guth-44646-46812.pdf (2016)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (guth-44646-46812.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT ll
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: MICHAEL ANTHONY GUTH, BPR NO. 19093 FILE NOs. 44646»2-BG
Respondent, an attorney licensed 468 lZ~2—SC
to practice law in Tennessee ‘
(Roane County)

PUBLIC CBNS URE

The abeve complaint was filed against Michael Anthony Guth, #19093, an, attorney

licensed to ptactice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Tenn.

Sup. Ct. R. 9, the Boerd of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on

September 9, 2016.

Mr. (truth, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against an individual detbndant, who retained

counsel and contested the suit. Mr. G-uth nonsuited the action and refiled in another county

where venue was improper. Both lawsuits involve the same set of material facts and allegations.

Mr. Guth named two defendants in the refiled suit; a partnership consisting of the defendant in -

the original. suit and one of the defendant’s business associates, and the business associate

individually, There was no vi/ritten or verbal partnership agreement and the original defendant

and his business associate did not refer to their relationship as a partnership. Prior to filing the

second lawsuit, Mr. Guth told the business associate that he would be named as a defendant but

promised to enter into a settlement agreement indemnifying the business associate from any

liability. Mr. Guth subsequently told the business associate that settlement would no longer be

considered.
t service on the
The business associate agreed to waive service. Mr. Goth did not attemp
obtained a default
defendant in the original suit or provide notice to his counsel, Mr. Guth
Court
judgment against the partnership and the business associate. Mr. Guth did not advise the

at the default hearing about the prior lawsuit, the fact that no partnership agreement existed, or

that the defendant in the original suit had not been served. The defendant in the original suit

became aware of the second lawsuit when Mr. Guth attempted execution of the judgment on his

investments and property. The defendant retained his prior counsel who obtained an order

setting aside the default judgment.

By these acts, Michael Anthony Guth has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1

(meritorious claims), 3.3 (candor towards the tribunal), 4,1(a) (truthfulness in statements to

others), 4.3 (dealings with an unrepresented person), 8.4(0) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8~.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),

and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. l

FOR THE BOARD on i.»
PROFESS' ON’AL legufi’o smurrv

Miéhoel'King, Chair f
. {fut M; pit/é

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