Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

anderson-31982-1-public-censure.pdf (2010)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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-31982-1-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

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.

FILE
919/0
BOAR OFPROFESOSIONAL ESPONSIBILITY
Era‘apneccusri’lit:
TENNESS
jM

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT I Executive Secretary
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: JOHN ANDERSON, BPR NO. 12367 FILE NO. 31982-1-PS
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Hawkins County)

resale-ensues

The above complaint was filed against John Anderson; an attorne}r licensed to practice

law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme. Court Rule _9,_ the

Board ofProfessional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on March 12, 20 l 0.

. The Respondent represented the Complainant in three separate matters ~ a personal injury

case after the Complainant was injured by a lawnmower; a property case after a gas pump

malfimctioned; and a dispute with the company that installed the Complainant’s security system.

Although the Respondent represented the Complainant for approximately three years, viruially

no progress was made in any of the cases, even though Respondent assured the Complainant he

was working on them. The Respondent often did not return the Complainant’s telephOne calls or

otherndse communicate with the Complainant, so the Cornplajnant was uninformed regarding the

status of the cases and ultimately was forced to hire new counsel.

The Respondent states that he was dealing with personal problems during this time, and

that he did not effectively communicate with the Complainant regarding the status ofthe cases.
By the aforementioned facts, John Anderson has violated Role of Professional Conduct

1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (communication) and is hefi’figfiglidy Censured for these violations.
f/
of =- 1: OF ,_,.«-—w-\
/PR0FEss-o _ . @SP'ONSIBILI \

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top