Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

winchester-33010.pdf (2011)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (winchester-33010.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.

flees
1N DISCIPLINARY DISTRICTIX ill-ll JAR 2‘ PH 31 12
or THE scanner sass sens at
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY “Emblem W
OF THE ' I .
SUEREME COURT OF TENNESSEE “"'”"'""”° ”mm m V

IN RE: WILLIAM T. WINCHESTER, BPR NO. 21282 FILE No. 33010—9-KS
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against William T. Winchester, an attorney licensed to

practice law in Telmessee, alleging certain acts ofmisconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9,

the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December 10,

201 0.

In October 2003, Respondent tiled an answer and a motion to dismiss civil litigation on his

client’s behalf. Respondent’s motion to dismiss was set but continued several times for various

reasons. Respondent failed to re—set his motion. Respondent failed to appear at a hearing on adverse

party’s motions, which resulted in a default judgment being entered against his client. in March 2010,

more than seven years alter the case began. The case was not. dismissedprior to the March’2010

default judgment, as Respondent contends. Also, the court clerk was unable to locate Respondent

between Januaiy and December 2009, winch violates court rules to'keep a current address on file.

The court has never had a PO. Box listed for Respondent? despite Respondent’s contention.

By the aforementioned facts, William T. Winchester, has violated Rules of Professional.

Conduct 1 .3 (diligence), 1.4 {COlnHlllfllcalZlOID and 3 .2 {espediting litigation) and is hereby Publicly

1
Censured for these violations.

FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

02% «mm
Lela’M. I-Iollabaugh, Ehfiir

‘ mm mam
Me / '

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top