abernathy-69028-6--pc.pdf (2023)
Note: This document was published in 2023. Information in older documents may not reflect current board procedures or policies.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (abernathy-69028-6--pc.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.
IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT VI
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: JOANIE L. ABERNATHY, #011382 FILE No. 69028-6-ES
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Williamson County)
____________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC CENSURE
____________________________________________________________________________
The above complaint was filed against Joanie L. Abernathy, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, the Board
of Professional Responsibility considered this matter at its meeting on December 9, 2022.
Ms. Abernathy represented a client in a contentious divorce. She filed two motions to
recuse the trial judge, both of which were denied. Meanwhile, the opposing party was awarded
attorney fees by order in April 2018. Thereafter, funds were paid into court from the sale of a
piece of marital property. The opposing party filed a motion to disburse the funds held by the
court to satisfy the award of attorney fees. Ms. Abernathy opposed this motion. The court orally
granted the opposing partyâs motion to disburse the funds, and the court ordered opposing counsel
to prepare an order. After the motion had been orally granted, but before the order was entered,
Ms. Abernathy filed a third motion to recuse the trial judge. The motion included arguments that
had not been raised in the trial court and arguments that addressed issues previously raised in the
earlier motions for recusal. The court of appeals denied the third motion to recuse and held that
the motion was frivolous.
By the aforementioned acts, Ms. Abernathy is in violation of Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims
and contentions), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party), and 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of
justice), and she is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.
FOR THE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
_______________________________
Jennifer S. Hagerman, Chair
January 13, 2023
_______________________________
Date
2