Ritter 25524 rel.PDF (2004)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (012229-20040826.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 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
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: MICHAEL W. RITTER, BPR No. 12229
CONTACT: THERESA M. COSTONIS
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
August 26, 2004
ANDERSON COUNTY LAWYER CENSURED
Michael Ritter, an Anderson County attorney, was publicly censured by the Board of
Professional Responsibility on August 23, 2004.
Mr. Ritter represented a client in a dispute with the Department of Energy, the clientâs
employer, over the clientâs security clearance. Mr. Ritter made an appearance on the clientâs
behalf, initiating the administrative proceeding, and the hearing officer sent out a letter to all
counsel setting scheduling dates for the matter. Mr. Ritter failed to advise his client of these
dates and failed to prepare for or meet these scheduling deadlines. When Mr. Ritter missed the
telephonic pre-trial conference and failed to return the hearing officerâs subsequent telephone
calls, the hearing officer contacted Mr. Ritter's client directly to find out what was amiss, and the
client thus learned of Mr. Ritterâs neglect. Over the next few days the client made repeated
attempts to contact Mr. Ritter and finally was able to reach him. Mr. Ritter explained that he was
suffering from back pain and did not know if he would be able to handle the hearing, which was
at that point only a few days away. Mr. Ritter did nothing to prepare the clientâs case for
hearing, failed to communicate adequately with his client, missed all the deadlines, and but for
the consideration of the hearing officer in working with the client after Mr. Ritter had essentially
abandoned the case, might have caused his client to lose by default a hearing whe re he should
have prevailed on the merits, placing his client at risk for considerable prejudice. These
violations were compounded by the fact that Mr. Ritterâs responses to this disciplinary complaint
contained inaccuracies about his participation and procedural obligations in the administrative
proceeding. In committing the acts described above, Mr. Ritter's conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(1)(5)(6), DR 2-106(A)(B), DR 7-101(A)(4)(a)(b)(c), and DR 9-102(A)(B) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which were in force when the conduct in question occurred, and
Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1.
A public censure is a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer
improper but does not limit the lawyerâs right to practice law.
Ritter 25524 rel.doc