Home Late News Justice Cookeville budget Putnam County budget  Archives Search About Contact
Weather Environment Looper  Restaurant sanitation Cookeville Medical Center Opinion Poll results Bob the GOB Guest book

'One of the few journalistic pit bulls on the Internet'

Matt Welch, tabloid.net


THE PUTNAM PIT
[No bull]
Here is the list of lawyers publicly censured by the Tennessee Supreme Court, as reported by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility
e-mail for forms to report crooked lawyers
Dog X -- The Watchdog of the Upper Cumberland

D. PUBLIC CENSURES

Alayne B. Adams, of Memphis, was publicly censured on February 19, 1998 for engaging in a pattern of negligence with regard to three clients for whom she had been retained to file employment cases. Adams failed to file the clients' cases within the statute of limitations, resulting in their cases being dismissed. Adams was in violation of DR 6-101; DR 7-101; and DR 1-102.

______________________________


James D. Adams, of Memphis, was censured for accepting a personal injury case and making an advancement of money to his client against funds expected to be received as a result of a lawsuit or settlement.

______________________________


Charles M. Agee, Jr., of Dyersburg, received a public censure from the Supreme Court of Tennessee on January 29, 1998 for violating DR 1-102; DR 7-110; and T.C.A. 23-3-201(5). Agee submitted a conditional guilty plea, acknowledging that he did favors for Judge Lanier - including a trip to the Bahamas and driving the judge to Memphis to socialize with female employees. Additionally, Agee invested in a Mexican restaurant and signed a $1,000 guarantee on the loan which inured to the benefit of Judge Lanier.

______________________________


Robert B. Akard, Jr., a Brentwood attorney, formerly of Knoxville, received a public censure on August 20, 1991. Akard was employed to represent a client in the appeal to Circuit Court of a General Sessions civil case. He moved to another city and failed to notify his client that the appeal was set for trial and also failed to attend the trial himself. A judgment was entered adverse to the client. The client obtained other counsel to set aside the judgment at additional expense.

The Board determined a public censure was appropriate and no objection was filed by Akard.

______________________________


Jere B. Albright, who practices law in Humboldt, Tennessee, was issued a public censure in June 1991.

In December 1988, he agreed to handle the administration of an estate but neglected the legal matter and failed to take action to open the estate or administer this estate. He further failed and refused to communicate with persons interested in the administration of the estate and failed to appropriately communicate with the Board regarding the allegations of ethical misconduct. This misconduct was aggravated by the fact he had previously been sanctioned for similar misconduct.

______________________________


James T. Allison, of Memphis, was publicly censured on March 16,1998, for violating DR 1-102; DR 5-103; DR 6-103; DR 7-102; and DR 9-102. Allison was charged with overdrawing his client's trust account and commingling personal and operating funds within, for paying personal and operating expenses from his trust account, and for settling a personal injury client's case in March of 1991 but for not paying, in full, the claim of a medical provider, to whom he referred his client, for over five years when he had signed a lien. The petition for discipline also alleged that Allison knowingly delayed payment of this amount, that he willfully concealed the fact of settlement from this medical provider for several years, continued to provide false reasons for his failure to pay this account, and that he misappropriated these client trust funds to his own use.

A hearing panel found Allison guilty of the above charges. Additionally, the panel and the Board found Allison to have improperly paid advances to a client for personal living expenses prior to the settlement of this client's legal matter and to have taken action on behalf of a client when he should have known that the action would serve to harass the medical provider.

The Board credited Allison for the following mitigating factors: his full and free disclosure to the Board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; his good character and reputation and expression of remorse; and the fact that no losses were sustained by his clients. The Board found the following aggravating factors: his prior disciplinary offenses; proof of a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses committed in this case; and his substantial experience in the law.

______________________________


Lenale Anderson, Jr., of Memphis, received a public censure on August 17, 1998 for neglecting his client's legal matter, for being dilatory in responding to Disciplinary Counsel during the investigation of the complaint, and for failing to keep complete escrow records in violation of DR 1-101; DR 6-101; DR 7-101; and DR 9-102.

______________________________


Edmund W. Archer, of Nashville, received a public censure on April 16, 1997 for violating DR 6-101 and DR 7-101. Archer was employed to represent a lessor in a detainer action. He gave notice to the lessee terminating the lease on June 9, 1995, but did not file a detainer warrant until over a year had passed. The client made numerous attempts to contact Respondent. Eventually, Respondent wrote the client indicating that he was still attempting service of process, although that was a false statement as no legal action had been filed. Respondent admits to grossly neglecting the case.

______________________________


Barbara Sims Arthur, of Chattanooga, Tennessee and Rossville, Georgia, was dilatory in filing a petition for adoption for her clients. She also failed to adequately communicate with her clients. She continued to neglect the case even after a disciplinary complaint was filed. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Anthony M. Avery, a Knoxville lawyer, was publicly censured on June 22, 1993. The censure was imposed for Avery's conduct in his representation of a divorce client. He failed to timely file an answer to the divorce complaint, he failed to appear at two pre-trial conferences, and his courtroom demeanor was "brazen and slovenly." Other incidents occurred that displayed Avery's neglect of his client's case. Avery did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


Anthony M. Avery, of Knoxville, received a public censure on July 17, 1997, for violating DR 6-101. Avery represented a client in a fraud/forgery suit. The Chancery Court issued Rule 11 sanctions against Avery stating that he handled the matter without adequate preparation when the complaint was filed.

______________________________


David L. Bacon, of Friendsville, Blount County, received a public censure on May 3, 1998 for neglecting a client in a discrimination case. Bacon failed to advise the client of the court date and failed to attend his client's hearing, resulting in a judgment against the client. The Board found Bacon to have violated DR 1-102; DR 6-101; and DR 7-101.

______________________________


Javier Michael Bailey, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure on October 23, 1992. He was found in contempt of court by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson, for failing to pursue an appeal and for failure to abide by the previous orders of the court.

______________________________


Charles C. Baker, Jr., of Nashville, on February 26, 1996, received a public censure. Baker represented a plaintiff in a personal injury action. Summary judgment was granted in August 1993 because the lawsuit had not been filed within the statute of limitations. Baker did not tell his client about the summary judgment or the dismissal until January 1995. Baker has had prior discipline for neglect.

______________________________


Wesley Baker, of Knoxville received a public censure on November 19, 1996. Rather than forward monies received in judgment onto a third party to whom both Baker and his client had signed a lien, Baker paid the funds directly to the client in an automobile/bicycle accident.

______________________________


Harold Balcolm Jr., a Kingston attorney, was publicly censured an August 15, 1988. Mr. Balcolm was hired to represent a client in a post conviction matter. He failed to timely and expeditiously return the client's documents upon request. He also failed to file a timely response with the Board in reference to the complaint.

______________________________


James Victor Barr, III, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on April 29, 1993. The censure was pursuant to a conditional guilty plea to a Petition for Discipline. The censure was for Barr's failure to timely honor a subrogation claim on behalf of an insurance company. The violation occurred as a result of Barr's negligent supervision of his employee and his failure to set up proper office procedure to insure the identity of funds in his trust account.

______________________________


Henry Clay Barry, a Lebanon attorney, was censured on July 19, 1991. Barry wrote a series of checks to United States Bankruptcy Court for filing fees. The checks were returned for insufficient funds and were immediately made good by Barry. These checks were written on an account styled "Henry Clay Barry, Attorney at Law."

Barry did not have a trust account for the maintenance of client funds. The checks were written on an account for both professional and personal business.

Barry failed to preserve the identity of client funds. The act of failing to preserve client funds was due to the commingling of all funds into one account. Barry has had no prior discipline for any similar conduct and there was no loss to any client. Barry has opened a trust account for client funds.

______________________________


Matthew Q. Bastian, a Gallatin attorney, received a public censure on February 16, 1993. The Board recommended the censure and Bastian did not demand a hearing. The censure was the result of two complaints. In one matter, Bastian failed to file an appellate brief (even though he had been given additional time to file the brief) and his client's appeal was dismissed. In the other matter, Bastian received full payment to prepare a will for an elderly client, but failed to prepare it for six months. The will he finally prepared was unsuitable and the client employed another attorney to prepare the will.

______________________________


Matthew Q. Bastian, a Hendersonville attorney, was publicly censured on November 9, 1994. He failed to timely file a brief on behalf of his clients in three separate matters before the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals held Bastian in contempt for his failure to file timely. Bastian did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


Matthew Q. Bastian, of McMinnville, received a public censure on August 17, 1998. The censure was based on three complaints. In two of the complaints, Bastian represented clients in litigation where he failed to reasonably communicate with the clients. He did not answer or return phone calls and neglected both matters while repeatedly promising performance which never occurred. The third complaint involved Bastian opening a law office in a different county without informing his clients of his move. Large amounts of unopened mail were left at his office and many messages were not returned. The Board found him in violation of DR 6-101; DR 7-101; and DR 7-101 but did consider the mitigating factor that respondent was ill during a portion of the misconduct. The Board also considered the aggravating factor that respondent has been disciplined before for similar misconduct.

______________________________


Nader Baydoun, of Nashville, was censured for inadvertently commingling clients' funds in a non-trust account. No damages resulted to any clients.

______________________________


Ernest Keith Bell, a Hendersonville attorney, received a public censure on February 2, 1994. Bell filed suit on a fire insurance policy in December 1989, but took a voluntary non-suit in August 1990 without notifying his client. He re-filed the suit but a summary judgment was entered against the plaintiff based an the contractual statute of limitations contained in the insurance policy. The censure was for neglect and failure to communicate with his client; Bell did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


Paul Bergmann, III, of Chattanooga, was publicly censured on February 17, 1998 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 2-106. Bergmann over billed the State of Tennessee in the amount of $2,793 in 1992 and 1993 for representing indigent defendants.

______________________________


James E. Blount, III, a Memphis lawyer, was publicly censured on January 21, 1993. The censure was recommended by a hearing panel and the Board concurred. Blount dismissed his client's cause of action under the Federal Court Claims Act without timely advising his client of the dismissal or the effect of the dismissal. The fact that the Complainant took no action for two years after she had knowledge of Blount's action was a mitigating circumstance. Aggravating circumstances were the fact that Blount had received prior discipline for failure to appropriately communicate with Disciplinary Counsel and also failed to timely respond in the current case.

______________________________


James E. Blount, III, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure on July 15, 1993. The censure was for neglecting his client's legal matter, failure to adequately communicate with his client regarding her case, allowing her case to be dismissed for lack of prosecution without her knowledge and failing to return her original medical records until a complaint was filed with the Board. Blount did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


James S. Blount, of Memphis, was publicly censured on April 11, 1997. Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for discipline. In his conditional guilty plea, Blount acknowledged that he violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6); DR 7-106(C)(5)(6) and DR 7-108(D).

______________________________


Meredith C. Bond received a public censure in February 1988. The censure was recommended after a full hearing before a hearing committee. Bond had obtained some monies on behalf of an insured and insurer. The insured and insurer disagreed on how to divide the money. Bond properly retained the money in his trust account. Both insured and insurer apparently forgot about the money and considerable time passed.

Bond encountered substantial personal and financial problems. He was guaranteed a certain sum of money in the near future, but had immediate need of funds. Therefore, he borrowed the trust money for personal purposes. Within a few weeks he replaced the money and reported his action to the Board.

The hearing panel found substantial mitigation in the fact that no harm was suffered, that Bond personally reported this violation, that numerous individuals testified that this was not Bond's normal course of conduct, and that Bond suffered extreme and substantial personal guilt because of his actions.

______________________________


Arch B. Boyd, III, of Memphis, on November 14, 1995, received a public censure. Boyd was held in contempt of Court and fined for his failure to file an appellant's brief on two occasions. The Court found a lack of mitigation in the case and fined Boyd $40.00, costs, and sentenced him to ten (10) days in jail with all but two (2) days suspended on the condition that Boyd comply with all requirements of the order within thirty (30) days of the entry of the order.

______________________________


Sam P. Bradley, a Memphis attorney, received a public censure on November 8, 1993. Bradley neglected his client's case and failed to adequately communicate with his client. When the client terminated his services, Bradley gave a check for $5,000 to his client's new attorney which was subsequently returned for insufficient funds. Bradley did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Larry Brandon, on September 8, 1987, signed a Conditional Guilty Plea to the Petition filed against him on May 8, 1987. On October 5, 1987, the Board filed an order publicly censuring him.

Brandon represented a criminal defendant and after his client's conviction he failed to communicate adequately to his client the legal consequences of failing to file a motion for a new trial.

In another matter Brandon accepted over $2000.00 to possibly pay off some bad checks his client had been charged with passing. He did not deposit the money in his escrow account as required. He also neglected the case and did not communicate adequately with his client.

______________________________


Nathan Brooks, of Chattanooga publicly censured June 5, 1989. Brooks was hired to represent a client in an insurance action. The client had two sets of insurance claims. The client did not know which claim was valid, Brooks only filed one claim. This claim was denied and Brooks failed to file the other claim.

The client became dissatisfied with Brooks over the next few months as he would not return her calls. The client hired new counsel, who immediately filed the second claim. A check was issued on the claim and mailed to Brooks as he had contacted the representative on the first claim. The representative did not know of new counsel involvement. The checks were mailed along with a release which requested the client to sign and acknowledge receipt of the checks. The agent did not receive this release and over the next two months he made two to three calls to Brooks which were not returned.

The insurance representative became aware of new counsel and they both tried to contact Brooks. Brooks filed suit against the client after receiving a letter from the new counsel regarding the checks. The representative phoned Brooks asking him to forward the monies to the client. Brooks threatened to sue anyone if they filed a complaint with the Board.

All monies have been delivered to the client.

______________________________


Jerry Lee Burgess, of Cookeville, was censured for representing both Putnam County as County Attorney and Sequatchie Power Company in matters where the interests of each client were actually or potentially in conflict.

______________________________


William Cameron, of Cookeville, was publicly censured January 5. 1990. Cameron represented a client charged with D.U.I., and during the course of the representation he implied he could get special consideration from his client's arresting officer because he was representing him in a divorce. The client was charged an additional fee which was to be used for the officer's divorce.

He also failed to timely respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request for information during the investigation.

______________________________


John Camp, of Sparta, was publicly censured October 11, 1989. An ethical complaint was filed against Camp based on the same facts which were at issue in a federal lawsuit file and decided in the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee.

In his representation of a client Mr. Camp submitted bills for work not related to his legal representation and for work done after the attorney-client relationship has ceased.

He assigned a contract without his client's clear authorization.

He negotiated a sale for his client in which he had a personal interest, and did not adequately disclose this conflict of interest to his client. He conditioned the sale upon the purchaser's agreement to also purchase his interest, holding his own interest above those of his client.

He issued an opinion letter for his client and later attempted to deny his client use of this letter despite having been compensated for writing the letter.

______________________________


John R. Candy, of Memphis, was publicly censured on February 19, 1998 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 9-102. Candy withheld money from the complainant's personal injury settlement in the amount of $16,666.33 in order to negotiate a subrogation claim. Candy negotiated with Blue Cross, but neglected to pay the funds for several months. After a complaint was filed against him, Candy paid the additional money to the complainant. Candy's escrow account had dropped well below the subrogation amount, which Candy relates to poor record keeping.

______________________________


Patricia Spicer Carden, a Brentwood attorney, received a public censure on July 15, 1993. Carden failed to notify the client about receipt of some funds belonging to the client; the client only learned about the receipt of funds when she received a copy of her file from Carden. While in her possession, Carden did not adequately safeguard the funds and also failed to return phone calls and otherwise communicate with her client. Carden accepted the censure and did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


Mark Anthony Carey, a Nashville attorney, was issued a public censure on October 29, 1992. A complaint was filed against Carey based upon professional misconduct while employed as an Assistant District Attorney for Davidson County.

Carey filed a series of falsified reports to the police and the District Attorney's Office misrepresenting that he had been the victim of threats of physical violence, vandalism and assault. A full investigation was instituted by the District Attorney and police. During the investigation, Carey was confronted with a number of inconsistencies at which point he admitted the reported acts of violence were untrue.

The Board determined a public censure was appropriate and Carey did not object.

______________________________


Richard Lee Carnell, Sr., of Memphis, on January 4, 1996, was publicly censured. Carnell submitted a conditional guilty plea. He also met with the Court to apologize. Carnell became involved with his client in assisting the client to secret assets and the Court found that he was not a credible witness when testifying about the secreting of the assets.

______________________________


Joe D. Carter, a Smithville attorney, received a public censure on November 18, 1993. A complaint alleging misconduct was mailed to Carter on January 22, 1993. Three subsequent notices were mailed, including two certified notices in March and April 1993. Carter filed a response on April 14, 1993, but failed to respond to further inquiries from Disciplinary Counsel. Carter did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Ray E. Cate, of Knoxville, was censured for failing to file a timely brief with the Court of Criminal Appeals on behalf of his client. The Court of Criminal Appeals suspended Cate's right to practice before it for nine months predicated on its having found Cate in contempt on two previous occasions for similar conduct and having admonished him against repetition of such misconduct. Cate, also, did not respond to the Board's notices of complaint.

______________________________


Ray Cate, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on May 10, 1989. In 1983, Cate was hired to represent a client who was injured at work in a worker's compensation action. Cate filed the complaint on November 28, 1983. Service of process was had on November 30, 1983. In October 1984, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The client contacted Cate on several occasions to find out the status of the case and was always advised by Cate that the suit was filed and he would have to wait until the matter was heard. The client found out in 1987 from the Clerk and Master of Knox County that the case was dismissed. The client had several witnesses to verify his attempts to contact Cate in reference to the status of the case, including family member and two of Cate's former secretaries.

Cate was found in the very least to have not done an adequate job of communicating with his client. Cate's neglect is aggravates by the fact he received a prior public censure in 1985. See D-7.

______________________________


E. Ronald Chestnut, a Greenville attorney, received a public censure on August 13, 1991. Chestnut did not request a hearing in the matter.

Chestnut was hired to represent a wife in regard to her husband's estate. Chestnut was involved in the case for almost two years but did little in the case and would not return his client's phone calls. The client eventually hired another attorney who settled the matter almost immediately.

Chestnut also did not timely respond to inquiries from the Board of Professional Responsibility. At one time he had to be subpoenaed to provide a response.

______________________________


J. G. Christenberry, of Knoxville, was given a public censure for violating DR 5-105(A), resulting from his serving as administrator of an estate and undertaking representation of two of the heirs and negotiating with attorneys for other heirs to effect a division of real estate among the various heirs. He compromised claims by certain heirs against the estate and included a fee for himself as administrator without adequately informing the clients of the areas of potential conflict of interest between his representation of them and his functions as administrator.

______________________________


Hal H. Clements, Jr., of Knoxville, submitted a guilty plea to charges that he had assisted a friend, without fee or compensation, in conveying property and creating documents to reflect a nonexistent security interest in the friend's property in order to delay or impede potential collection of debt by creditors of the friend. The Board accepted the plea and imposed a public censure.

______________________________


Jimmy D. Collins, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure on February 20, 1992.

Collins failed to honor an award made by the Memphis Bar Association's Fee Dispute Committee based on failure to return to his client certain funds which had been paid for advanced expenses and which had not been expended.

______________________________


Joseph E. Costner, of Maryville, filed a complaint for divorce, alleging cruel and inhumane treatment, on behalf of the wife. He also typed an answer for the husband to file pro se. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Thomas E. Cowan, Jr., an Elizabethton attorney, was issued a public censure on November 28, 1991. The censure resulted from Cowan's conduct in three different complaints.

The first complaint involved the charge of an allegedly excessive fee. Cowan failed to timely respond to Board inquiries, and did not respond to the complaint until the day before he was provided a notice of intent to suspend his law license. The second complaint alleged neglect in an attempt by Cowan to collect past child support and increase child support payments. Again, Cowan did not timely respond to the complaint and only did so when he was provided a deadline before application to temporarily suspend his law license. The third complaint involved Cowan's failure to pay two doctor's deposition fees from settlement proceeds. Cowan also failed to respond to this complaint until the day before he was advised that Disciplinary Counsel would seek a suspension of his law license.

Cowan was given notice of the censure and did not request a hearing.

______________________________


Anthony J. Craighead, of Cookeville, received a public censure on June 17, 1998 for violating DR 8-102 and DR 8-103. Craighead ran as a candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District and published campaign advertisements in newspapers and on the radio which made statements and assertions regarding prior decisions and/or opinions made by his opponent, the incumbent judge, in criminal cases. These assertions were found by the Board to misrepresent and/or create false and misleading impressions regarding those decisions. Additionally, the Board found Craighead to have made false statements that the records of certain juvenile matters were subject to review by the public, when they were not.

______________________________


David Creekmore was publicly censured by the Board on January 27, 1988, pursuant to the recommendation of a hearing panel after a full hearing on the matter. After reviewing the evidence the panel determined that Creekmore, while serving as General Sessions Judge, violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by executing orders and property receipts which appeared on their face to be invalid and incorrect. The panel found, as a mitigating circumstance, that as a result of this activity, Creekmore voluntarily resigned his judgeship.

______________________________


Ron Cunningham, of Knoxville, failed to report the misconduct of an associate in his firm. The associate had converted to his personal use $5,500.00 from a settlement check held in trust. The next year, Cunningham learned of the circumstances and received the associate's confession of the misappropriation. Cunningham immediately compensated the client in the amount of $11,087.00, the full amount of the claim, and terminated the firm's relationship with the associate. The Board did not learn of the conversion of the funds until almost two more years had passed. A Hearing Panel recommended a Public Censure.

______________________________


Russell C. Dafferner, a Memphis attorney, received a public censure on April 28, 1993. The censure was for neglect and failure to communicate with his clients. Dafferner did not demand a hearing in this matter.
 


______________________________


Russell C. Dafferner, a Memphis attorney, was censured by the Board on October 15, 1993 for neglect, failure to communicate with his clients, and failure to communicate promptly with Disciplinary Counsel. He was retained in May 1992 to file a Petition to enforce a final divorce decree and neglected the case until September 1993. The Board recommended the censure and Dafferner did not request a hearing.

______________________________


Joel H. Dark, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on December 5, 1994. Dark had entered into a business arrangement with a paralegal that violated the ethical rules regarding aiding the unauthorized practice of law, dividing legal fees with a non-lawyer, and forming a partnership with a non-lawyer. He also did not provide competent and timely representation in two cases he handled. Dark did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Earl P. Davis, a Memphis attorney, was publicly, censured on September 22, 1988. He tendered a guilty plea to charges that as co-administrator of an estate, he had neglected the matter and had failed to close the estate promptly. His discipline was mitigated by his recent health problems.

______________________________


Eric L. Davis, a Franklin attorney, was publicly censured on November 12, 1993 for using vulgar, obscene and sexist language when speaking with a female public defender following a preliminary hearing, and also when speaking to another female employee of the public defender's office at a later time. Davis accepted the censure and did not request a hearing.

______________________________


Gerald Wayne Davis, of Nashville, failed to respond to a complaint filed against him with the Board, despite four requests. He had similarly failed to respond on two prior occasions. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________




Gerald Wayne Davis, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on January 6, 1995. The censure was for commingling personal funds in his trust account and was issued in conjunction with a suspension of his law license. A hearing panel imposed the suspension and censure after a full hearing on the commingling charges.

______________________________


William J. Davis, of Pope, Mississippi, received a public censure in Mississippi. As city prosecutor, Davis had been aiding the prosecution of a criminal defendant. After not being reappointed as the city prosecutor. Davis became associated with the defense and revealed confidential information to defense counsel that he had obtained as city prosecutor.

Attorneys licensed to practice law in Tennessee are subject to reciprocal discipline if they are disciplined in another state.
 


______________________________


Andrew J. Dearing, of Shelbyville, received a public censure on April 24, 1998 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 7-106. In State V. Farrar, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued an order on October 29, 1997, finding that Dearing failed to show good cause as to why he failed to comply with the Court's September 15, 1997 order. Dearing had not filed a timely response to the September 15 order, thus the Court had entered a show cause order for October 15, 1997. On October 21, 1997, Dearing filed a response to the show cause order and attached a signed statement indicating the Appellant did not want to pursue the appeal. The Court issued the October 29, 1997 order finding Dearing in willful contempt and ordering a fine of $50 plus costs.

______________________________


Alan C. DeBusk, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on August 13, 1992.

DeBusk told a client's family and the law firm in which he was employed that he had filed a lawsuit when, in fact, the statute had run. He covered up this fact by providing his client with documents indicating the case was proceeding. He informed his clients and firm the case was under advisement for years. He also failed to return phone calls to his client relative to this file.

______________________________


Benjamin Dempsey, a Huntingdon lawyer, was publicly censured on November 9, 1988. Dempsey failed to comply with conditions imposed as a result on his previous suspension from practicing law. Dempsey failed to file an affidavit with the Tennessee Supreme Court within 10 days of his previous suspension showing that he notified his clients and others of his suspension as required by the disciplinary rules. Dempsey also failed to timely respond to the Board concerning a complaint of ethical misconduct.

______________________________


Thomas DePersio, an Oak Ridge lawyer, was publicly censured on August 8, 1988. DePersio was hired to represent a client charged with aggravated sexual battery. He failed to appear for two scheduled hearings without giving advance notice to opposing counsel.

______________________________


Larry J. Dewane, of Nashville, was retained by his client to represent him regarding an injury occurring during his employment. Dewane did not file a lawsuit but on inquiries by the client made false statements about developments in the case. When the client determined from an inquiry of the court clerk that there was no lawsuit pending, Dewane admitted that he had not filed a suit and had given false information. Another client employed Dewane to file suit relative to a real estate investment partnership. Respondent failed to file any action but advised the client that the suit was pending and progressing well.

______________________________


John H. Dinwiddle, of Cleveland, refused to furnish a copy of the trial transcript to his criminal defendant client. He would not communicate with his client as to his appeal and did not tell him the appeal had been dismissed. A Hearing Panel recommended a Public Censure.

______________________________


Danny Dockery, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured April 16, 1990. Dockery was hired to represent a client in a sex and race discrimination suit. He failed to keep his client informed as to the progress and status of her legal matter, neglected the matter entrusted to him and permitted his client's suit to be dismissed with prejudice for failure to file with the court a more definite statement as ordered.

Further, during the course of their disciplinary investigation by the Board, Dockery failed to appropriately respond regarding the allegations of ethical misconduct.

______________________________


Danny K. Dockery was publicly censured on July 23, 1996. Dockery failed to withdraw from his client's case and to return her file after a request by the client. He failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility regarding this matter, as well.

______________________________


Howard Douglas, a Livingston lawyer, was censured January 31, 1990. Douglas was found in contempt by the Criminal Court of Appeals in Jackson for failure to timely file appellate briefs. He also failed to file for an extension of time to file the briefs; failed to communicate with the State Attorney regarding any problem to prevent him from filing the brief; failed to respond to the State's motion to dismiss the appeal and failed to appear in court to offer any explanation on the Motion to Dismiss.

______________________________


Dwight E. Duncan, a Nevada attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, was publicly censured on February 22, 1993. Duncan was found in willful contempt of court by the Chancery Court of Shelby County for failure to comply with the orders of the Chancery Court of Shelby County, or to properly use the appellate process. The Board issued the censure and Duncan did not object to the censure within the time permitted by Rule 9.

______________________________



Dwight E. Duncan, a Tennessee attorney, was publicly censured on July 13, 1993. Duncan failed to notify his client of the outcome of her appeal, and only did so when questioned by his client three months later, when it was too late for his client to take any further action. Duncan was given notice of the censure and did not request a hearing.

______________________________


David L. Dunlap, a Nashville attorney, was issued a public censure by the Board on January 25, 1991. The investigation was concluded by a dismissal on October 6, 1989. It was reopened on October 30, 1990, based on allegations of continued misconduct.

In October 1989, Dunlap settled a case and was to prepare an agreed order to be submitted to adversary counsel. He failed to deliver the agreed order by June 1990, despite numerous requests by his client. Dunlap advised Disciplinary Counsel in July 1990, that he would submit the order and obtain the judgment proceeds promptly. He failed to submit the order and in October 1990, his client discharged him as his attorney and negotiated the settlement directly with adversary counsel. Dunlap failed to cooperate or communicate with his client or Disciplinary Counsel regarding this matter.

______________________________


Robert E. Dunphy, of Knoxville, received a public censure on June 5, 1991. Dunphy agreed to represent two clients in their cases then went for a substantial period of time neglecting their cases. He also failed to communicate with them regarding their cases.

Dunphy further failed to answer one client's complaint filed against him, resulting in his law license being temporarily suspended until he filed an answer.

______________________________


Robert E. Dunphy, a Knoxville attorney, received a public censure on July 15, 1993. Dunphy failed to communicate with his client as to the status of her case and furthermore failed to timely respond to the Board's inquiry. Dunphy was given notice of the censure and did not request a hearing.

______________________________


Robert E. Dunphy, a Knoxville lawyer, received a public censure on February 13, 1995. Dunphy neglected his client's Social Security disability claim appeal and did not communicate with his client for months. Dunphy failed to return the client's file when requested. He also did not respond to the complaint and his law license was suspended as a result. The Board did not obtain his answer until his law license was reinstated. Dunphy did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


William L. Embry, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on January 5, 1994. The censure was pursuant to a conditional guilty plea in response to a petition for discipline. In October 1988, Embry commenced a course of irrational behavior involving threats of violence to his wife and others, irrational administration of personal funds and assets, and violation of laws and court orders.

______________________________


Stanley G. Emert, Jr., a Knoxville attorney, was issued a public censure on November 9, 1990. Emert was retained to represent a client and failed to properly communicate with him in 1986. He also failed to properly communicate with another client in 1987. The Board determined that an informal public censure was appropriate.

______________________________


James Estep, a Tazewell lawyer, was publicly censured on September 28, 1988. Estep was hired by the husband in a divorce proceedings on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. He prepared five property settlement agreements and each time the wife picked up the agreement, and left. At no time did she confer with Estep. When there was an agreement on the property settlement, Estep set up a meeting of all parties in his office. At that meeting it was decided the grounds for divorce would be cruel and inhuman treatment to avoid the waiting period. Estep announced that he was going to represent the wife in this matter. He called for a neighboring attorney to represent the husband.

______________________________


Larry Fitzgerald, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on February 6, 1995. The censure resulted from a guilty plea tendered in response to a petition for discipline. Fitzgerald neglected legal matters and failed to communicate with his clients in four separate cases.

______________________________


Robert Dwight Foster, a Knoxville attorney, was publicly censured March 7, 1990. Foster accepted a fee to file a divorce action and failed to do so and failed to return the unearned portion of the fee.

______________________________


Robert Dwight Foster, a Knoxville attorney, was issued a public ensure on May 2, 1991. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the Board gave notice of this censure to Foster. He accepted the censure and did not request a hearing.

Foster neglected to forward a check to adversary counsel for three or four months, but eventually did forward the check. He then did not respond to continued requests to enter into an agreed order reflecting the payment.

Foster came close to having his law license temporarily suspended for failure to respond. He received five letters from the Board before he responded to the complaint. He did not answer the complaint for three months and had no extension.

Foster was found guilty of neglect, and failure to timely respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

______________________________


Robert Dwight Foster, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on June 25, 1997 for violating DR 6-101. Foster failed to draft a will after complainants retained respondent for $50. Foster claimed he was not aware of any urgency in drafting the will but the Board censured him regardless.

______________________________


Raymond W. Fraley was given a public censure for cursing and striking an attorney at the Lincoln County Courthouse. On another occasion he knocked the files out of opposing counsel's hands in the hallway of the courthouse and cursed him.

______________________________


Burt Raymond Francis, Jr., of Davidson County, was given a public censure for neglecting two legal matters. In one instance he neglected taking medical depositions in a worker's compensation case and in the other instance he neglected entering an order requiring a performance bond for payment of child support as had been agreed between the parties.

______________________________


Steven Carl Frazier, a Hawkins County attorney, received a public censure on September 21, 1994. The underlying complaint concerned Frazier's lack of communication with a client; however, Frazier did not respond to the complaint until he received a copy of a Petition for Temporary Suspension. His license was suspended and he was reinstated subject to conditions.

______________________________


Steven Carl Frazier, of Church Hill, received a public censure on May 18, 1998 resulting from two cases. First, Frazier had been retained by a client to represent her relative to the estate of an individual she claimed to be her father. Frazier did nothing on the case, besides phone calls and trips to the courthouse, until May of 1996. By this time, the estate was probated and closed. Frazier did file a complaint in May of 1996 alleging the property owned by his client's father actually belonged to his client. After July 1996, no further action was taken on the matter. Frazier then failed to respond to his notices of complaint and to a subpoena requesting the file.

In a second case, Frazier had been retained by a client in October of 1994 but ceased engaging in any activity relative to the case by the end of 1995. Frazier closed the estate after the complaint was filed. Again, Frazier refused to respond to the Disciplinary Counsel until he received a phone call, whereupon he turned over the client's file.

Frazier was found to violate DR 1-102; DR 6-101; and DR 7-101. The Board considered Frazier's prior public censure of September 26, 1994 for neglecting a case and failing to respond to disciplinary counsel as an aggravating circumstance. According to the Board, Frazier has illustrated a pattern of failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel.

______________________________


William E. Friedman, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on July 9, 1991. Three complaints were filed against Friedman for neglect and failure to communicate.

In his representation of his clients, Friedman neglected their legal matters and failed to communicate with his clients. Two of these legal matters were estates that had remained open for several years.

______________________________


William E. Friedman, of Memphis, was publicly censured on August 25, 1997 for violating DR 1-102; DR 6-101; DR 7-101; and DR7-102. Friedman agreed to represent a complainant in a slip and fall in September l992 but granted the defendant the ability to postpone answering until 50 days after service, without sufficient justification. Friedman did nothing on the case until March of 1995 after receiving the defendant's answer, which was two years overdue. Friedman did not discuss with the client that there was insufficient proof and that her claim could not be made without the proof and took a voluntary dismissal for failure to prosecute in May of 1996. Not until ten months later did Friedman inform his client of the non-suit. He, then, re-filed the suit in February 1997 without gaining any additional evidence. The Board considered the fact that Friedman had satisfactorily represented his client in the past and that he had provided valuable services to many clients in almost 40 years of practice as mitigating factors. However, the Board also considered that Friedman had been disciplined by the Board on several prior occasions for neglect-related matters and for lack of reasonable promptness in representing clients.

______________________________


Charles Galbreath, of Nashville, in handling a divorce case failed to preserve confidences of his client, accepted employment when his personal interests may have impaired his independent professional judgment, accepted employment when the interests of another client may have impaired his independent professional judgment, and communicated with one of adverse interest. The hearing panel concluded that he should be publicly censured.

______________________________


Barry L. Gardner, of Brentwood, was publicly censured on April 14, 1998 for violating DR 1102(A)(1); DR 9-102(A);DR 9-101(B)(4);and DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4)(C). While representing a client and after being paid for such representation, Gardner failed to set up a Trust Account and failed to provide the client with an accounting after the client disputed whether or not Gardner performed the duties for which he was paid. Mitigating circumstances include the following: Gardner later opened a Trust Account for his client; he maintained proper client records, he provided a detailed accounting of his representation to the client; he agreed to be bound by the Fee Dispute Committee findings; he completed the Board's Ethics School Seminar; and he agreed to pay the costs and expenses the Board incurred while prosecuting him. In another matter, Gardner failed to communicate properly to his client the status of the client's case and the extent of duties performed in such case.

______________________________


Fred Michie Gibson, Jr., of Nashville, was publicly censured on January 5, 1997 for violating DR 1-102. Gibson rushed to his car and fled in it after IRS officers appeared at his office on February 14, 1996 to seize his automobile for unpaid taxes.

______________________________


William Travis Gobble, of Lawrenceburg, on February 8, 1996, received a public censure. Gobble represented a client in a criminal case in 1980. At the client's criminal trial, Gobble did not voir dire the jury, did not present any proof, did not cross-examine any witnesses and did not argue to the jury. The client was convicted and given the maximum sentence on all counts. The Sixth Circuit Court found Gobble to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel to his client. In addition, Mr. Gobble misled Disciplinary Counsel about whether the client had subsequently retained him to file a habeas corpus petition.

______________________________


Charles Gordon, of Knoxville, failed to properly advise his bankruptcy clients of all their legal options in addition to seeking bankruptcy. As a result, some filed bankruptcy petitions when said petitions were inadvisable. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court placed Gordon on "probation" for this impropriety. Gordon also advertised a fee of $150.00 for a "non-business bankruptcy," but charged a fee of $250.00 in at least one instance. The Bankruptcy Court ordered a refund of this money. In addition, Gordon represented a husband and wife in bankruptcy court at the same time that he represented the husband in a divorce action against the wife. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Charles Gordon, a Knoxville attorney, received a public censure on May 9, 1994. The censure was for Gordon's conflict of interest in preparing an Answer for a wife to sign in a divorce proceeding when he was representing the husband. The Answer signed by the wife admitted to abandonment. Gordon also communicated with the wife while she was represented by counsel. He did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


James L. Gordon, of Memphis, was publicly censured on December 5, 1997 for violating DR 1102 and DR 7-106. An adverse party in a custody proceeding filed a complaint against Gordon for notarizing a forged signature of his client to the Oath of a Petition to Modify Child Custody. Either Gordon or another individual forged the signature and Gordon filed the petition with the court. The Board found that Gordon took action on the client's behalf when he should have known that the action would merely serve to harass another. Additionally, the Board found that Gordon concealed from the court information that he was required to reveal, and knowingly used false evidence, and he knowingly engaged in conduct contrary to the Disciplinary Rules. The Board considered the following mitigating factors: respondent has received no public discipline in over twenty years of practice and his acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

______________________________


William C. Gosnell, of Memphis, was publicly censured on April 21, 1997 for neglect, failure to communicate, making a false statement and recommendation of professional employment through another. A petition for discipline and a supplemental petition for discipline were filed against him. Gosnell submitted his conditional guilty plea.

______________________________


William C. Gosnell, of Memphis, received a public censure on February 19, 1998 for violating DR 1-102; DR 6-101; and DR 7-101. Gosnell was censured as a result of two matters. In one, Gosnell neglected his client's legal matter and failed to keep him adequately informed about his case. In the other, Gosnell acted the same as in the above matter but in this case, the client found that her case had been dismissed in 1992. The court found the failure of the respondent to cooperate in discovery hindered defense counsel from representing his client and delayed court scheduling of the matter. Thus, the court concluded that the action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Additionally, the Board found respondent to be dilatory in communicating with the state's disciplinary agency.

______________________________


Dorothy Graham, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on October 2, 1987, pursuant to a recommendation by a hearing panel.

The hearing panel approved Graham's guilty plea in which she admitted that in three separate instances she failed to communicate adequately with clients concerning legal matters and failed to timely complete the closing of a real estate transaction. Her discipline was mitigated because of her physical disabilities and the fact that she had voluntarily limited her practice and had ceased to perform services as a real estate closing attorney.

______________________________


Richard Zane Gray, an Elizabethon attorney, received a public censure on September 26, 1994. Gray filed a lawsuit on behalf of his wife and then named himself as the defendant, while also signing a surety for the plaintiff. Gray did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Gerald S. Green, of Memphis, on May 24, 1995, was publicly censured. Five complaints were filed against Green. Four of the complaints were filed by clients and one by an adverse party. Green neglected his clients, legal matters and failed to communicate adequately regarding their legal matters. Regarding the complaint filed by the adverse party, Green removed the adverse party's contested divorce action off the contested calendar and placed it on a non-contested calendar. Thereafter, the Court ruled the case continued on three separate occasions. Neither the adverse party nor her attorney was notified by the Court or by Green of the continuances. Green then express mailed a letter to the adverse party who was residing in California a day before the hearing, which she received after the hearing. Green and his client represented to the Court that the complainant had been notified of the divorce. They did not advise the Court that the notice had been sent the day prior to the hearing.

______________________________


Leonard Gregory, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on October 13, 1988. He was charged with shoplifting several packages of cigarettes from Kroger. He chose to forfeit the bond rather than fight the charge.

______________________________


Norman Griffin, a Knoxville lawyer, was publicly censured August 30, 1989. Griffin had been appointed guardian and trustee of monies which a client had received in a judgment. An accounting had not been filed since January 1, 1982. The client obtained counsel who wrote and tried to call Griffin asking for an accounting. The Clerk and Master wrote Griffin on March 15, 1988, and received no response. A complaint was filed with the Board on May 26, 1988 by the client's counsel. Griffin wrote counsel a letter in which he termed counsel's complaint as "dangerously irresponsible" and accused him of not representing the client in a "professional manner." Griffin then provided an accounting.

Griffin stated the reason he had not provided an accounting earlier was "[W]e moved our office and shortly thereafter this file along with several others somehow became misplaced and was only recently found." He offered no explanation for not responding to counsel's and the Clerk and Master's earlier letter.

The Board stated that this was not the first time Griffin received monies in trust and held said monies for an unreasonable time without making an accounting.

______________________________


Norman L. Griffin, of Knoxville, on October 27, 1995, received a public censure. The complaint was filed by another attorney, Norman L. Shaw. On March 4, 1991, Griffin had filed a suit against Shaw on behalf of a former employee alleging that Shaw did not compensate the employee to the extent provided in the contract. A motion to dismiss was filed. On January 24, 1994, the Court treated the motion as one for Summary Judgment since "there were no disputed issues of fact and . . . the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Griffin then filed a new lawsuit on a variation of the defendant's business name which the Court dismissed with prejudice. Shaw claims this was a frivolous lawsuit and that Griffin should be disciplined. The issue of the frivolous lawsuit does not concern the Board as much as the issue of a belligerent letter Griffin wrote to Shaw's attorney upon Shaw's filing of the complaint. Griffin was unable to provide an adequate explanation of the letter when asked for one.

______________________________


Gary W. Groover, an attorney in Anderson county, received a public censure on May 12, 1993. Groover neglected one of his client's cases and a malpractice judgment was rendered against him. He also neglected another client's bankruptcy case. Misrepresentation was involved in both of these cases. A mitigating factor was that Groover had undergone a divorce which cause him emotional and marital problems. Groover did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


Gary Groover, a Clinton attorney, was publicly censured on December 13, 1994. The censure was imposed for Groover's conduct in four separate cases. In one, Groover filed a lawsuit and appealed its dismissal, knowing the suit was groundless to begin with; in the second case, he failed to appear at an arraignment on behalf of his client and failed to refund any money as promised; in the third case, Groover again failed to refund money after agreeing to do so; and in the fourth case, Groover commingled personal funds with his client's. Groover did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Jenks L. Hackney, of Nashville, was censured for the neglect of a legal matter and failure to return clients' documents to them upon their request.

______________________________


Stafford Hagwood, a Jackson attorney, was issued a public censure in July 1991. He failed to appropriately represent his client whose suspended sentence was revoked. Following the revocation hearing Hagwood refused to communicate with his client, failed to file an appeal or obtain a waiver of the client's right to an appeal.

______________________________


Roscoe J. Hamby, of Nashville, was censured for neglecting two legal matters. He failed to file a divorce action on behalf of a client and failed to conclude an adoption matter on behalf of another client.

______________________________


Thomas Hansen, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on November 7, 1989. He was hired to represent a commercial airline pilot regarding the appeal of the suspension of his pilot's license. He failed to communicate with his client and keep him informed of the progress and status of his case and allowed the appeal to be dismissed for failure to file a brief within the time allowed.

Hansen was found to have 1) neglected a matter entrusted to him, 2) failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, 3) failed to keep his client reasonably informed as to the status of his legal matter, and 4) failed to explain the matter to his client, to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

______________________________


Finley Wren Harbison, of Nashville, was involved in a lawsuit concerning an indemnity contract. Both he and his wife were parties in the lawsuit. He acted as counsel for his wife and obtained other counsel in his own behalf. Harbison failed to ensure that the final order entered in the case correctly reflected the settlement between the parties. He also participated in an ex parte conference with the judge without giving notice to other counsel and without other counsel being present.

______________________________


Finley Wren Harbison, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on June 27, 1988. He neglected a client's case by failing to undertake sufficient effort to effect service of his client's lawsuit on all parties and to adequately advise his client of her administrative remedies in the case. Harbison agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the public censure.

______________________________


Barry Hardin, a Memphis lawyer, was publicly censured on October 7, 1988. Hardin was suspended from practice on June 23, 1980, for failure to pay his annual registration fees required on attorneys but continued to practice. He was found by the Supreme Court to be in contempt of the Court's order. He also failed to respond to the Board regarding allegations of misconduct filed against him. As of August 9, 1988, all registration fees and arrearages have been paid.

______________________________


J. T. Harris, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure in July 1991.

The Board found that Harris entered into a fee agreement to charge a fee in a medical malpractice case in excess of that allowed by the Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-120; failed to appropriately communicate with his client regarding the progress and status of the client's case; failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client and failed to explain the matter to his client to the extent necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions.

______________________________


J. T. Harris, of Memphis, was publicly censured on March 16, 1998 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 2-104. Harris improperly solicited professional employment in person on November 19, 1996, from a potential client with whom he had no family or prior professional relationship. Harris entered into a settlement agreement with Disciplinary Counsel where Harris agreed to a public censure through a no contest plea for the improper solicitation. The Board considered the following mitigating factors: Harris has practiced competently for 14 years and has many satisfied clients; he has recently obtained 6.5 hours of additional CLE in legal ethics; and he has cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel in resolving this case.

______________________________


Benjamin F. Head, of Memphis, was publicly censured on May 1, 1996 for neglecting two clients' legal matters and failure to communicate adequately with his clients. In the first matter, Head neglected his client's legal matter and failed to communicate adequately with his client as well as failing to communicate with the counsel regarding the complaint. In the second matter, Head neglected his client, failed to communicate adequately with her and failed to complete the service for which he was paid.

______________________________


Benjamin F. Head, of Memphis, was publicly censured on September 14, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); DR (A)(1)(2)(3); and DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4). In one matter, Head failed to communicate adequately with his client regarding the legal ramifications of entering a guilty plea and the effect the sentence would have on probation. In the second matter, Head signed his client's signature on a bankruptcy petition, under penalty of perjury.

______________________________


Francis W. Headman, a Knoxville attorney, received a public censure on October 4, 1988. The hearing panel found that Headman neglected the estate of a client and the cases of five other clients.

______________________________


John Hennis, of Chattanooga, was found in contempt by the Court of criminal Appeals in three separate cases for his failure to file a timely brief. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Mark W. Henderson, of Hendersonville, was publicly censured on November 20, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(1)(2)(3); DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4); and DR 7106(C)(5)(6) and (7). While representing a client in a criminal appellate matter, he failed to either file a brief or a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Brief, causing the Criminal Court of Appeals to enter a Show Cause Order and thereby find him in contempt of court. As a mitigating factor, Henderson complied with the order and late filed the brief. In another circumstance, he failed to represent zealously his client's interest in a domestic matter by not properly communicating with the client, resulting in a finalizing of the matter by the client himself. As a mitigating factor, Henderson agreed to enter fee dispute regarding the refund owed. In a third matter, he failed to pay a court reporter he retained for a hearing. Mitigating factors are that Henderson eventually paid the court reporter for services rendered and that he completed the Board's Ethics School seminar.

______________________________


Charles B. Hill, II, a Kingston attorney, received a public censure on November 28, 1991. Hill was retained to file a lawsuit on behalf of his clients and then did nothing on the case. It was eventually dismissed for failure to prosecute. Hill then entered into a settlement agreement with his clients to avoid a proposed malpractice lawsuit. Hill paid part of the agreed settlement and kept the rest, asserting it was owed him for representing the client's wife in another matter. The court ordered the remaining monies be paid to the client.

This matter was compounded by Hill's continued failure to comply with the request from the Board. His license was almost suspended twice because of his failure to respond to the complaint and to subsequent responses. This was also not the first case of neglect and failure to timely respond to the Board.

______________________________


Charles B. Hill, II, a Kingston attorney, was publicly censured by the Board on October 28, 1993. In two cases, Hill neglected his clients' legal matters and failed to adequately communicate with the clients. He also failed to fully and timely respond to Disciplinary Counsel's follow-up inquiries. Hill was required to be monitored by another attorney for one year. The censure was pursuant to a conditional guilty plea in response to a petition for discipline.

______________________________


Ellery Hill, a Knoxville attorney, received a public censure on April 8, 1993. Hill paid the costs in a criminal matter with his trust account and the check bounced. The client had paid Hill in cash for the court costs and Hill thought he had deposited the funds in his trust account. Hill did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Tommy Hindman, a Knoxville lawyer, was publicly censured on May 10, 1989, He submitted a conditional guilty plea to a petition, said plea was approved by a hearing panel and the Board.

Hindman failed to timely answer inquiries from the Board and handled a legal matter without adequate preparation and failed to be timely in fulfilling all professional commitments.

______________________________


Bill Hodde, of Nashville and Hendersonville, received a public censure for continuing his employment in a matter wherein his professional judgment was affected by his own financial, business, and personal interests. He entered into a business transaction with a client where there were differing interests and there was no informed consent by the client.

______________________________


Floyd Hodge, a Knoxville lawyer was publicly censured April 16, 1990. Hodge was found to have neglected the case of four clients and ailed to adequately communicate with these clients. (See C-2)

______________________________


Warner Hodges, III, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure on October 27, 1992. The censure resulted from Hodges inappropriate handling and use of estate money. He kept $10,000 cash from the sale of a decedent's automobile in his coat pocket for several days, failed to safeguard the cash, and used the cash to post bond for another client. Hodges also kept decedent's diamond chips in his pocket for several weeks.

______________________________


Warner Hodges, III, of Memphis was publicly censured on March 5, 1997, for representing multiple clients in a matter in which they had differing interests. Mr. Hodges also assisted one client in suing the other clients, even though his name does not appear on the complaint.

______________________________


David Hooper, of Memphis, received a public censure on June 2, 1998 for failing to lodge a brief or to contact the Court of Criminal Appeals after the Court denied his motion for a third extension of time because the motion was untimely filed. Hooper had been previously ordered to appear before the Court of Criminal Appeals in November and December of 1997 and February of 1998 to show cause for his failure to file a brief, his failure to appear at scheduled hearings, and to discuss why the appeal should not be dismissed and why he should not be held in contempt of court. Hooper did not respond until March 3, 1998 when he appeared before the court. The court found that Hooper had not shown cause and that he was in contempt of court for willfully failing to appear before the court as he was previously ordered. The court fined him $50, and sentenced him to two days in jail--which was suspended. The Court ordered further that Hooper was suspended for practicing law in front of it for one year from March 3, 1998. His conduct was found to violate DR 1-102; DR 6-101; and DR 7-101.

______________________________


M. Josiah Hoover, III, formerly of Sullivan County but presently with offices in Knox County, received a public censure on January 10, 1997 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 7-101. Hoover failed to adequately communicate with his clients and with the Board. He was subsequently placed under a monitoring program that he successfully completed. The censure was the result of a settlement agreement between Hoover and the Disciplinary Counsel.

______________________________


Dennis J. Hughes, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on March 24, 1992.

Four separate complaints were filed against Hughes, and he tendered a conditional guilty plea which was accepted by the Board at its December 13, 1991 meeting.

Hughes was contacted by two prospective clients regarding representing them in a criminal investigation. During his conversations with these prospective clients, he made comments that, if misconstrued, could give rise to the appearance of an impropriety.

The other three cases concern the failure of Hughes to adequately communicate with his clients and keep them reasonably informed as to the status of their cases. Two of these matters dealt with clients that he had been appointed to represent in post-conviction appeals.

______________________________


James S. Hyde, of Chattanooga, was censured for commingling client's funds with his funds. The Hearing Panel found that he deposited checks in his trust account, which were sent to him in payment of his client's court awarded delinquent alimony. He failed to provide his client with a proper accounting of the funds he received, although there was no loss to the client and no intent to convert the client's funds.

______________________________


Roger D. Hyman, of Knoxville, on March 18, 1996, was publicly censured. For the last several years, Hyman has been involved in a divorce proceeding and custody matters. For most of the time, he acted as his own attorney. Both parties sought Orders of Protection against the other party. As a result of numerous hearings, orders were entered. Hyman violated certain of the orders, which led to a citation for contempt, and he was required to spend several days in jail.

______________________________


Michael Ray Jennings, a Lebanon attorney, was publicly censured on May 27, 1994. Jennings was employed in 1985 to represent two plaintiffs in a personal injury action. Timely suit was filed but dismissed in 1988 and again in 1989 because of Jennings' neglect. Jennings did not inform his clients of the dismissals and they only learned of the dismissals in 1993. Jennings did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Harold F. Johnson, of Jackson, was publicly censured on September 29, 1998, resulting from a conditional guilty plea. At a deposition on June 29, 1995, Johnson was involved in a physical altercation with the opposing party, violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(5) and (6).

______________________________


Bobbie L. Jones, of Davidson County, was given a public censure after a hearing for permitting her husband to interfere with her legal work and in effect permitting him to practice law in her name. The respondent knew of his actions in most instances, some of which involved his modification of legal documents. The hearing panel felt she was responsible as an attorney to know of his actions and to take preventive measures. The respondent also failed to keep adequate records and to properly account for disbursement of funds and charges for fees and general poor office management.

______________________________


Douglas P. Jones, of Johnson City, was found guilty of contempt for failure to file a brief in a criminal case. The fine and sentence were suspended on the condition that he refrain from similar conduct. Fifteen months later, he was again found guilty of failure to file briefs in two separate criminal cases. The Court Criminal of Appeals revoked the prior suspension, and imposed additional fines and sentences for the two new cases. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


James L. Jones, a Knoxville attorney, was issued a public censure on May 25, 1989. The hearing panel found that he failed to communicate adequately with his clients and had been unduly delinquent in returning their file. He had been replaced as counsel in late 1980, and finally after numerous requests delivered the file on September 30, 1987.

Jones also received monies from a client to hold in trust. He failed to timely distribute these monies. He also commingled personal funds with his trust funds and failed to appear at the hearing in this matter.

During this time Jones had suffered mental difficulties due to the breakup of his marriage, other personal problems, and his demanding law practice which required much travel.

______________________________


John Wesley Jones, of Gallatin, received a public censure following a conviction of failure to file an income tax return for the year of 1978.

______________________________


William P. Jones, a Hendersonville lawyer, was publicly censured on May 24, 1989. Jones represented a client in 1985 in a divorce action. He filed for the divorce in April 1985 and the hearing was held October 1, 1985.

On November 5, 1985, Mr. Jones' former client filed a Petition for Contempt and to Increase Support. Mr. Jones then began representation adverse to his former client by filing an answer to the petition and arguing the case against his former client in a May 1987 hearing.

______________________________


William P. Jones, a Hendersonville attorney, was publicly censured on March 5, 1992. Jones attempted to represent the clearly differing interests of a defendant tavern owner who was being sued by a patron, who had been shot in the tavern, and the co-defendant who shot the patron.

In a second matter, in his representation of a client, Jones retained shares of stock in a corporation which was incorporated by Jones for said client. This information was available to other members of Jones' association of attorneys. An associate attorney obtained a judgment against Jones' client, had an execution issued for the shares of stock, and levied upon the stock in the possession of Jones.

Jones had received a prior public censure for conflict of interest.

______________________________


Joe Judkins, a Wartburg attorney, was publicly censured August 23, 1989. Judkins, a County Attorney for Morgan County, was found to have a conflict of interest in a lawsuit be filed in that capacity for the County Commission against the County Executive.

He was also found guilty of neglect as the delinquent tax attorney for Morgan County. He was as much as five years behind.

______________________________


Robert R. Kassem, of Knoxville, was censured for neglecting to file an answer to a civil action filed in the Chancery Court within the time prescribed and allowing a default judgment to be entered against his client.

______________________________


Lawrence W. Kern, a Memphis attorney, was publicly censured on January 27, 1995. Kern self-reported to the Board that he had violated a court-ordered injunction by advancing funds being held for a bank to his client; when questioned by the Court, he knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court. Later, upon reflection, Kern retrieved the funds from his client, deposited them with the Chancery Court Clerk and apologized to the Chancellor for the misrepresentation.

______________________________


James E. Kirby, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on November 4. 1994. Kirby neglected legal matters and failed to adequately communicate with his clients in four separate cases. Kirby also failed to respond to inquiries from Disciplinary Counsel. He did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Harvey T. Kite, of Clinton was publicly censured on July 31, 1996. In his representation of an estate, Kite commingled funds of the estate with his own. All assets of the estate were properly distributed by Kite. In another matter, Kite failed to file a suit on behalf of a client as he had agreed and did not respond to client inquiries. Mitigating circumstances were present: Mr. Kite admitted his conduct and took corrective action.

______________________________


Harvey T. Kite, of Clinton, Anderson County, was publicly censured on October 9, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(2)(3); DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4); and DR 9-102(B). Kite, while representing a client in the purchase of a home, failed to pay the back taxes to the city and county even though the client delivered the money to Kite for such a purpose. The client learned of Kite's failure to pay the taxes some nine months after closing, at which time Kite admitted his fault and agreed to bring the taxes current. When he again failed to do so, the client brought action against him in General Sessions Court and obtained a default judgment. Kite eventually made full restitution to the client.

______________________________


Martin Kooperman, a Nashville attorney was publicly censured on April 10, 1989. The censure was based on three separate complaints. In one matter Kooperman was hired to handle an adoption. He neglected the case and a disciplinary complaint was filed against him. He failed to cooperate with the investigation, by failing to timely answer several letters of inquiry from the Board. He failed to turn over the file for several weeks after his client employed different counsel.

In another matter, Kooperman was hired to represent a client injured in an automobile accident. He failed to keep his client informed of the status of the case nor did he return his client's phone calls. A disciplinary complaint was filed and he failed to timely answer the complaint until a Notice of Petition for Summary Suspension was filed.

In a third matter, Kooperman was hired to file suit in a consumer affair's case. He drew up a complaint which required extensive revisions. The revised complaint was filed in court. The complaint filed was not in compliance with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedures allowing 30 days for Respondent to file an amended complaint. The complaint was not filed and he failed to adequately communicate with his client or keep him apprised of the status of his case. A third disciplinary complaint was filed and he did not timely respond to letters from the Board.

A mitigating factor was Kooperman's parents were terminally ill during much of the period involved and be had substantial responsibility for their care. He freely admits the circumstances should not have prevented him from his ethical duties.

______________________________


Martin A. Kooperman, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on November 24, 1993. A petition for discipline was filed against Kooperman alleging failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and failure to communicate in his representation of a client. Kooperman submitted a conditional guilty plea to the petition.

______________________________


Norman Lane, of Nashville, was censured following an involuntary manslaughter conviction in Criminal Court. The action resulted from a head-on automobile collision wherein he was intoxicated. The mitigating factors were that Lane was himself seriously injured and that he personally exhausted his assets to pay in excess of his insurance limits to satisfy the claims resulting from the accident. In addition, Lane has an exemplary record, including having served as a Hearing Committee member.

______________________________


Dan M. Laws, Jr., of Elizabethton, was retained to represent a client in regard to an accident. Settlement was reached for $12,500.00. When the settlement check arrived, Laws contacted his client and the two of them went to the bank. There, the client endorsed the check and Laws instructed the teller to make a cashier's check to the client for $7,500.00 and another to Laws for $5,000.00. The client protested that the fee was only to have been one-third of the settlement, and that the fee paid was more than that to which Laws was entitled. Until the client filed this complaint, Laws failed to refund the excess to that client. (When he made the refund, Laws stated that he was not making an admission as to the amount of the fee.) The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Stephen R. Leffler, of Memphis, was publicly censured on August 20, 1997 for violating DR 1102; DR 6-101; and DR 7-101. Leffler represented a group of plaintiffs and learned that two of the plaintiffs names had been left out of the complaint after the statute of limitations had run. Leffler filed to disclose that the plaintiffs who were left out should have sought independent legal advice. Additionally, the Board charged Leffler with failing to include the complainants in the lawsuit.

______________________________


Edwin C. Lenow, of Memphis, on July 13, 1995, received a public censure. Lenow neglected his clients' legal matters and failed to communicate adequately with his clients resulting in their case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

______________________________


Paul E. Lewis, of Millington, was censured for his dilatory actions and failing to zealously represent his client in a legal matter entrusted to him. The hearing panel found that Lewis failed to take timely actions in Probate Court involving the administration of an estate and failed to file estate tax returns in a timely fashion.

______________________________


Keith L. Lieberman, a.k.a. Mark Keith Lieberman, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on March 18, 1997 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 7-106. Lieberman represented a client in a postconviction and failed to timely file a brief on the client's behalf. After failing to file a brief matter and failing to contact the Clerk's office after numerous requests, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued a show cause order. Lieberman did not show at the show cause hearing and the Court issued a capias for his arrest, again ordering him to appear. Once Lieberman appeared, the Court held him in contempt of court and sentenced him to two days confinement, with the sentence suspended.

______________________________


Keith L. Lieberman, a.k.a. Mark Keith Lieberman, of Knoxville, received a public censure on March 17, 1998 for failing to file a timely notice of appeal after initially representing a client in a post conviction matter in 1994. The client was forced to file a pro se motion for delayed appeal, which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted. The Court notified Lieberman that he was designated as Counsel of Record in March of 1997. Lieberman delayed an additional six months before he requested to withdraw. The Court found the delay inexcusable. Lieberman was found by the Board to be in violation of DR 1102; DR 7-101; and DR 7-106. The Board determined that Lieberman's past disciplinary history, particularly a recent public censure, or similar acts, necessitate a public censure.

______________________________


Ernest William Linam, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on November 10, 1997 for violating DR 1-102. Linam, who is both an attorney and a CPA, established a business, later bringing in two other individuals. One of the individuals alleged various improprieties and self dealing. She alleges that Linam was withdrawing capital from the corporation for his personal benefit. The Board found Linam to have operated the company for his own personal benefit and that he may have been negligent in the management of the corporation's financial affairs by failing to see that funds withdrawn by the corporation from employee's paychecks were timely transferred to the IRS.

______________________________


Cecil Eric Lincoln, of Shelby County, was given a public censure for radio advertising which contained background music, distributing letters to bonding companies soliciting business, advertising contingent fees without disclosing whether costs would be deducted, publishing a brochure which implied a specialization, and advertising fixed fees without proper disclaimers. These violations occurred while he operated a legal clinic for a brief period of time. The hearing panel found that respondent had been sincere in his effort to provide low cost legal services with his unsuccessful clinic type procedures and further noted that it is essential and of extreme importance for attorneys to strictly and carefully comply with all advertising rules.

______________________________


Robert E. Lincoln, of Knoxville, was publicly censured an October 31, 1988. Lincoln failed to adequately communicate with his clients.

______________________________


William Douglass Love, a Nashville attorney, was issued a public censure by the Board on April 12, 1991. Love was employed to represent a client on a fire insurance claim. He was notified by the trial judge, adversary counsel and his client's former counsel to be present in court on May 21, 1990. The trial judge informed Love that the case was subject to dismissal if he did not appear.

Love did not appear in court on May 21, 1990 and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Love filed a motion to set aside the dismissal order but failed to appear at the court's civil docket call and the motion was denied. Love failed to notify his client of the dismissal. Love has also shown a pattern of neglect in previous matters.

______________________________


N. Alan Lubin, of Memphis, received in excess of $400.00 in June 1984 to settle a claim for rent due by his clients. The money was tendered by Respondent but was not accepted.

Subsequently the clients continued to receive notices of rent due and attempted to communicate with Respondent to resolve the matter. Respondent failed to communicate with his clients or to take appropriate action to resolve the matter.

Lubin, upon demand of his former clients' new attorney, delivered checks resolving the suit for the rent due. He had been in possession of the funds to pay the said rent due almost one year before disbursing the said funds.

In addition, Lubin was entrusted with papers, documents and records belonging to his former clients which he failed to appropriately deliver to them or their attorney upon demand.

______________________________


Thomas F. Mabry, a Knoxville attorney, was issued a public censure on May 2, 1991. It related to two complaints.

In one case, Mabry was found to have charged an excessive fee under the Disciplinary Rule. In another case in which he was appointed to serve as guardian for an elderly woman, he was guilty of neglect, failure to timely disburse funds and provide full accounting of funds.

Mabry was meanwhile receiving Social Security checks on behalf of his ward. The hospital made numerous requests of Mabry that he pay them for her treatment. He did not respond and the hospital sued Mabry. During the hearing, Mabry insisted that Social Security was paying the hospital directly. The hospital denied this and the court ordered that Mabry pay the money owed to the hospital.

It is apparent that Mabry was receiving the Social Security checks. Mabry ultimately paid the money to the nursing home. Mabry acknowledged not filing accountings on behalf of his ward. He stated he had been too busy to do so.

Mabry is guilty here of neglect, failure to timely disburse funds and provide full accounting of funds.

______________________________


Thomas F. Mabry, a Knoxville lawyer, was publicly censured on September 15, 1993. Mabry commingled client's funds with his personal funds. The commingling occurred while Mabry was suffering from an illness which he has since taken steps toward recovery. The illness was the primary cause of the commingling. There was no known instance of permanent loss by a client or others.

______________________________


James O. Marty of Memphis, was publicly censured on December 21, 1998. During 1993 and 1994, Marty improperly signed the name of Allen B. Couch, a Mississippi lawyer, as local counsel on several pleadings, motions, and documents filed in the Mississippi Supreme Court without Couch's express permission while representing a client in a partition suit. He relied on past consent Couch had given him in prior unrelated suits, allowing Marty to practice in Mississippi pro hac vice. Disciplinary Counsel also alleged Marty neglected the matter before the Mississippi Supreme Court by failing to comply with applicable Mississippi Rules of Procedure, resulting in the dismissal of his client's appeal. He failed to pay another client's hospitalization insurer until February of 1997, after the client was sued, while the client's personal injury suit settled in March of 1996. He paid only a small number of the medical lienholders as of late April 1997, when the client retained new counsel, although he received more than enough in total settlement in March of 1996 to have paid all of the claims. He then failed to provide the client's new lawyer with a complete copy of the case file until August of 1998. Marty entered a Settlement Agreement and pleaded no contest to both petitions. He violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); DR 3-101(B); DR 5-101(A); DR 6-101(A)(2)(3); DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4)(b)(c); and DR 9-102(B)(4). The Board found the following mitigating circumstances: Marty's subjective and unreasonable beliefs that he need not obtain Couch's express consent and actual signature due to his past relationship with Couch; that Marty acted in the latter client's best interests by delaying prompt resolution and payment of her medical claims because of his plan to forward to the client a percentage of any discount, or one-third of the fee to collect, on claims he received from the medical providers; that Marty was not obligated to provide the latter client's new lawyer with all documents in the client's case file in 1998 because in 1997 he forwarded the settlement statement, and accounting, and the escrow balance; that Marty asserted at least a colorable claim to a one-third attorney fee from medical providers for attempting to protect the client's best interests based on his interpretation of applicable cases; and Marty's cooperation with Disciplinary Counsel in the matter. Marty incurred the costs and expenses in the proceeding.

______________________________


John C. Mask, Jr., of Bolivar, on August 7, 1995 received a public censure. Mask failed to file a brief on behalf of his client; failed to appear at a Show Cause Hearing and ultimately was found in contempt for failing to file a brief on behalf of his client.

______________________________


John C. Mask, Jr., of Bolivar, was publicly censured on March 7, 1997. A complaint was filed against Mask arising from representation of a client on a DUI charge in General Sessions court. The client requested that Mask obtain a restricted driver's license for him. Mask filled out the Court Order

incorrectly and did not take steps to correct the order or to have it signed by a judge. The client had to employ another attorney to obtain the signed court order giving him a restricted driver's license.

______________________________


Dan Massey, of Chattanooga, was found to have violated DR 2-110(A)(2) and DR 7-101(A)(2) by a hearing panel by not properly withdrawing from representation of a client and failing to adequately advise the client of his withdrawal so that the client could protect his legal rights. The hearing panel recommended a public censure which was affirmed by the trial court.

______________________________

Richard M. Mayer II, an attorney practicing law in Knox County, Tennessee, received a public censure on June 29, 1992.

Mayer placed an advertisement in newspapers of general circulation regarding the availability of bankruptcy relief. The Board of Professional Responsibility was of the opinion that certain portions of the advertisement were misleading in that the bill consolidation statement in the advertisement failed to mention this as being a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Mayer also failed to include the

certification disclaimer in his advertisement and did not submit a copy of the ad to the Board for prior approval.

______________________________


Richard M. Mayer, II, of Knoxville, received public censure on November 19, 1996. Mayer failed to communicate with the opposing party's attorney. In addition, he failed to send the default notice to the opposing party.

______________________________


Patricia A. Mayes, of Nashville, was publicly censured on November 1, 1996. Two complaints were filed against Mayes. In the first matter, Mayes both neglected the client's legal matter, which she began in 1990, and failed to respond to her client's request for information. Mayes was also dilatory in responding to Disciplinary Counsel. In the second matter, Mayes took on representation with regard to preparing an antenuptial contract. Mayes drew up the contract and had the parties sign it after the marriage, rendering it invalid. She handled a legal matter which she knew or should have known she was not competent to handle without associating a lawyer who was competent to handle it, and by handling a legal matter without adequate preparation, as well as failing to explain the matter sufficiently to enable her client to make informed decisions and failing to seek the lawful objectives of her client.

______________________________


Neal McAlpin, Jr., of Nashville, was found in contempt by the Court of Criminal Appeals for failure to timely file a brief. Three months later, the same court found him in contempt again for failure to file a brief in another case. The Board imposed a Public Censure.
 


______________________________

Neil McAlpin, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on May 24, 1989. Two complaints alleging ethical violations were filed. In one matter McAlpin signed an assignment to a doctor to whom his client owed money for medical treatment, giving the doctor a lien on the proceeds of any positive recovery by McAlpin for the client. However, he failed to withhold the amounted owed to the doctor when the settlement check was received. Over a five-month period he failed to honor his promises to promptly pay the doctor under the assignment and did so only after a disciplinary complaint was filed.

He also failed to cooperate with the investigation by repeatedly not responding to letters of inquiry from Disciplinary Counsel.

In another matter McAlpin was appointed to represent a criminal defendant. After the Court of Appeals affirmed his client's conviction McAlpin failed to timely file a petition to rehear. He was granted a motion for extension and the petition to rehear was denied on its merits. McAlpin had thirty days to file his application for permission to appeal to Tennessee Supreme Court but failed to timely file his application, resulting in a dismissal. McAlpin filed a motion to vacate and reinstate, but the motion was denied for failure to follow correct procedure.

McAlpin failed to adequately communicate with his client or keep his client informed on the status of the case.

McAlpin had previously, been publicly censured on June 1, 1987, for neglect. (See D-10)

______________________________


Willis Perry McArthur, III of Gallatin, was censured for representing himself to be his cousin and taking a GED examination in his cousin's name so he could qualify, as a candidate for road superintendent. A hearing panel made the recommendation.

______________________________


Myron McClary, of Chattanooga, Maryville and Knoxville, was publicly censured on January 30, 1989. He failed to respond to communications from the Board in response to four complaints that were filed against him.

______________________________


Myron B. McClary, of Chattanooga, on April 10, 1995, received a public censure upon a guilty plea resulted from McClary's failure to prepare adequately for matters on which he had been retained and his failure to communicate or adequately explain matters to his client after he had been retained. McClary admits that he failed to prepare adequately and communicate with his clients. He has agreed to take additional CLE hours in law office management.

______________________________


John McEllen, a Kingston lawyer, was publicly censured September 21, 1990. McEllen was hired to represent a client in a termination of employment lawsuit.

The lawsuit was dismissed upon defense motion for summary judgment. McEllen failed to timely advise the client of the dismissal. He failed to generally keep the client advised about the status of the case.

______________________________


James E. McElroy, a Memphis attorney, was issued a public censure on October 31, 1991.

The Board found that he had charged his client a clearly excessive fee, failed to act competently in the representation of his client, failed to appropriately communicate with his client and prejudiced his client during the course of the professional relationship.

______________________________


Ben McFarlin, a Murfreesboro lawyer, was publicly censured on March 10, 1989. McFarlin was hired to probate a relatively uncomplicated estate. He neglected closing the estate in a timely manner and consistently failed to respond to requests for information from beneficiaries. He also failed to respond to letters of inquiry from the Board in reference to the complaint in this matter.

______________________________


Ben McFarlin, a Murfreesboro lawyer, was publicly censured September 24, 1990. McFarlin qualified as Executor for the Estate of his paternal grandmother. He then prepared forms against the Estate for two heirs, both of whom were his close relatives. McFarlin did not strenuously oppose the claim although he did file exception.

McFarlin failed to make a timely tax and accounting filings for the Estate. As a result of his errors, McFarlin and his law firm were denied substantial fees and were required to reimburse tax penalties. McFarlin failed to refrain from representing differing interests and neglected an estate entrusted to him.

______________________________


Larry McKenzie, of Henderson, was publicly censured on August 18, 1989. A hearing panel found he failed to disclose information which he was required by law to reveal and advancing a claim which was unwarranted.

He submitted a 1983 Will for probate based on the decision of the widow, one of the beneficiaries under the Will, rather than the 1984 Will under which the widow was the sole beneficiary.

The attorney mistakenly believed the widow had this right of election.

______________________________


James R. McKinney, of Nashville, received a public censure for the neglect of three separate legal matters entrusted to him. The Hearing Panel found that McKinney was grossly negligent in the handling of the Martin, Hill, and Powell matters, but found no evidence of intentional misconduct. The Hearing Panel recommended a public censure. The Board appealed. The trial court recommended a suspension of six months and held that a public censure was not sufficient. McKinney appealed. The Supreme Court reinstated the public censure recommended by the Hearing Panel. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel V. McKinney, 668 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1984).

______________________________


Robert A. McNees, III, of Anderson County, was given a public censure for failure to advise his clients not to proceed with the purchase of property, or to consult with other counsel, in an instance where the property was subject to a tax lien. He lulled them into a false sense of security in preparing an indemnification agreement which the clients did not fully understand.

______________________________


C. Alexander Meacham, of Lavergne, received a public censure on September 24, 1996. In one instance, Meacham was held to have provided his client with ineffective assistance of counsel. In a second case, neither Meacham nor his client appeared for a scheduled jury trial. Meacham was held in contempt by the Court for his failure to appear timely for the jury trial.

______________________________


Todd Megibow, of Paducah, Kentucky, was public censured on August 15, 1997 for violating DR 1-102; DR 2-110; and DR 7-101. Megibow filed a pro hac vice entry of appearance in a plaintiff's med mal case in Tennessee. Megibow developed health problems and advised the court that he was withdrawing from the case, but the court motion to withdraw was never filed or granted. Megibow, advised the court that local counsel had agreed to represent plaintiffs when actually the local counsel had not. Megibow did not defend the plaintiff's summary judgment.
 


______________________________


Thomas H. Miller, of Franklin, was publicly censured on February 1, 1999 for failing to file appellate briefs in three cases after filing a notice of appeal for each case in 1998. The cases were all pending in either the Court of Appeals or the Court of Criminal Appeals. An aggravating factor against Miller was the fact that he has failed to file appellate briefs in the past. He claimed he could find no basis to appeal the cases and that to do so would have been frivolous. He violated DR 6-101(A)(2)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(1).

______________________________


James Milligan, a Knoxville attorney, was publicly censured on February 11, 1994. Milligan maintained a caseload too large for him and for those under his supervision. He could not adequately represent these clients, nor could he adequately communicate with them. Milligan also was found to have not fully investigated matters before he filed lawsuits. The censure was the result of a settlement agreement in regard to petitions for discipline filed against Milligan. Milligan was required to be monitored for two years and reimburse the Board for its costs.
 


______________________________


Ira H. Murphy, of Memphis, was censured for neglecting to complete legal matters entrusted to him by failing to withhold and pay pledged medical expenses from clients' settlement proceeds.

______________________________


John Michael Murphy, of Memphis, received a public censure for failure to file income tax returns for the years 1978, 1979, and 1980, having entered a nolo contendere plea in the U. S. District Court.

______________________________


Timothy C. Naifeh, a Tiptonville attorney, received a public censure an April 20, 1994. Naifeh gave the phone number for a government witness to a friend of his client after being instructed by his client to do so. Naifeh knew there was a court order prohibiting contact by his client, either directly or indirectly with the government witnesses except through his attorney. Due to the friend's contact with the government, the client's bond was revoked and the client was incarcerated. Naifeh did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Sam C. Nailling, Jr., of Union City, neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and failed to communicate with his client regarding the progress and status of the lawsuit in the domestic relations matter. Nailling also failed to communicate and cooperate with the Board of Professional Responsibility in resolving the disciplinary complaint filed against him.
 


______________________________


Thomas F. Nelms, III, of Nashville, was publicly censured on August 20, 1997 for violating DR 1-102. Nelms admitted in Federal Court that he had failed to file an income tax return for 1990, thereby committing a misdemeanor.

______________________________


Bethel Alan Newport, of Memphis, was retained in a Juvenile Court matter and agreed to file pleadings in that Court to contest the jurisdiction of the Court. He neglected this legal matter entrusted to him, failed to take action as required and subsequently misrepresented to his client that he had taken such action and had filed the pleadings.

Newport also failed to communicate with the Board of Professional Responsibility in trying to resolve the disciplinary, complaint filed against him.

______________________________


Bethel Alan Newport, of Memphis, failed to respond to the Board regarding a complaint filed against him. The Board imposed a public censure and ordered him to pay the costs.

______________________________


Robert Nix, a Lebanon attorney, was publicly censured on July 25, 1988. Nix failed to communicate with opposing counsel and a motion for default judgment was filed. Nix failed to appear at the hearing and a default judgment was entered against his client. He further failed to communicate the default to his client to file to have the Judgment set aside. Be also failed to respond to request for information by the Board during the investigation of the complaint.

______________________________

John Norton, of Shelbyville, represented a client at a hearing in which the monthly support payments being made by his client were reduced. Norton did not prepare an appropriate order until seven months after the hearing, despite numerous and repeated requests by both his client and the opposing attorney. Norton was also negligent in responding to the Board's communications in regard to the investigation. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Ramsdale O'DeNeal, a Nashville attorney, was issued a public censure on July 31, 1991. O'DeNeal issued non-sufficient funds checks for filing fees to the Bankruptcy Court Clerk on July 31 and September 28, 1990. The latter check was on his attorney escrow account. O'DeNeal did not respond promptly to notices from the Bankruptcy Clerk to make good on the dishonored checks. Notice of the proposed censure was mailed to O'DeNeal and no objection was filed within the time set by the Rule.
 


______________________________


John B. Owens, Jr. was publicly censured on April 7, 1994. Owens let certain deadlines pass and after his clients terminated his services, refused to turn over their files to substitute counsel for a period of eight months. He also failed to respond to substitute counsel. Owens requested a hearing in this matter but failed to respond to the petition for discipline filed against him. A default judgment was granted by the hearing panel.

______________________________


John B. Owens, of Nashville, on April 5, 1995, was publicly censured upon the complaint by a client who alleged that in 1985 Owens filed a suit on his behalf and failed to follow-up or work on the case on a timely basis. The client asked Owens to transfer his file to another attorney several months prior to filing the complaint and Owens had failed to turn over the file.

______________________________


Douglas B. Parker, of Clarksville, was censured for violations of DR 5-105 and DR 7-104(A) by continuing to represent a client when the interest of another client potentially impaired his professional judgment, and communicating with an adverse party without the knowledge and consent of the party's attorney.

______________________________


Mike B. Parker, a Knoxville attorney, was publicly censured on December 28, 1992. Parker moved his office, did not timely notify his clients of the move, did not obtain a phone at his new address, and disconnected his prior phone. Clients had considerable difficulty communicating with him and were therefore not advised of the status of their cases. Parker also did not respond to the complaints from the Board for a considerable period of time and was almost suspended for failure to respond.

______________________________


Hubert D. Patty, a Maryville attorney, received a public censure on February 15, 1995. The censure stemmed from Patty's neglect of a client's case. A hearing panel heard the case and recommended the censure. Patty appealed the decision of the hearing panel but later dismissed the appeal; he continues to deny any violations of the Code.

______________________________


Samuel L. Perkins, of Memphis, was publicly censured on March 26, 1999, for which he did not request a hearing. Three complaints were filed against Perkins involving divorce and consumer-related matters. The Board found that Perkins' dilatory behavior in submitting responses to Disciplinary Counsel violated DR 1-102(A)(5)(6). In each case, Perkins neglected legal matters, failed to properly communicate with his clients, and failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness on behalf of his clients, violating DR 6-101(A)(2)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3). Perkins failed to file divorces or suits in some instances for two to three years after being employed to do so. In another instance, Perkins allowed his support staff to inform a client that the divorce date had been set for a certain court date when such was not the case, violating DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(5). He also promised a client a refund of an unearned divorce retainer within five days but only did so approximately four months after a complaint had been filed.

______________________________


Leon Perry, of Davidson County, was given a public censure for an advertisement that was misleading and deceptive by stating he would handle uncontested divorces for $60.00 and that he was Nashville's No. 1 Divorce Attorney for 1980.

______________________________


Dennis Wayne Plunk, of Savannah, closed a number of real estate matters during 1979 and 1980 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Housing and Urban Development contrary to the then existing regulations and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Specifically, Plunk submitted settlement statements which contained false statements concerning sales price, cash received from borrower, cash paid to seller and secondary financing. In August 1984 he entered a plea of guilty to the indictment against him for such a violation and was fined $1,000.00 and placed on one year's probation.

______________________________
 

Marvin Posner, of Memphis was publicly censured on October 31, 1996. Between early 1992 and June 1994, Posner assumed the responsibility of monitoring the real estate practice of his former partner, Kelvin Massey, also of Memphis. Posner sent quarterly reports of Massey's progress during this time frame and consistently reported to the Board that Massey could continue to practice without harming the public and that the partnership's real estate escrow account was under signature control limited to Posner and his office manager. The Board concluded that Posner's efforts fell short of what a similarly-situated, reasonably vigilant partner would have done to discharge his fiduciary responsibilities.

______________________________


John W. Price, III, received a public censure in August 1988, pursuant to a hearing panel determination that he had violated disciplinary rules in three separate legal matters which he had handled.

Price neglected a client's legal matter, failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing her, and failed to keep her reasonably informed as to the status of her case. Price also failed to appropriately handle another client's funds coming into his possession.

In representing another client in a D.U.I. case, Price paid the county sheriff $1000 in cash without obtaining a receipt as a fine for the dismissal of the charges against his client. The hearing panel found the payment to be so clearly not in accordance with the law and procedure as to be prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct which Price knew to be illegal or fraudulent.

______________________________


James Lynn Price, a Bristol lawyer, was publicly censured September 1, 1989. Price pled guilty to a Petition for Discipline filed as a result of three separate matters he handled.

In one matter, Price did not always act with reasonable diligence and promptness in a divorce action. He also attempted to charge a clearly excessive fee.

In another matter, he failed to timely file a Criminal Injury Compensation claim. He subsequently made his client whole by paying her lost claim himself.

In a third matter, Price neglected an estate while acting as executor. After a disciplinary complaint was filed against him, he failed to cooperate with the investigation by failing to respond timely.

In a fourth matter, a complaint was filed alleging misconduct in a divorce matter. He failed to timely respond to several letters of inquiry sent during the disciplinary investigation.

______________________________


Francis W. Pryor, Jr., of Jasper, was censured for neglect of a legal matter and a conflict of interest in his business dealings with the client and having made harassing visits to the client while intoxicated.

______________________________


Dale M. Quillen, of Nashville, was censured for accepting an attorney fee which was clearly excessive and in another matter, implying that he was able to influence the extradition officer to obtain the early release of a client from the penitentiary.

______________________________


Myra E. Quinn, of Memphis, was publicly censured on March 30, 1999 for violating DR 1102(A)(1)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(1)(2)(3); and DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3)(4). Four complaints were filed against Quinn. In the first, Quinn was cited several times by the Probate Judge to close an estate that was opened in May 1991, but she neglected the case until after the complaint was filed. The Board filed the second complaint against Quinn for failing to respond to an overdraft in her trust account, resulting in a temporary suspension of Quinn's license. After the suspension, she fully responded to the complaint, and the trust account seems to be free of violations. However, Quinn neglected to live up to her duties as an attorney to report to the state disciplinary agency. The third complaint involved a client's payment to Quinn for legal work involving the client's property. Quinn cashed the client's check but failed to return her calls and later prepared the required affidavit of heirship but failed to promptly record rt. After the complaint was filed Quinn located the affidavit, recorded it, and forwarded it to the client. Lastly, Quinn neglected her duties as administrator of a client's estate until after a complaint was filed with the Board.
 


______________________________


Fernando Ramos, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured January 29, 1990. Ramos received a retainer fee to obtain a green card for the husband of his client. He did not obtain the green card and agreed to refund her fee. He promised to return the client's money but did not do so for several months after promising and did not do so after telling Disciplinary Counsel he would.

In another situation, Ramos neglected several collection matters. He also failed to prepare an order which would have prevented another client's case from being dismissed with prejudice. He also neglected to calendar the date for the meeting of creditors on behalf of another client, was unable to contact the client by phone to inform him the show cause hearings had been reset but did not attempt to communicate by writing to his client although he had ten (10) days before the new hearing date.

______________________________


Fernando J. Ramos, of Nashville, was publicly censured on September 14, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(1)(2)(3); and DR 7-101(A)(2)(3)(4). While handling an immigration matter for two clients, Ramos lost all of their paperwork, including originals of the complainant's birth certificate, his marriage license, and his wife's supporting documents. For years, Ramos failed to return the clients' phone calls. Eventually, the clients received a notice from the Immigration Service to appear and submit their documentation.

______________________________


James Ramsey, District Attorney General, Anderson County, was given a public censure for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) by sending to each member of the Grand Jury, individually and outside of judicial proceedings, a packet of material calculated to influence the Grand Jury in their deliberations of a matter pending before them, after having recused himself in the matter due to his personal interest.

______________________________


Kenneth C. Rannick, of Chattanooga, on February 27, 1996, received a public censure. Mr. Rannick advertised in the Yellow Pages that he was certified as a consumer bankruptcy specialist when, in fact, he had not submitted his application to obtain certification. The Board has had to contact Rannick in the past about potentially misleading ads.

______________________________


William A. Reeves, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on February 10, 1998 for violating DR 5-101. Reeves represented Nancy Boling on business and personal matters, but did not represent her husband on any separate matters. The couple had a dispute during their marriage with a bank. Reeves represented both of them against the bank, obtaining a judgment for $688,000. The husband filed for divorce. In February of 1995, a declaratory judgment lawsuit was filed relative to Mrs. Boling's father's estate. It was filed on behalf of Mrs. Boling as personal representative against the couple. Reeves represented the estate and Mrs. Boling personally. It was agreed that the couple owed $90,000 to the father's estate. The court appointed new counsel and criticized Reeves for being involved on both sides because Reeves had previously represented Mr. Boling in the bank litigation. Additionally, Reeves continued to represent Mrs. Boling in other matters in which the Board found an appearance of a continuing conflict of interest as the bank judgment was the heart of the property dispute between the couple.

______________________________


Arvin H. Reingold, of Chattanooga, was publicly censured on April 19, 1999 for violating DR 7101(A)(1). Reingold failed to file a brief in a timely fashion in the Court of Criminal Appeals, for which that court held him in contempt by Order dated December 16, 1998. Reingold requested no hearing.

______________________________


James H. Reneau, III, of Celina, was censured following his conviction of failing to file an income tax return.

______________________________

Howard Rhea, a Sneedville attorney, was publicly censured on April 17, 1989. Rhea serves as a Hancock County Attorney. He failed to appear at a hearing before the State Election Commission involving the County Commissioner. As a result of his failure to appear the State Election Commission found against Hancock County. The Hancock County Chancery Court adopted the State Election Commission's decision, based in part on Rhea's failure to appear. Mr. Rhea was found guilty of neglect.

Prior to being County Attorney, Rhea represented a client in a lawsuit who sought the rebuilding of a bridge over his property. He sued the County Superintendent. The matter was still pending when he became County Attorney. Upon becoming County Attorney he submitted to the Judge an "agreed order" co-signed by himself and the necessary county administrators/executives which agreed to build a bridge. The Chancellor not realizing what was happening initially signed the order. The order was later revoked and Rhea precluded from further involvement in the case. Rhea was thereby found guilty of conflict of interest.

In a third matter, involving a lawsuit against the County Election Commission by a voter, Rhea recused himself from being involved alleging a conflict of interest. However, his son whom he practices law with under the firm name of "Rhea and Rhea" remained in the lawsuit.

______________________________


William C. Roberts, Jr., of Nashville received a public censure on May 20, 1997. Roberts was employed to represent a criminal defendant on a post-conviction petition. The petition was dismissed and Roberts filed a Notice of Appeal. Roberts' client made numerous requests to be allowed to review the Appellate Brief prior to its filing. Roberts told the client that he would be furnished the brief before it was filed. Roberts filed the Appellate Brief without allowing his client to review it. The brief filed by Roberts was insufficient in that three arguments were listed as issues, but only two were briefed.

______________________________


Larry G. Roddy, a Chattanooga lawyer, received a public censure on April 24, 1993. Roddy's client was ordered to pay restitution and paid Roddy the funds. Roddy failed to forward the funds to the victim, and the client was arrested for failure to pay the restitution. Roddy also routinely deposited earned fees into his trust account and wrote checks for operational expenses out of his trust account. Roddy did not object to the censure.

______________________________

Larry G. Roddy, of Sale Creek, received a public censure from the Board on August 20, 1998. Roddy and the Board entered into an agreement for Roddy to accept the censure and enter into a monitoring agreement for a period of not less than one year. Roddy was determined to be in violation of DR 1-102; DR 9-102; and DR 7-101 for commingling the settlement proceeds of a worker's compensation case that he had handled with his own funds. Additionally, Roddy failed to timely file a petition for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of a criminal defendant in another unrelated case. The Board considered the following mitigating factors: the acts occurred during a period of time when Roddy was suffering from substance use/and/or abuse, Roddy voluntarily sought and received treatment for his abuse, and all funds due to the worker's comp client were paid within a short amount of time.

The Board found that if Roddy fails to strictly comply with the monitoring agreement or commits any acts in violation of DR 9- 101 within the monitoring agreement period, the Board may withdraw the censure and return the matter to the disciplinary process.

______________________________


Robert Curtis Rosenbush, of Shelby County, was given a public censure after a hearing for handling a legal matter and not associating a competent attorney to assist, handling a legal matter without adequate preparation and neglecting a legal matter. He represented the administratrix of an estate and suggested a bond substantially larger than necessary and when this was brought to his attention he took no action to have the bond reduced. Items were included in the tax returns, which should riot have been. He assured his client he had sought extensions for filing tax returns but failed to do so within the required time resulting in penalties and interest. He assured his client he would appeal assessment of the penalties but failed to do so.

______________________________
 

Robert C. Rosenbush, of Memphis, on February 8, 1996, received a public censure. During Rosenbush's representation of a client in a divorce, he failed to provide the client with a copy of the final divorce decree for eleven (11) months. In a second matter, Rosenbush failed to communicate with the client, neglected the case and misrepresented to Disciplinary Counsel that he had filed a Motion to Modify Child Support pendente lite when in fact he had not filed such a motion.

______________________________


Robert C. Rosenbush, of Millington, received a public censure on February 4, 1997. In the first complaint, Rosenbush accepted $500.00 to file a petition but failed to file any petition and failed to advise his clients that he believed such a petition would be ineffective. In the second complaint, Rosenbush made sexually offensive statements to a client and failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request for information about the complaint.

______________________________


Sanford R. Ross, a New York attorney also licensed in Tennessee, received a public censure on February 22, 1994. The Probate Court of Davidson County found that Ross had defrauded his ex-wife in connection to tax advice he gave her. The Court of Appeals affirmed and further found an attorney-client relationship between Ross and his wife. Ross did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Robert E. Royal, a Memphis attorney, received a public censure on October 19, 1993 for two complaints. In one matter, Royal failed to include necessary parties in a lawsuit; allowed the statute of limitations to run with respect to certain parties; failed to file responsive pleadings and misled his clients about the status of their case. In the second matter, while handling an estate, Royal failed to communicate with his clients and delayed for months before recovering personal property of the decedent. Royal did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Edward L. Rucks, of Memphis, represented an estate. He deposited $700.00 advanced toward costs and expenses into his personal account and failed to account for this advancement in his final accounting. A Hearing Panel recommended a Public Censure.

______________________________


Wilbur C. Ruleman, Jr., a Memphis attorney, received a public censure on October 4, 1993. The censure was pursuant to a guilty plea in response to a petition for discipline. Ruleman neglected and failed to communicate with clients in two separate cases. He also failed to return the clients' papers when requested and failed to timely respond to the complaints filed with the Board.

______________________________


Wilbur C. Ruleman, Jr., received a public censure on January 30, 1995. Ruleman denied his client effective assistance of counsel with regard to the client's criminal appeal; neglected to proceed with his client's appeal after filing the notice of appeal; and failed to move or withdraw or in any way communicate to the Trial Judge that he would not pursue the appeal for his client's sentence. Ruleman also failed to cooperate with Disciplinary Counsel during the course of the investigation. The censure resulted from a decision by a Hearing Panel.

______________________________


Duncan B. Rushing, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on November 8, 1990. Rushing was retained by a client, paid a $600.00 fee, and was asked to examine whether a cause of action existed against an attorney and an insurance carrier. He did not adequately communicate with his client and she was compelled to contact new counsel. The new counsel contacted Rushing and asked for the file. He did not get that file until a complaint was filed with the Board.

Rushing took several months to file a response to the complaint. After every letter asking for a response, he replied that he was working on the reply and editing it. His ultimate response was only three pages long.

Rushing had received a similar prior private admonition only four months before this complaint. In that prior admonition, Rushing repeated the same procedure of communicating with the Board

______________________________

Joseph P. Rusnak of Nashville, was publicly censured on January 25, 1999 for shoplifting a tie valued at less than $50.00. Mitigating circumstances involved the following: Rusnak reported himself to the Board; a clinical psychologist diagnosed that Rusnak suffered from depression and anxiety and that his conduct resulted from emotional problems; and that all arose out of domestic difficulties Rusnak experienced at the time of the conduct.

______________________________


Edward A. Sadler, of Nashville, was censured after being found in contempt of the Court of Criminal Appeals for failure to file a brief. In another matter he failed to file a case as instructed by his client, failed to timely deliver the file to the client's new counsel and misrepresented the status of the case to the client.

______________________________


Billy Sams, of Oak Ridge, received a public censure on November 5, 1996. This complaint was filed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Sams was found in contempt by them for failure to file timely briefs in two different criminal cases. Sams received a $50 fine, 10 day jail sentence (suspended) and a suspension for practicing before the Court of Criminal Appeals for one year.

______________________________


Francis X. Santore, Jr., a Greeneville attorney, was publicly censured on September 26, 1994. During a hotly contested visitation suit, Santore cursed at opposing counsel and then struck him in the head. Santore was later found in contempt. He apologized for the conduct and sought assistance for the underlying problems that let to this incident. Santore did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Raymond H. Sayle, a Memphis lawyer, was issued a public censure on January 15, 1991. This disciplinary sanction was issued following hearings before a Hearing Committee of the Board and a subsequent appellate hearing before a Judge designated by the Supreme Court to hear Sayle's appeal.

Sayle, while representing the husband in a contested divorce case, became financially involved regarding property interests of the parties to the divorce, failed to take appropriate action to rectify his relationship regarding this financial interest and then subsequently failed to appropriately withdraw from his representation of his client when a conflict of interest was created.

The sanction issued against him was mitigated by his long years in the practice of law without any prior disciplinary violations. The violations involved no dishonest or selfish motives but judgmental mistakes.

______________________________

John Carl Scheeper, Jr., a Memphis lawyer, received a public censure on January 14, 1993. The censure was recommended by a hearing panel and the Board concurred with the recommendation. Scheeper organized and participated with the organization in providing living trust documents to customers. Scheeper was not informed as to how the organization solicited its customers, prepared documents without consulting with the individuals or providing independent legal counsel, and permitted the organization to charge for his legal services in excess of the amount remitted to him.

______________________________


W. Thomas Schmitz, a Brentwood attorney, was issued a public censure on October 26, 1992. Schmitz commingled his personal funds and paid personal debts from his escrow/trust account.

______________________________


Allen F. Schwartz, of Knoxville, was found guilty by a hearing panel of violating DR 9-102(B) by inducing clients to consent to his temporary use of their funds for his personal use for a period of six months. None of the clients suffered any direct loss. The hearing panel recommended a public censure.

______________________________


Allen Schwartz, a Knoxville attorney, received a public censure on April 7, 1988. Schwartz was hired to represent a client in a lawsuit filed against him. Schwartz failed to file an answer and a default judgment was entered. He failed to communicate adequately with his client and similarly failed to communicate with another client.

In rendering its decision, the hearing panel found as aggravating factors Schwartz' failure to respond to the complaint for a substantial period of time and the prior discipline imposed on Schwartz. The hearing panel found the situation to be mitigated because Schwartz' law practice during this time was in turmoil since his relationship with an attorney with whom he was associated "had turned sour" and Schwartz had been compelled to move to another firm.

______________________________


Deborah Mitchell Shanks, of Memphis, on October 25, 1995, received a public censure. Shanks represented a client in his divorce. In her representation of the client he gave a deposition in which he stated he did not recall Shanks being in his home during July 1994. In August 1994, Shanks faxed a letter to opposing counsel from the client which again stated that Shanks had not been in his home in July 1994, nor did the client recall the last time Shanks had been in his home. The client's letter to opposing counsel, which Shanks forwarded, was inaccurate since Shanks was in the client's home on July 2, 1994. Shanks engaged in an improper relationship with her divorce client.

______________________________


Deborah Mitchell Shanks, of Memphis, was censured because she did not file an answer on behalf of her client thereby resulting in an order of Default Judgment being entered against her client, and she did not appear for her client's divorce hearing and did not file a motion to set aside the final decree of divorce.

______________________________


Clark Lee Shaw, of Nashville, was publicly censured on May 20, 1997. Three complaints for discipline were filed against the respondent.

In the first complaint, Shaw was hired to file a civil action concerning a car wreck. About six months later Shaw advised that he had accepted service of process for his client on a counter-claim. Shaw filed to file a claim or counter-claim prior to the statute of limitation's expiration. Shaw offered to pay his client's out-of-pocket expense, but the offer was declined. In the second complaint Shaw represented a client who had failed to pay a judgment resulting in issuance of a garnishment on her employer. Shaw was asked by the employer for advice about answering the garnishment. Shaw gratuitously advised the employer not to worry about it, he would take care of it. Shaw failed to advise the employer to answer the garnishment resulting in a $1,200.00 judgment entered against the employer. The employee quit her job, allowing the employer no recourse but to pay the judgment. In the third complaint Shaw was employed to collect past due child support and to obtain a wage assignment for an Illinois resident. Shaw attended Court on July 9, 1995, and the Court granted the relief sought and instructed Shaw to prepare the order. Shaw says he prepared the order and filed it with the clerk, but it must have been lost by the clerk. Approximately eight months passed and the case was noticed for dismissal due to inactivity. Shaw does not believe he was notified of the dismissal by the clerk. The client employed other counsel and the order was promptly order by that counsel.

______________________________


J. Randall Shelton, of Morristown, received a public censure as a result of his failure to withdraw promptly from representation as associate counsel of a client in a damage suit after having been discharged by the client.

______________________________


Carl D. Shusky, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on June 29, 1992. The discipline resulted from a hearing before the Chancery, Court of Davidson County, Tennessee.

Shusky, was found to be guilty of procrastination, inattention and neglect toward clients and legal matters in two cases. In addition to the public censure the Chancellor ordered Shusky to make restitution to his client.
 


______________________________


Joe A. Sigman, of Memphis, received a public censure on January 22, 1997. The Court of Criminal Appeals held Sigman in contempt for failing to respond to a show cause order and failing to ensure that the transcript was properly filed on behalf of Sigman's client. Sigman was sentenced to ten (10) days in Shelby County Jail, all of which was suspended upon the condition that Sigman successfully complete a contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers. The Court was advised that Sigman had stopped making contact with Lawyers Helping Lawyers. The Court revoked the suspension of the contempt order against Sigman. The Court also found that Sigman failed to show good cause as to why he did not appear for a hearing on March 5, 1996. Sigman was held in contempt for this failure to appear and on March 5, 196, Sigman was sentenced to ten (10) days incarceration. Sigman appealed the Court of Criminal Appeals decision to the Supreme Court. The court denied Sigman's application and issued a capias.

______________________________



Paul L. Simpson, a Selmer lawyer, was publicly censured on January 14, 1993 for naming himself as beneficiary and executor in a power of attorney and will he prepared for an individual. The censure was recommended by a hearing panel and the Board concurred with the recommendation. The hearing panel found that Respondent had no intent to deceive or acquire the property of the individual and exercised no undue influence or overreaching on the individual. Respondent also recognized he made a mistake in judgment by completely following the mandates and instructions of the individual in this situation.

______________________________


Andrew Sinor, of Bradley County, Tennessee, received a public censure on June 1, 1992. A hearing was held on the matter before a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility. The panel recommended that Sinor be publicly censured. Said censure was approved by the Board and by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

In the matter of State of Tennessee vs. Clarence Michael Lankford, Meigs Criminal No. 2367, Sinor represented defendant, Lankford. During the course of the trial Sinor persisted on making statements that were obstructive and improper. He persisted in commentary on the testimony of a witness undeterred by the repeated admonitions of the Judge. Ultimately, Sinor was removed by the Court as counsel for Mr. Lankford, a mistrial was declared, and Sinor was permanently barred from practicing before this particular judge.

______________________________


Faber Glen Sisson, of Shelby County, was given a public censure after a hearing as a result of his neglect of a client's legal matter. Sisson accepted a fee and agreed to file an appeal in a divorce case. A cost bond and narrative bill of exceptions were filed. He failed to perfect the appeal by not filing an assignment of errors and brief. He made no attempt to set aside the order dismissing the appeal and did not advise or notify the client of the situation.

______________________________


Jerald H. Sklar, a Memphis lawyer, was publicly censured on March 11, 1988, for failing to determine that financial statements prepared by others and included in offering circulars for bond issues in 1972 in Grand Junction, Tennessee and in 1976 in Mississippi, in which he was bond counsel were false and misleading.

The discipline imposed was mitigated because he had no previous disciplinary history and no complaint was ever filed with the Board by any person alleged to have been injured by his conduct. Discipline was further mitigated by the age of the violations and by the fact that the appropriate standards for this type of matter were not clearly defined at that time.

______________________________


Thomas G. Slaughter, of Knoxville, was publicly censured on February 24, 1998 for violating DR 1-102; DR 2-106; and DR 7-102. Slaughter over-billed the state of Tennessee $3,502 from 1990 to 1993 for representing indigent defendants.

______________________________

D. Jack Smith, Jr., a Memphis lawyer, was publicly censured on March 11, 1992. The censure resulted from a disagreement involving payment of a $7,500 fee to Smith for services to be performed. The hearing committee and the trial court on appeal by Smith, specifically found that Smith failed to establish an escrow account, charged an excessive fee for the services actually rendered, failed to give an accounting, and failed to refund the unearned portion of the fee prior to the hearing.

______________________________


Michael E. Sneed, a Nashville attorney, received a public censure on April 18, 1993 for his conduct in two cases. In one case, Sneed failed to inform a client that her case had been dismissed by summary judgment. In the other case, Sneed failed to file an Alias Summons or a new cause of action within the statutory time period and the client's case was dismissed with prejudice. Sneed did not request a hearing in this matter.
 


______________________________


Michael H. Sneed, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on August 18, 1994. Sneed was employed to represent a client on a personal injury claim and failed to file suit within the statute of limitations. Sneed has received prior discipline for similar neglect of client matters. Sneed did not request a hearing in this matter.

______________________________


David H. Stanifer, of Tazewell, represented the estate of a Tennessee decedent who had owned land in Virginia. Some of the twelve heirs to the estate approached Stanifer to handle the sale of the Virginia land. They stated that they did not want to get an administrator in Virginia. Stanifer suggested that they give him power of attorney, and he circulated a sample power of attorney form to the heirs.

Stanifer received powers of attorney purportedly, signed by all of the heirs. By his own admission, Stanifer, as a notary public, signed the notary statement at the end of some of the powers of attorney, that the statements were "sworn to and subscribed before me." Stanifer stated that he did this as an accommodation to the heirs, and acknowledged that all of the heirs did not appear before him. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


William Brian Starnes, of Knoxville, received public censure on November 25, 1996. Starnes failed to communicate adequately with clients and with the Board of Professional Responsibility. He also charged clients extra for phone conversations and delayed in returning clients' files after.

______________________________


Brett B. Stein, received a public censure based upon the complaint of a client who spent one and one-half years in prison for rape because a blood test which could have proved his innocence was not taken.

The hearing panel determined that Stein failed to fully investigate this case and to advise his client fully and sufficiently enough so that he would have been in a proper position to make a complete judgment as to whether certain witnesses should or should not have been used and whether a blood test should or should not have been run.

Stein admitted understanding the use and significance of the secretion blood test. The panel found that at the very least Stein should have advised his client of the availability of that test and of the ramifications of his client's having a blood test typing done if he did not know what his blood type was.

______________________________


Walter H. Stephenson, II, of Nashville, on October 26, 1995, received a public censure. After the conclusion of a civil lawsuit in which Stephenson represented the defendant, he sent a letter to one of the plaintiff's witnesses accusing the witness of making false and malicious statements. The letter went on to state that his client will accept the $19,500 "to settle" or his client would have "no other alternative than to pursue the issue in the proper forum."

______________________________


Jeffrey Stimpson, of Mumford, was publicly censured on July 27, 1990. Stimpson was employed to appeal a case he had tried in Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals. He filed the Notice of Appeal but did not file a transcript of evidence or a statement of evidence as required by Court rules. He withdrew from representation with the permission of the Appellate Court, but his withdrawal was sought after the deadline for filing the transcript of statement of evidence.

Stimpson failed to seek a stay of the trial court judgment on appeal and as a result his client's property was executed on by the adversary party. He failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the matters involved in the appeal.

______________________________


Virginia Lee Story, of Franklin, was publicly censured on July 20, 1989. Story failed to inform the court of her client's prior criminal conviction. Story represented the client in Williamson and Davidson County. At the Davidson County sentencing hearing, she failed to inform the court of the Williamson County conviction. Story's client's probation was revoked in Davidson County. Since the court was unaware at the time of sentencing of the Williamson County conviction, the court pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedures, had to require the client to serve the Davidson County sentence consecutively with Williamson County rather than concurrently.

_____________________________
 

Robert H. Stovall, of Shelbyville, was publicly censured on February 24, 1998 for over-billing the state of Tennessee during his representation of indigent defendants. Stovall billed the State $3,190 in 1992 and 1993 and was found to be in violation of DR 1-102 and DR 2-106.

______________________________


Thomas C. Strohm, of Davidson County, was given a public censure for having paid his $30.00 annual registration fee to the Board with a personal check that was returned for insufficient funds. He submitted another check drawn on his escrow account which was also returned for insufficient funds. An audit revealed that he commingled private funds in a trust account. However, he did not use clients' funds for personal use.

______________________________


Rodney C. Strong, a Chattanooga attorney, was publicly censured on October 13, 1988. Mr. Strong represented a client in a fraudulent receipt of worker's compensation charge. An agreement between the District Attorney was reached, whereby Strong's client was granted a pretrial diversion. Mr. Strong was to file with the court a memorandum of understanding. He failed to do so despite the passage of four months. As a result, Strong's client was jailed for several days until Strong filed the belated memorandum. In a separate matter he failed to interview a client whom he had been appointed to represent on several felony charges until a few days before the scheduled trial date. He also failed to interview or adequately prepare a witness for the trial. His client suffered no permanent injury as the case was retried due to prosecutorial misconduct and Strong's client was found guilty despite having a different and adequately, prepared attorney.

______________________________


Edward L. Swinger, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on September 10, 1993. The censure was pursuant to a conditional guilty plea in response to a petition for discipline. Swinger contracted and received a fee in excess of the percentage allowed by the Victim Injuries Compensation Statute. He also failed to adequately prepare the legal matter entrusted to him and failed to notify the clients and deliver to them the entire amount of compensation due the clients.

______________________________


Richard B. Teeter, of Chattanooga, was publicly censured on December 16, 1997 for violating DR 1-102; DR 2-101; and Formal Ethics Opinion 90-F-122(a). Teeter placed an advertisement in the yellow pages without using his name, instead referring to "A National Network of Experienced Domestic Relations Attorneys." The ad had the logo of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association without indicating Teeter's membership therein, and the logo was used without their permission. The Board found the ad misleading as it implies sponsorship by the TTLA and because caller's do not know that their calls are being routed to Teeter's office when they call the number. Further, the Board found the ad to have material misrepresentations and found that the ad should have at least contained one participating attorney's name from Tennessee.

______________________________


Al H. Thomas and Ira M. Thomas, two Memphis attorneys, were publicly censured on August 4, 1994. They had entered into a contract to share a percentage of gross settlements for verdict amounts with a paralegal. No hearing was requested in this matter.

______________________________


Al H. Thomas, of Memphis, on July 19, 1995 received a public censure. Five complaints were filed against Thomas alleging neglect of client matters and failure to communicate. The Court further ordered that Thomas reimburse the complainant and ordered Thomas to pay the costs of the proceeding.

______________________________


Roger Thompson, of Knoxville, represented a husband and wife in some real estate purchases. The interest of the two parties became divergent, but Thompson continued to represent both. He relied upon instructions from the husband, to the wife's detriment. In addition, he commingled with his personal funds trust monies from the sale of some of the property. Thompson's conditional guilty plea was accepted by the Board and a public censure was imposed.

______________________________


Dennis L. Tomlin, of Hendersonville, was publicly censured on August 17, 1998 by the Board. Tomlin was sanctioned by the California courts in Flo Watts, et.al v. Elspeth Depould and by the federal courts in Flo Watts v. William Rice Lummis et.al for not complying with the orders and rules of these courts. Tomlin was in violation of DR 7-106.

______________________________


Barbara D. Toms, of Nashville, was publicly censured. Toms was suspended from December 29, 1993 through October 21, 1996 for her failure to obtain CLE. On May 4, 1995, Toms filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition for a client. On July 11, 1996, Toms filed another voluntary bankruptcy for another client. She stated she thought her license had been reinstated on July 11, 1996.

______________________________


Gene H. Tunnell, of Kingsport, was publicly censured on October 27, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(3)(4)(5)(6) and (7). In a case in the Sullivan County Law Court, Tunnell filed a proposed Agreed Order of Continuance containing the signatures of three other attorneys involved in the case. One signature was noted as being made by "G.H.T.," while the other two contained no such notation. The latter two attorneys did not authorize their signatures on the document and actually opposed the continuance. Tunnell requested no hearing.

______________________________


D. Michael Van Sant, of Nashville, on May 19, 1995, was publicly censured. Van Sant was hired to represent a client on a post-conviction petition from a criminal conviction. Following denial of the petition, the client requested Van Sant to appeal the decision and Van Sant failed to communicate with the client. Van Sant did not apply to the Court for withdrawal and he admits that he neglected the legal matter.

______________________________


Sean Vetek, a Memphis attorney, received a public censure on February 16, 1995. Vetek pleaded guilty to theft under $500, and was to be monitored by Lawyers Helping Lawyers for one year from the date of the censure. Vetek did not request a hearing in response to the censure.

______________________________


Jim Wachter, a Madison lawyer, was publicly censured on April 15, 1988, for mailing a copy of a doctor's report to opposing counsel after having deleted a paragraph. In another matter, Wachter while representing a client in a worker's compensation and personal injury claim, advance money to the client and co-signed loans with his client. He failed to maintain adequate records of his transaction with his client nor did he render appropriate accounting to his client.

______________________________


James H. Walker, of Nashville, was publicly censured on December 17, 1998, resulting from a conditional guilty plea he filed. Walker agreed to represent a complainant, without compensation, on a civil liberties action. For two years, he misled complainant to believe a suit had been filed and settled for $3,500.00, which Walker paid the complainant to continue the deception. Mitigating circumstances include the following: Walker has had no prior discipline and has made prompt truthful disclosure of his misconduct to Disciplinary Counsel; he suffered through multiple health problems during the time period in question; and he sustained the loss by death of his senior mentor. He was found to have violated DR 102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(4), and DR 7-101(A)(5).

______________________________

Sam E. Wallace, Sr., of Davidson County, was given a public censure for failing to file briefs with the Court of Criminal Appeals in a timely manner on behalf of two clients.

______________________________


Thomas L. Washburn, III, a Georgia attorney who was admitted pro hac vice in a Memphis court, received a public censure on February 16, 1993. Washburn was ordered by the Chancellor to pay to the Shelby County Clerk and Master proceeds from the sale of property owned in part by Washburn's client; instead, Washburn paid the disputed funds into the Clerk and Master's office of Fulton County, Georgia, outside the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court of Shelby County.

______________________________


David Webb, a Sevierville attorney, was publicly censured January 15, 1992. The censure resulted from Webb's unauthorized disbursements from his trust account. Webb further paid himself a $5,058.45 attorney's fee out of the trust account and thereafter lacked the funds to pay a guardian ad litem fee and opposing counsel's fee.

______________________________


Shipp Weems, of Dickson, pled guilty to a charge that he had failed to file a timely brief for his client. The Court of Criminal Appeals had found him guilty of contempt and fined him $10.00. The client suffered no harm. In addition, Weems failed to timely respond to the Board's notices of this complaint, despite three notices. The Board accepted the plea and imposed a public censure.
 


______________________________

Robert C. Widener, of Bristol, represented the husband in a divorce matter after having represented the wife in a prior divorce action against the same husband. The Board imposed a Public Censure.

______________________________


Thomas Davidson Williams, of Memphis, was publicly censured on August 20, 1997 for violating DR 1-102 and DR 3-101. Williams prepared and filed two complaints in Mississippi, a state where he is not licensed. He takes full responsibility for the signatures of a Memphis lawyer who is licensed in Mississippi, but who had not given permission for his name to appear on the complaints.

______________________________


Michael A. Wills, of Memphis, was publicly censured on May 20, 1997, for altering insurance declaration pages to the Signature Group for the purpose of remaining on certain referral lists, when, in fact, he had no insurance coverage. In mitigation, Wills readily admitted and showed remorse for the misrepresentation, and that there had been no incidents, complaints or claims against his law practice.

______________________________


Ronald C. Wilson, of Memphis, who is licensed to practice law in Tennessee and Arkansas, was publicly censured on September 11, 1998 for violating DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(3); DR 7101(l)(2)(3); DR 7-102(A)(1)(3)(5)(8); and DR 7-106(C)(5)(6). In the first matter, the administrator of a decedent's estate paid Wilson to obtain an appraisal for a piece of property in Eastern Arkansas. Wilson did not return the administrator's phone calls between 1996 and 1997 and refused to refund the money after a face-to-face demand for such by the administrator in June of 1997. He eventually refunded the money in February of 1998. In the second matter, while representing a client in a federal court employment discrimination suit, Wilson falsely certified service of a Motion for and Extension of Time to File a Summary Judgment response to opposing counsel, as stated in the District Judge's Show Cause Order of February 4, 1998. After the Court granted the Motion, Wilson again missed the Court's new filing deadline. After the Court granted a second extension, Wilson appeared at the Clerk's office late and brought only one set of exhibits instead of the required two. He further acted improperly with the Clerk's office and, later the same day, with the Court in a disagreement over rules. The Court ordered Wilson to file a report with the Board concerning his conduct as set forth in its February 4, 1998 Order, but he neglected to do so until June 26, 1998, after receiving five letters requesting same from Disciplinary Counsel.

______________________________


Rondal T. Wilson, of Nashville was publicly censured on May 20, 1997. An Assistant Attorney General signed a $15,000.00 promissory note payable to Wilson. Subsequently, Respondent tried and negotiated settlements in criminal cases in which the obligor was representing the State. Wilson knew, or should have known, that the Assistant District Attorney had not informed the presiding judges or the District Attorney General of the circumstances which created a conflict of interest. Wilson tried a murder case against the obligor without notifying the Trial Court or the District Attorney General of the circumstances. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the obligor should recuse himself from representing the State in cases against Wilson, and Respondent should have disclosed the circumstances when it was obvious the Assistant District Attorney did not make a disclosure. Wilson's conduct is mitigated because he made truthful disclosures to Disciplinary Counsel and to the District Attorney General.

______________________________

Ramon E. Womack, of Davidson County, was given a public censure for failing to file affidavits in response to a motion for summary judgment and further failed to notify his clients that their case had been dismissed on the motion for summary judgment.

______________________________

Roger Woolsey, of Greeneville, received a public censure on April 16, 1990. He was found guilty of contempt by the Court of Criminal Appeals for the late filing of a brief.

He filed this brief late due to his heavy caseload and the illness of his wife. His client was not adversely affected.

______________________________

Steve A. Wood, a Brentwood attorney, received a public censure on September 29, 1992. Wood did not demand a hearing in this matter. The censure was for neglecting his client's divorce case and failing to communicate with his client.

______________________________

John C. Zimmerman, a Nashville attorney, was publicly censured on October 4, 1994. Zimmerman made a statement to the news media that indicated a judge had lied to the jury. Specifically, Zimmerman said "if we can't make the judges tell the truth to the juries, then we've got a twisted system, I think." Zimmerman did not request a hearing in this matter.
Return to The Putnam Pit
______________________________