Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

blackwell-56988-3-public-censure.pdf (2018)

Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (blackwell-56988-3-public-censure.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.

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT III
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE.
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: Douglas Neil Blackwell, Respondent, ‘ FILE NO. 56988-3-KB
BPR# 19298, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee.
(Bradley County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed Against Douglas Neil Blackwell, an attorney licensed to

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

9, the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these‘matters at its meeting on September

14, 2018. .

Mr. Blackwell accepted a refundable retainer fee from a client in a conservatorship

proceeding without depositing the fee into his client trust account until earned. Mr. Blackwell

failed to diligentlyrepresent his client’s interest in the matter by delaying the filing of a petition

for nearly a year. The petition filed by Mr. Blackwell did not include a proper physician’s affidavit

nor was a proposed property management plan ever filed. Mr. Blackwell thereafter failed to

adequately communicate with his client or appear in court for status conferences. The court

ultimately removed Mr. Blackwell as counsel and appointed other counsel to represent the client.

Mr. Blackwell failed to provide his former client with the client file. Mr. Blackwell later filed a

fee affidavit at the request of the court which contained material misrepresentations and the court

found the fee to be unreasonable. The court ordered Mr. Blackwell to refund the fees to the former

client which he did. Mr. Blackwell also failed to adequately respond to inquiries from the Board.

By the aforementioned acts, Douglas Neil Blackwell, has violated Rules of Professional Conduct
i151 (jammetanw), 1.3 ({iiligenwx M {mmnunicatimt}, 1.5 (mam), 1.15 (saifiwcping pmpm‘ty),

1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting, litigation), 3.3 (candor toward ’iztibusixw), 83(1))

(climiplirmry mums); and 8.~4(u)(e)(d) (immisconducfi) mad is: hear-6133’ 1311131wa {hemmed fan: {hm}

vicflatioma.

114C331 T113341 BOARD CDT?
3? ' {DI’TSQONAL RE";SPQ‘QMEBILIPIY

'Jixtyifi‘ie Miltmf, (Emil

0:“ 15* m
Batu

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top