sirgo-33343c.pdf (2011)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (sirgo-33343c.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.
:3: ran
â23â MN 12â PH 1:3 39
IN DISCIPLTNâARY DISTRICT VI
AAAAAA. FAA Ax AA:
01* WE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBHJTY
Atarnnaétisiâi}
0F {HE âMAME...KEG: SEC":
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
1N RE: Slum-n l3. Shun BPR NO 25693 FILE NO.33343c-S-K.B
Respondent an attorney licensed
tn piactice law111 Tennnssee
(Williamson County]
PUBLIC CENSURE
The alum-3n cnmnlaint was ï¬led against Shawn l3. Sirgo, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Tennessne, alleging certain acts oiâmiscnnduci. ,Punsunnt to Supreme Court Rule 9â the
Board of Prnfessional Responsibility considered these mathâ2m at its meeting an Decmnbcr 10,
.2010.
Respondentâsclient'13 an employee of a corrupany. Respnndent reprasems the company-
and its; principal in various matters, and necnsinnally represents employees of the company i :1
their personal legal affairs, The client reqneatecl that Respondent rcpresent him in a DUI charge.
Respondent.quoted n 021â: Fee 01" $1,500.00. which wnuld have to he paid in advance of
representation. In March, 2010, the cmnpzmy's principal agreed to pay Respmident 1% $00.00 as
an advance for the clientâs legal fees and Respondent Emgan working on the case. In April, 201.0:
the client trarminated his; mnployment with the company. Respnnclnnt. shortly thereafter, filed a
Mnlion tn Withdraw from representation of the client in his criminal Int-utter based upon the
clientâs. failure to reimburse the company for the advance it had given him for legal fees. At the
clientâs request. Respnndent agreed tn continue with represnntation, but only undnr the condition
that the client begin to make payments tn Respondent so that Respondent could reimburse: the
companyâs principal for the ï¬Ciâ."£mCâ¬Ci fee. The client agreed, and litespnncicnt began ttlotking on
thc: clientâs. case again. On Apt-ii 19, 2010. the client rammed to wnrlt' for the company. On, m,-
nhtâittt MEL}? i3. 2010,, the Client was {eliminated from the cmnpany. 011 the same data:
Rcsimndcnt participated in the completion [if £1 âSeparation Noticeâ fonn required by the
Tennessee: Department of Labor and kaiâorcc Development. Respondent tilled in the block
concerning, the uimumstancea (if the;- sepzn'r-ttinn by indicating there. was terminutinn liar cause
iâtï¬SiiâCi nn the principal's belieii {in May .14, 291th Itespnndwt sent cnn'esinondencm to the client
indicating that chm in his material involvement in the clientâs tenninat'ion of enmlnyment from
the CWTttpt-Zln)â, Lt conï¬ict of interest hat? developed which [warrant further representatitm in the:
clientâ3 panning criminal case. On July 26, 20kt), a former employee sued the company and its
principal. Respondent ï¬led {in Answer to the Complaint on hclmlt' of the cnnipnny anti itn
'pi'incipttL anti till September 1. 2010» ï¬led a Cmmtrarcinim in the action and named the client as it
CmumcrâDetârincinnt. Man}: {if the facts contained in tha CâDtllftiiï¬lâtliaiiâll ï¬led against the slitâmt
n-iirmreci the actions which led to the clientâs termination from the company and the withholding
(i'fâliuâncls from his final paycheck. At Disoipiinaty Counseiâg t'equesti Respundent withdrew from
Further rcprescnttttion in that matter.
it WEIS impinpet for Respondmit to tint as a collectinn agent for the mummy and its
Linutnt against the climnt during his: representation 0f the niicnt in his criminal matter.
Respontlent created an actual cnnt'lictâ tut-interest which required i'tiS immediate withdrawal from
hath representation of the company nnci its primipnl in the ccilieution of any debt, zmci tiâcnn
continued i'ij'CStllTiï¬iiDlâl of the client in his criminal case. Respondent eventually resumed
reprmscnttttinn in the clientâs criminal case and participated in the termination of the client from -
the company This again created 31 conï¬ict of intm'est directly adverse to the client. Raswnclent
prepared an invoice for legal fees remind to the uiiumâs case and provided 11miinfm'mati0n 1c: the
company. That information was used tn withhold funds from the. ciientâs ï¬nai naycheci; From
the company. Respondent had knowledge of the withhnâiding offunds {rum 1hr: clientâs ï¬nal
_ paycheck E'mm the cmnpamy immediately nï¬es' his tarmhmiion at; indicmed in his; withdrawal
miter tn the cï¬ent. The withiâwlding of funds from an mupkoyeeâs ï¬nal pay is pmhibitad by TI'CA
§50-2~103(g). Respmadent tlzm-mdâtcr pmâticipmad in iitigmion adverse âm the. client which was
Substantiaï¬y minted 10 the conduct that is the- E legnd mason far 1116 ciiantâS termindticm :Frnm ihrâ:
company and iis principal.
By the aiâm'mnmlâzicnwd Facts, Shawn P. Sirgof has violated "Rules olâl-âmfensionul Conduct
1.6 (conï¬dentiaiiw) 1.7 {conï¬ict of interest). 1.8a) (conï¬ict 01â interest: prohibited transactions).
and 19 (conflict inntcrest, farmer client) and is; hereby Publiciy Cienmuâed for these Viol-admins.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
52in mamaâ?
Lela $103151megin CimiU
HLWW {(321313
Dzâï¬âe I I