Reapondent waited several years before even attempting .to join with a lawyer in Martinique to
actually file suit.
By the aforementioned facts, Lenal Anderson has violated Rule of ProfessionalConduct,
.:
â ï¬â
Roge@885, Chair
Dafe
w/xw