BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (2003)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (graham-26016-rel.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
DEPUTY CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500 JESSE D. JOSEPH
(800) 486-5714 JAMES A. VICK
BEVERLY P. SHARPE FAX: (615) 367-2480 THERESA M. COSTONIS
CONSUMER COUNSEL/DIRECTOR E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
RE: DEBORAH FANNIN GRAHAM, BPR #15493
CONTACT: SANDY GARRETT
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
615-361-7500
July 22, 2003
OAK RIDGE ATTORNEY CENSURED
On July 17, 2003, the Board of Professional Responsibility publicly censured Attorney
Deborah Fannin Graham, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Graham was given notice of the censure
and did not request a hearing.
Graham represented a client in post-divorce proceedings. Grahamâs client complains that
Graham failed to advise the client of a hearing on a petition for contempt filed against the client.
The hearing on the petition for contempt was held without the client or Graham being present.
The resulting order from the hearing found that Graham was properly provided notice of the
petition for contempt against her client and the show cause order. Graham subsequently
misrepresented to her client or failed to explain adequately to her client that she would not
proceed and set aside the order unless the client paid additional fees. Grahamâs neglect and
failure to adequately communicate with her client violates DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(3)
and DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for these actions
the Board publicly censures Graham.
The censure declares Grahamâs actions to be improper ethical misconduct but does not
limit her right to practice law.
SG:mw
Graham 26016 rel.doc