hurst-33308.pdf (2016)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (hurst-33308.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.
WEE. E:
EUMERZâ? PM 3:00
Bow-iii} o: morass magi
1N DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT 0 Riiï¬iâiiiioiï¬suâf Y
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY i: , . exoceezc'e
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE _
' Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
'MWâââ"âWIUEIWWWW"Mâ ._.- W " âM'MM'WWMMWâW â '
PUBLIC CENSURE
The above oompiaint was filed against Daniel M. Horst, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the
Board of Professional Reogonsibï¬ity considered these matters at its meeting on March 1 1, 2011.
Respondent was formerly licensed to praotioe low in Tennessee, but took InaotiVe Status
on Mommy 31, 2005. Respondent retained his license to pmetioe iaw in Alabama.
011 April 5, 2016, Iiosponclont sent an ex parte letter ciireotly to "the presiding judge in a
will earliest: involving his family members." Respondentâs letter oomoiented on 2} potentiai .
conï¬ict of interest which may have existed with respect to ooimsol adverse to hie along and the
presiding judgeâs failure to odtiresa the matter in any ordeoof the court. Respondent later sought
m'mv-wwenlisiï¬theâoidwofoiogeieidottomeyiorepmsem"hisemitioï¬orwcomingï¬iolrï¬wmoï¬eoofâ"â"W""""â"""'ââââ'
eâmails between Respondent end the logoi services! attorney, Reopondem discussed strategy of
continuing the mini date so that the legal services attorney would have ample time to prepare
himself for the case and stated that he could assist by drafting pleadings if necessary.
Respondentâoâ aunt ï¬led soverei-pleadings- with'iho court pmporteclly pro se, but which" were
actually drafted by Respondent. On June 1, 2010, Respondent sent another ex parte Eetter to the
presiding judge expressing his anger at the ootwtâe order which insimtatecl that Respondent was
providing behind the Scenes legal representation Of-his aunt. Respondent expteeaed in his letter
the potential for e. defhmatlon suit against the judge and complaint to the Court of the Judloiary.
Respondent roquosted that the judge tirilce certain language from his prior order.
t____________i__B_y_thnnfowmonï¬onmLeotgï¬omelnï¬JrlutSLlleemolotetlâRulosowlofeteloneLQoneluot___
1.2(cl) (anointing a. client in ï¬auclulent ooncluot), 3.3- (candor toward the itibunal), 3 4(0) '
an mâ .. w..a._ .,..... ||yân..âu|unâu p. ....u_...._
(lmowingly disobeying an obligation under the inlet of a tribunal), 3 5(1)) (ex portem
communication with ejuclge during a proceeding), 4.1(e) (knowingly melting a false statement of
material feet to athirti meson)= 4.4(a) (using means that have no etlbstmtiol purpose other than to
delay of burden a third poison), 5.5 (unauthorized prooti no of low), 8.1(b) (failure to respond to a
demand for loformotion by Disciplinary Counsel), 8.2(a) (making at faloo statement concerning
the hitegrity of a judge), and 8.4(e) (violation of the Rules- of Professional Conduct), (b)
(committing a criminal act that oeï¬eots adversely on the lawyerâs honesty, trustworthiness, or
ï¬tness as a lawyer), (o) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
nï¬erepresentoï¬on), and (£1) (conduct prejmliciei to eclminish'ntion of justice) and is hereby
Publicly Censored for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFES SIGNAL RESP
IONSIBILIlâY'
dill new
Lela âHollobemgh, Chou
ole/w IZ Wot
Ditto i