Roberts 1205 rel.PDF (2005)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (016511-20030528.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
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE FAX: (615) 367- 2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
CONSUMER COUNSEL/DIRECTOR E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: WILLIAM C. ROBERTS, JR., BPR #16511
CONTACT: CHARLES A. HIGH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
May 28, 2003
NASHVILLE ATTORNEY SUSPENDED
William C. Roberts, Jr., a Nashville attorney, has been suspended from the practice of
law in this state for a fixed period of five years by order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
entered on May 23, 2003. The suspension was based on a conditional guilty plea filed by
Roberts while the matter was pending before the Chancery Court of Davidson County,
Tennessee. The five year suspension is retroactive to July 10, 2000, the date Roberts was
temporarily suspended from the practice of law. He has been suspended continuously since
July 10, 2000, and would be eligible to apply for reinstatement after July 10, 2005.
An attorney suspended for more than one year shall not be reinstated until a reinstatement
proceeding and hearing and approval of the Supreme Court. The petition for discipline was
based on five disciplinary complaints. Roberts admitted that he failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness and that he failed to reasonably communicate with his clients in the
five complaints. He also admitted that he neglected the clientsâ matters and that he failed to
adequately prepare the matters in all five complaints. Roberts had other pending disciplinary
complaints and those matters were concluded by the order in this matter.
CAH:mw
Roberts 1205 rel.doc