Walwyn 23858 et al 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Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (018263-20040729.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. SHAR PE
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
IN RE: PAUL J. WALWYN, BPR # 18263
CONTACT: CHARLES A. HIGH
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
July 29, 2004
MADISON LAWYER CENSURED
Paul J. Walwyn, a Madison lawyer, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility on July 22, 2004. A public censure is a public rebuke and warning to the
offender, but a censure does not affect the lawyerâs licensure to practice law. The discipline was
imposed by the Board and Walwyn had a right to request a hearing. A hearing was not requested
and the discipline is final.
The censure was based on two legal matters. In one complaint, Walwyn represented a
client in a child support and child custody matter. Walwyn neglected the matter and failed to
prepare the matter. Walwyn failed to prepare a court order as directed by the court for eight
months.
The other matter was the appeal of a criminal conviction. Mr. Walwyn filed a notice of
appeal five days late and he filed his brief over sixty days late. After the conviction was
affirmed, Walwyn failed to file a timely petition to the Supreme Court resulting in a loss of
further review.
CAH:mw
Walwyn 23858 et al rel.doc