clifford-33246.pdf (2010)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (clifford-33246.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

F sto
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICTII Lilli-l Jail-El Pil 3* 95
BOARD OF PROFESOF = - VM;' ‘dtidalg
THE RESPONSIBILI'Fld
SIONAL iélmy ttet
.., “a f““"23tilt3
OF THE - .
SUPREME COURT or TENNESSEE ... «m mflim 95‘3"?

IN RE: CHARLES M. CLIFFORD, BPR N0. 1544 FILE NO. 332460~2~RW
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Blount County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Charles M. Clifford, an attorney licensed to practice

law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts ofmisconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the Board

of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December 10, 2010.

Respondent’s client first met with him in April 2008 to seek custody of his daughter, when]

he believed was being abused at her mother’ 5 house. Respondent was retained and they met several

more times in 2008 and in February, March and April 2009, but Respondent did not take action.

Respondent asserts that his concerns were whether there was enough proof to win the case, not

putting the child in a worse position, and having a minor testify. The client disputes that he had

similar concerns. The client contends that it was Respondent who talked him out of proceeding,

even though the client thought the situation warranted actioa.

Thereafter, the client met with a counselor, who advised that his daughter’s situation was an

emergency, The eotn1selor”s opinion was based on the saine information the client had conveyed to

Respondent in February. With this lmowlcdge, the client called Respondent’s office several times,

but never received a return call. The counselor referred the client to another attorney, who met with
him the day of the initial contact and, within 24 hours, filed a Petition for Custody and Emergency

Order in Juvenile Court, which was granted the same day, Apri128, 2009. The information relied on

by the subsequent counsel and the Court is the same information conveyed to ReSpondent, who

failed to take action. The child was subject to abuse in the period between when Respondent became

involved and when subsequent counsel took action. Thereafter, a consent order transferred

permanent custody to the client.

Subsequent counsel and the Judge recognized an emergency situation and tool; action. In this

matter, Respondent was incompetent, failed to follow his client’s wishes, lacked diligence and failed

to reasonably cotnmtmicate with his client. Respondent has past disciplinary history for lack of

diligence and failing to reasonably communicate.

By the aforementioned facts, Charles M. Clifford, has violated Rules ofProfessional Conduct

1.1 (competence), 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (ceimmuiieation) and is

hereby Publicly Censored for these violations.

FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

[in Hater/9cm
Lela M. l—Iollabaugh1 (“Mir

WM

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