pandey-34700.pdf (2012)
Archived Content: This document is formally archived for historical reference.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 (pandey-34700.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.
RECEIVED 22:; i... ii n}
APR 11 2012 KHZ APR H PH 3: 27
some or PROFESSIONAL ansronsrsmm [N DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT V
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE . iti'iâiifim. .
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
""ââââ'rr mares. seen
IN RE: ANEEL M. PANDEY, BPE NO. 15611 FILE NO. 34700-S-BM
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Davidson County)
PUBLIC CEN SURE
The above complaint was opened against Aneel M. Pandey, an attorney licensad to
practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of 111isconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
9, the Board of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on March 9,
2012,. '
During Respondentâs own diVorce, he responded to an interrogatory untmthï¬illy and
swore to the truthfulness of the answer. Respondent was deposed in the divorce action and
testiï¬ed that his answers to the interrogatories were truthful. He further untruthtully testified in
response to detailed questions about the subject. When confronted with demonstrative evidence
later in the deposition, Respondent admitted that he had been untruthful in his prior testimony.
Respondent and his wife eventually reconciled, and the divorce action was dismissed.
Respondent lied under oath on at least three occasions about events that were material to
the divorce action. Respondentâs conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice,
dishonest, and repetitive. Respondent self-reported his conduct.
By the aforementioned facts, Aneel M. Pandey, has violated Rules of Professional
Conduct 3.3 (Gander t0 the Tribunal) and 8.4 Misconduct) and is hereby Publicly Censured for
these violations.
FOR. THE BOARD OF
PROFES SIGNAL RESPONSIBILITY
ï¬ax/W
Lela Hollabaugh, Chair)
051W I0, 20/2
' Date