Slavin 1185 rel.PDF (2004)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (012341-20040927.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

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. SHARPE
E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
CONSUMER COUNSEL DIRECTOR

RELEASE OF INFORMATION
IN RE: EDWARD A. SLAVIN, JR., BPR #012341
CONTACT: LAURA L. CHASTAIN
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500

September 27, 2004

LAW LICENSE OF EDWARD A. SLAVIN, JR. SUSPENDED

On August 27, 2004, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an Order suspending the law
license of Edward A. Slavin, Jr., for a period of two years. The Supreme Court heard the case on
direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 1.3, from an order of the
Chancery Court suspending Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esquire, from the practice of law for three
years. Slavin appealed, raising the following issues:

1. Whether Chancellor Richard E. Ladd erred in refusing to recuse himself;
2. Whether Slavin’s in-court speech is protected by the First Amendment; and
3. Whether the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor were excessive.

The Court found “upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that
Chancellor Ladd did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself and that the speech at
issue does not fall within the protective ambit of the First Amendment. After a thorough
examination of the sanctions, we impose a two years suspension. Slavin may, however, apply
for reinstatement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 19.3, at the expiration of
one year from the date of this opinion.”

Three judicial officers, a fellow attorney, and several clients, lodged complaints against Slavin
with the Board of Professional Responsibility which were the subject of the disciplinary matter.
Chancellor Ladd found and the Supreme Court affirmed ethical violations by Slavin in accusing
Judge Workman in pleadings among other things that “the trial court’s lifestyle choice and
personal opinion should not be permitted to deny Miss Campbell a fair trial”; Judge Collier’s
complaint that Slavin’s conduct and speech during the trial of Lockheed Martin Energy Systems,
Inc. vs. Slavin, which included the filing of a seventeen page response “replete with unnecessary,
baseless, irrelevant, and frivolous claims, defenses, and legal contentions.”, and in Slavin’s
attack on opposing counsel and “even in the face of very serious sanctions and a direct order
from the court,” Slavin’s lack of respect for the court and its authority. The Supreme Court
affirmed Chancellor Ladd’s findings that Judge Vittone’s complaint that Slavin had been
unprofessional in appearances before the Court and had used the peer review process to harass
judges went beyond criticism of the judiciary and were “transparent attempts to use the legal
process to harass and/or punish judges who issued adverse rulings.”

The Court also affirmed Chancellor Ladd’s finding of ethical violations by Slavin based on the
complaint of Judge Rudolf Jansen who granted summary judgment in a matter in which Slavin
failed to timely respond to a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter Slavin appealed to the
Administrative Review Board and his pleadings contained comments regarding Judge Jansen
found by the Administrative Review Board to be offensive.

Slavin made false statements regarding a client’s illness, had made false statements during a
deposition with regard to a client’s identity as an Investigator, and had failed to communicate
with clients and return their records.

The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of Chancellor Ladd regarding the complaint of a fellow
attorney who stated that Slavin had made disparaging comments about her. Chancellor Ladd
found Slavin’s “actions would serve merely to harass another person or a fellow lawyer.”

Section 18 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 requires Mr. Slavin to notify by registered or
certified mail all clients being represented in pending matters, all co-counsel and opposing
counsel of the Supreme Court’s order suspending his license. Section 18 also requires Slavin to
deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled.

This disciplinary matter was held pursua nt to Supreme Court Rules 8 and 9. Slavin may after the
passage of one year apply for reinstatement of his law license. However, to succeed Slavin must
carry his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that his reinstatement will not be
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or subversive
to the public interest.

LLC:mw
Slavin 1185 rel.doc

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