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 who were at some time suspended from practicing law by the Tennessee Supreme Court, as reported by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.
Names on this list are not necessarily suspended from practicing law at this time.
e-mail for forms to report crooked lawyers
Dog X -- The Watchdog of the Upper Cumberland
C. SUSPENSIONS (Automatic Reinstatement)*
*ON APRIL 1, 1981, RULE 9 (4.2) WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT REINSTATEMENT WAS AUTOMATIC IN CASES OF SUSPENSIONS OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR RATHER THAN THREE MONTHS OR LESS AS PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT.
______________________________
A more current and complete list with links to other Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility action is at http://www.putnampit.com/databases/tbpr/disciplined_tennessee_lawyers.html
 
Ernest Lee Allen, of Nashville, was suspended on April 3, 1995. Allen was suspended for a fixed period of ninety (90) days and for an indeterminate period until restitution is made to one client. Allen entered a Conditional Guilty Plea for the stated discipline, In one case Allen received a fee of $2,000.00 from a client charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Allen was discharged by the client shortly thereafter and failed to return any unearned fee. Allen has agreed to make restitution to the client of $1,001.00.

In another complaint Allen was employed to represent a minor child in a products liability action. Allen was not competent to handle the case at the time because of his medical disability and the case was twice dismissed without prejudice. The client was able to employ other counsel to handle her case competently. Allen's conduct was mitigated by the fact that he sought hospital treatment for his medical condition with positive effects. Allen's reinstatement to the practice of law after 90 days would be automatic provided he made restitution to his client, however, he has failed to meet this requirement and remains suspended.

_______________________________

Steve E. Bailey, a Chattanooga attorney, was suspended for 120 days by Order entered on April 5, 1994. A Petition for Discipline alleged Bailey failed to communicate with clients, neglected legal matters entrusted to him and failed to promptly respond to disciplinary complaints. Bailey failed to respond to the Petition and a default judgment was granted by a hearing panel.

_______________________________




Dale Clifton Barnes, of Huntington, was suspended on June 27, 1985, for a fixed period of nine months and an additional indefinite period until such time as he produced satisfactory evidence and medical verification of his successful treatment of alcohol abuse and until such time as he made additional restitution or a plan or additional restitution of approximately $3,000.00 to the Estate of Carolyn Caudle. Mr. Barnes misappropriated approximately $2,000.00 from the estate case he handled in Chattanooga and had alcohol problems.

_______________________________




John B. Blair, III, of Nashville, was suspended on May 22, 1995, for a period of thirty (30) days beginning June 1, 1995. Blair admitted he was untruthful with the court about facts surrounding his alleged payments to a prison inmate arising out of his representation of the inmate; he also admitted he had been untruthful with the court in that he told the court he had an escrow account when in fact he did not.

Blair also admitted he recalled leaving the court on March 18, 1994 knowing he had lied to Judge Echols. Subsequently Blair met with Judge Echols, admitted his untruthful statements and has apologized to the court.

By his actions Blair violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5)(6) and DR 7-102(A)(5). He agreed to be suspended.

_______________________________




Arcb B. Boyd, III, of Memphis, was suspended for thirty days from July 15, 1998 thru and including August 15, 1998 for neglecting his clients' legal matters, failing to adequately communicate with his clients, engaging in conflicts of interests, and losing client documents. Boyd submitted a conditional guilty plea for violating DR 1-102; DR 2-103; DR 2-106; DR 2-110; DR 5-105; DR 5-107; DR 6-101; DR 7-101; DR 7-106; DR 9-102; and T.C.A. 23-3-201(3)(5). The suspension order requires Boyd to have a monitor who will monitor Boyd's law practice for eighteen months. This monitor is to pay particular attention to law practice management and to submit quarterly reports to the Board. Additionally, Boyd is to complete restitution payments to his client and complete, install, and train on computerized office controls with calendaring capabilities. Also, respondent will pay any outstanding balance due a client on the settlement of a worker's compensation claim.

_______________________________




Richard Brodhead, a Lebanon attorney, by order entered July 14, 1988, was suspended for 30 days and will be suspended for an additional 30 days after making $850 payments to Complainant until his debt to her of $51,000 is extinguished. Under the conditional guilty plea approved by the hearing panel and affirmed by the Court, if Brodhead misses more than one payment after his initial 30-day suspension, he will immediately be suspended for 10 months and 29 days to be followed by an indefinite suspension until his debt to his client is satisfied.

Brodhead was the attorney for the executor of an estate. Complainant was the beneficiary of a substantial amount of money from that estate. Two weeks after she received her distribution, Brodhead requested a loan of $30,000 from her. He told her he would secure the loan with a lot and a mobile home which he assured her were free of all encumbrances. However, the property had a first mortgage and his ex-wife also had a lien on the property under their property settlement agreement.

_______________________________




Nathan E. Brooks, a Chattanooga attorney, was suspended for thirty (30) days by order entered July 29, 1991.

Several complaints were filed as to Brooks. The petition for discipline filed by Disciplinary Counsel of the Board of Professional Responsibility charged him with a pattern of neglect and failing to adequately communicate with his clients. Brooks pled guilty to the charges in the petition and as a result the thirty (30) days suspension was applied.

_______________________________




Charles F. Brown, Jr., a Nashville attorney, was suspended for sixty (60) days beginning July 18, 1992, and continuing until September 16, 1992. Brown submitted a Conditional Guilty Plea to a Petition for Discipline.

In July 1983, Brown was involved in a joint venture with his law associate and another individual. The venture was not related to the practice of law. Brown used funds of the joint venture to pay personal expenses. Brown believed that the payments were authorized by his law associate. Brown voluntarily signed a promissory note for the funds in 1983 upon request of the joint venturers.

These facts were not reported until May 1989, in connection with a lawsuit on the promissory note. A judgment was issued on the note and Brown has made regular, timely payments to discharge his obligation.

_______________________________

Sam Thomas Burnett, of Jamestown, was suspended for a definite period of three months and also an indefinite suspension thereafter for such period of time as he may be incarcerated as a result of his conviction in U. S. District Court for violating 26 U.S.C. 7203 by failing to file income tax returns in a timely fashion. He filed returns for 1978 through 1980 on July 27, 1982, with no tax due. He was entitled to refunds.

______________________________




Laurence C. Cantor, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, was suspended for ninety (90) days pursuant to an Agreed Order of Reciprocal Discipline entered April 29, 1992.

Cantor's license to practice law in Florida was suspended in Florida on September 10, 1987. The ninety (90) day suspension in Tennessee was retroactive to September 10, 1987.

_______________________________




Patricia SpicerCarden, of Brentwood, and Nashville, on February 20, 1997, had the suspension of her license extended by one year. Her previous suspension for two years began January 1, 1995. Her suspension is now three years instead of two.

The extension was by agreement upon the receipt of various inquiries indicating that Carden continued to practice law while her license was suspended.

_______________________________




Terry Cash, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for eleven months and 29 days by order entered May 24, 1990. He was temporarily suspended May 24, 1988, by order which was amended or dissolved.

Cash submitted a conditional guilty plea to the petition. Respondent failed to deposit client funds into an attorney trust account. He also neglected legal matters entrusted to him. No irreparable injury resulted to any client as a result of Respondent's action.

_______________________________




Gerald Wayne Davis, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for a period of thirty (30) days, beginning December 1, 1991 by order entered September 25, 1991. Formal charges were filed against Davis and a Hearing Committee of the Board found Davis had been guilty of unprofessional conduct. The sanction imposed against Davis resulted from his failure to keep appointments, return phone calls, return files when requested, and respond to complaint inquiries from the Board of Professional Responsibility.

Davis' prior violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility were considered as aggravating circumstances.

_______________________________




Gerald Wayne Davis, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for forty-five days beginning December 15, 1994 by Order entered on January 6, 1995. The suspension was for Davis's commingling of personal and client funds in his trust account. A hearing panel recommended the forty-five day suspension and ordered Davis to attend an additional three hours of ethics CLE before resuming practice; in 1995, Davis was ordered to take nine hours of ethics CLE and in 1996, six hours. Furthermore, Davis's trust account would be audited by an accountant for two years following the suspension.

_______________________________




Guy S. Davis, of Dyersburg, was suspended for thirty days on January 16, 1998 for his failure to comply with conditions and probation imposed against him by the Board. Davis previously submitted a conditional guilty plea on October 8, 1996, agreeing to a private reprimand from the Board, if Davis was evaluated at Charter Lakeside and complied with whatever treatment and aftercare the program recommended. Also, Davis was to provide the Board with the assessment from Lakeside, enter into a contract with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers or Lawyers Helping Lawyers for eighteen months where Davis would be given a minimum of twelve drug tests, and obtain a monitor with either of the above two organizations who would make quarterly reports to the Board. The conditional guilty plea provided that the private reprimand and probation would be revoked and he would receive a thirty-day suspension if he did not comply with the conditions.

_______________________________




Larry J. Dewane, of Nashville, was suspended effective December 15, 1995. The order, which was entered on December 5, 1995, provides that Dewane shall be suspended for a fixed period of ninety (90) days and for an indefinite period until he makes full restitution to his client. Dewane's clients obtained a judgment against him for attorney malpractice for allowing their civil action to be dismissed.

Dewane's suspension resulted from a Conditional Guilty Plea. He acknowledged that he violated DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3) (neglect and failure to prepare a legal matter), and DR 7-101(A)(1) and (2) (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and failure to keep his clients reasonably informed) in one matter. An aggravating factor was that Dewane had previously been publicly disciplined for similar misconduct. A mitigating fact was the Dewane made full and free disclosure regarding his conduct.

_______________________________




John Dolan, Jr., a Memphis attorney, was suspended by order on July 18, 1989, for a period of 11 months plus an indefinite period thereafter until he had complied with the conditions for reinstatement.

Dolan was also publicly censured. These sanctions were based on a conditional guilty plea which was approved by the hearing committee and adopted by the Supreme Court. Dolan acknowledged his neglect of legal matters entrusted to him and that he not only failed to appropriately communicate with clients regarding the progress and status of their legal matters but failed to appropriately communicate with the Board regarding the complaints made against him which alleged ethical misconduct.

_______________________________




W. P. Boone Dougherty, of Knoxville, was suspended from the practice of law for eleven months and twenty-nine days and was further publicly censured for his misconduct while practicing law.

Prior to his voluntary withdrawal from the practice of law he suffered a psychiatric and emotional disability which resulted in ethical misconduct regarding a number of legal matters entrusted to him. He subsequently was convicted of a felony resulting from an insufficient funds check charge.

The Board found that the deviation by Mr. Dougherty from his normal conduct in his practice of law resulted from an emotional disability and that this emotional illness should mitigate the extent of discipline imposed upon him for his ethical misconduct regarding those legal matters entrusted to him.

Reinstatement required restitution to parties damaged by his ethical violations and withdrawal from the practice of law.

_______________________________




James S. Evans, of Knoxville, was suspended for ninety days on May 29, 1987, upon the recommendation of a hearing panel. He was originally suspended in January 1987, but allowed to continue to represent existing clients pending resolution of disciplinary charges filed against him.

Evans continued to practice law after his suspension in October 1986 for failure to pay his annual registration fee. He also failed to respond to allegations of ethical misconduct filed against him. Further, he (1) paid court costs in a civil matter with a check drawn on his escrow account which was returned for insufficient funds; (2) neglected a legal matter entrusted to him; and (3) failed to appropriately communicate with his client.

_______________________________




Fyke Farmer, of Nashville, was suspended for sixty days for violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and DR 7-106(C)(6) due to his unwarranted attacks, which were personal in nature, and undignified, discourteous, and degrading conduct directed to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The sixty-day suspension was recommended by the hearing panel and affirmed by the trial court and the Supreme Court on Farmer's appeals. Farmer's litigation and appeals to the U. S. District Court, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and U. S. Supreme Court were denied.

______________________________




Jesse Farr, a Soddy attorney, was suspended for two months by order entered September 6, 1989, following his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of justice by concealing an offense. Farr allowed his client to plead guilty to a D.U.I. warrant in a false name.

_______________________________




Jane Forbes, of Franklin, was suspended for a period of eleven months and twenty-nine days from October 28, 1996. Her suspension resulted from her plea of nolo contendere, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-313, to the charges of fabricating evidence in violation of T.C.A. § 39-16-503.

Forbes filed a conditional plea of no contest in exchange for a stated form of discipline. In addition to her suspension, Forbes was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

_______________________________

Garrad L. Fox, of Obion County, was suspended for nine months beginning retroactively on February 14, 1997 - the date of his original suspension. Fox submitted a conditional guilty plea for violating DR 1-102 by failing to respond as set out in the petition for discipline. (Not attached here.) A hearing committee and the Board approved the plea, resulting in the above suspension.

_______________________________




Victor Michael Fox, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for thirty (30) days, commencing December 7, 1991, by order entered December 10, 1991.

Fox represented a client in a probate matter and used funds from the corpus of the estate to pay a settlement of a lawsuit on behalf of another client. This constituted the misappropriation of client funds for the benefit of another.

Fox also failed to separate his earned fee from trust account funds and wrote checks for personal and business expense on his trust account.

This suspension arose pursuant to a guilty plea filed by Fox to formal charges filed by the Board.

_______________________________




William E. Frulla, of Memphis, was temporarily suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days by order entered March 3, 1992. The suspension was pursuant to Section 14 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. Frulla pled guilty to willfully aiding and abetting another in the making and causing to be made a false entry concerning a payment by Local 1733 in the amount of $4,154.50 in a journal, a record required to be kept by Section 431 and 436 of Title 29, United States

Code; in violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 439(C) and Title 18 United States Code, Section 2.

_______________________________




Edgar H. Gillock, of Memphis, was suspended for six months. A hearing panel recommended disbarment, and Gillock appealed. The Circuit Court ordered a six-month suspension and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. See Gillock V. Board, 656 S.W.2d 365, (Tenn. 1983).

______________________________




William L. Gouger, of Jasper, was suspended for nine months beginning December 15, 1996 for his violation of DR 1-102. Gouger created documents bearing copied signatures of an attorney, judge, individuals and/or court stamps which, while not filed with any court, were presented to a third party to evidence Gouger's pending divorce. Gouger self-reported his actions and entered a conditional guilty plea. The Board accepted the plea and the Supreme Court accepted it.

_______________________________






William L. Gouger, of Jasper, was suspended on March 12, 1997, for nine months retroactive to December 15, 1996. Gouger's suspension arose from his creation of documents and/or pleadings bearing copied signatures of an attorney, a judge, individuals and/or court file stamps which, though not filed with any court, were presented to a third party to evidence Gouger's supposed pending divorce, in violation of DR 1-102(4)(5)(6).

Gouger reported himself and entered a Conditional Guilty Plea in exchange for a stated form of discipline. The Court further ordered that Gouger pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

_______________________________




Anthony E. Hagan, of Wilson County, was suspended for sixty days on December 1, 1982, on a conditional guilty plea for making improper personal suggestions to a client.

______________________________




Finley W. Harbison, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for thirty (30) days, commencing October 1, 1991, by order entered August 28, 1991. Harbison pleaded guilty to formal charges filed against him by the Board. The charges arose from Harbison's professional relationship with a client which created an appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest.

_______________________________




Theodore B. Hay, III, of Clarksville, on June 28, 1996, was suspended for thirty (30) days, beginning October 1, 1996. The suspension arose from Hay's guilty plea. During his representation of a client, Hay informed the client that the client's case had been settled when in fact it was not. A mitigating factor was Hay's payment of funds from his own personal account to resolve the client's case.

_______________________________




David Head, of Goodlettsville, was suspended for six months. He violated DR 1-102(A)(4) insofar as such section relates to conduct involving misrepresentations made while not acting as an attorney. The petition for discipline concerned health spa businesses operated by Mr. Mead in Iowa in 1980.

_______________________________




Ellery E. Hill, a Knoxville attorney, was suspended from May 26, 1993 to November 24, 1993 by Order entered on January 21, 1994. Hill's law license had already been suspended for this period of time for failure to respond to complaints filed as to him. Hill was charged with neglecting clients' legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, and failure to communicate with the Board regarding these matters. Hill submitted a conditional guilty plea to the Petition for Discipline.

_______________________________




Floyd R. Hodge, of Knox County, was suspended for an additional period of three months by order entered July 27, 1981. He had been previously suspended for seven months pursuant to an order of disbarment which was set aside by the Supreme Court on a Rule 60 motion. Hodge had neglected final accounting and filing of tax returns in two estate matters. He was further ordered to make full restitution to his clients. He had previously failed to communicate with the clients.

______________________________






Stanley L. Holtman, a Franklin attorney, was suspended by order entered August 25, 1987, for 11 months and 29 days to be followed by an indefinite suspension as long as he owed any monetary damage by judgment related to the complaints in the Petition for Discipline or have any lawsuit pending related to the complaints. The indefinite suspension was to continue until Holtman could demonstrate that he had totally abstained from all alcoholic beverages for a period of six months immediately prior to his resumption of the practice of law.

Three complaints were filed against Holtman. He did not respond to these complaints. He became executor of an estate but failed to notify all beneficiaries or prepare an accounting. The court removed him as executor. He also misappropriated funds from a real estate sale. He won a judgment of $28,000 for a client but failed to place a lien on the judgment debtor's property as instructed by his client and the judgment debtor sold his house and left the state.

_______________________________




Glenn B. Hopper, II, a Memphis attorney, was suspended pursuant to an Order entered on November 16, 1994. The suspension was for thirty days plus an indefinite time thereafter until Hopper pays his client the $1,303.50 sanction which was ordered against the client. A hearing panel found that Hopper neglected the client's case resulting in a dismissal of same and in the imposition of sanctions against his client. Hopper furthermore failed to communicate with his client, the Board and the hearing panel in this case.

_______________________________




Michael B. Kay, of Memphis, was suspended for a definite period of seventy-five days on August 29, 1986, plus an indefinite period pending a conditioned upon payment of an escrow check which was dishonored. A hearing panel found that Kay (1) failed to account for a client's funds in a loan transaction; (2) represented a party in a lawsuit in which he might be an important witness; (3) represented one client against another; and (4) mishandled funds belonging to an estate by failing to a segregate the client's funds from his personal funds and failing to account for the funds.

_______________________________




Edwin C. Lenow, of Memphis, was suspended for 45 days on April 14, 1986. Lenow deposited a $1,450.00 check received in settlement of his client's personal injury claim in his operating account instead of his escrow trust account. He calculated his fee and expenses due to third parties including the client's medical expenses and disbursed the balance to his client. Thereafter Lenow failed to disburse or pay the medical expenses for a period of about three years. No intentional violation was found as Lenow was unaware of the ethical requirements concerning segregation of client funds.

_______________________________




William Norman Ligon, of Nashville, was suspended for thirty days on April 1, 1987, upon the recommendation of the Chancery Court. He withdrew from the practice of law without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his clients and without returning to those clients papers and property to which they were entitled.

_______________________________

William Norman Ligon, a Nashville attorney, was suspended by order entered October 4, 1988, for three months and one day. He failed to respond to the disciplinary authority. He failed or refused to comply with orders of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. This suspension involved Ligon's noncompliance with orders rendered pursuant to a former Judgment of Discipline.

_______________________________




William Norman Ligon, of Nashville, was suspended for one year by an order dated January 10, 1997. The Supreme Court had previously entered an order suspending Ligon for one year on July 2, 1996 where all time was suspended, except for ninety days, and where the respondent was placed on probation for the rest of the time. The probation was conditioned on the fulfillment of various requirements which Ligon did not fulfill. The Court found Ligon to have violated his probate conditions by failing to enter into a contract with the Nashville Bar Association Law Practice Assistance program, by failing to attend the Nashville Bar Association Mentoring program, and by failing to provide quarterly reports to the Board. Thus, the Supreme Court revoked Ligon's probation and imposed the above suspension with credit being given for the ninety days suspension which had already been served.

_______________________________




Cecil Eric Lincoln, of Memphis, was suspended for a period of 11 months, 29 days following his guilty plea. The discipline resulted from his failure to maintain a trust account and commingling client's funds with his personal funds, resulting in no harm or damage to any clients.

_____________________________




Willis Perry McArthur, III, an attorney practicing in Gallatin, was suspended for a period of sixty days beginning on June 15, 1989. This suspension resulted from complaints filed against him and his failure to appropriately respond to the allegations of misconduct made against him.

The hearing panel recommended that McArthur be suspended from the practice of law for one year. This judgment was appealed. The Chancellor adopted the findings of the hearing panel. However, he further found that during the year succeeding the hearing McArthur had matured and gained a measure of professionalism. He had the clear impression that McArthur had indeed learned his lesson that a lawyer is a professional and respects the disciplinary process. He found that McArthur should be suspended from practice for sixty days.

McArthur had neglected legal matters entrusted to him, failed to keep clients reasonably informed as to the progress and status of their legal matters, and failed to explain their legal matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

_______________________________




John G. McCleery, formerly of Memphis, was suspended for eleven months and twenty-nine days on January 22, 1987, after his Conditional Guilty Plea was accepted by the Board. He failed to return books and records of his clients, notwithstanding the client's efforts to reclaim their property, and failed to comply with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Supreme Court for the regulation of the practice of law in Tennessee.

_______________________________

John George McCleery, Jr., of Memphis, was suspended from practice for a period of six months after a hearing panel found that he failed to perform duties required of him as co-administrator of an estate, caused unjustifiable delays, and neglected the interests of the estate.

_____________________________




John G. Montague, a Memphis attorney, was suspended for eleven (11) months and twenty-five (25) days, commencing January 1, 1992, by order entered September 12, 1991. Montague pled guilty to charges filed against him by the Board.

Montague acknowledged that he had paid agents to solicit personal injury claims on his behalf.

_______________________________




Samuel John Muldavin, of Memphis, was suspended on January 13, 1998 for sixty days for neglecting his clients' legal matters, failing to adequately communicate with his clients, and failing to return one of his client's money and files until after a complaint was filed with the Board. Muldavin submitted a conditional guilty plea admitting his violation of DR 1-102; DR 2-110; DR 6-101; DR 7-101; and DR 9-102.

_______________________________




James G. Nave, of Bradley County, was suspended for a period of six months by order entered March 15, 1982, for neglecting an adoption matter for an extended period of time. In another matter, he failed to withdraw from representation after being discharged. The hearing panel noted that Nave had disregarded repetitive warnings of the courts and contempt citations for failing to comply with established rules.

______________________________




Pat Nichol, of Nashville, was suspended for ninety days on June 25, 1987, upon the Chancery Court's approval of a hearing panel recommendation. He received $1,558.15 on behalf of his client, but failed to give it to her for about three months.

_______________________________




Ramsdale O'DeNeal, Jr., of Nashville, was suspended on September 20, 1995. O'DeNeal entered a Conditional Guilty Plea for an eleven month, twenty-nine day suspension retroactive to September 22, 1993, the date upon which he had been suspended.

O'DeNeal admitted that he violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(4)(5) and (6), DR 7-102(A)(4)(5) and (6) and DR 9-102(A) and (B). In two cases O'DeNeal signed his clients' names to bankruptcy petitions and misrepresented to the Court that he had not received any fees. In another case, O'DeNeal was paid to represent a criminal defendant but failed to perform. In another case, O'DeNeal received funds in trust to pay a client's medical bills and retained the funds. Mitigating circumstances are that he suffered from difficult personal problems, that he was inexperienced in the practice of law and that he has made a good faith effort to make restitution. O'DeNeal has agreed to complete restitution to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection after reinstatement.

_______________________________




Elliott Ozment, of Nashville, voluntarily surrendered his license for a period of four months for failure to maintain separation of the funds of a client from those of the lawyer, although no client incurred any loss of funds.

_______________________________




Dale M. Quillen, of Nashville, on February 21, 1997, was suspended for thirty (30) days, with all the suspension suspended and with Quillen on probation for six (6) months from this date. Quillen entered an agreed order which was approved. The sanction resulted from Quillen's misconduct in using excessive force in a physical altercation with opposing counsel resulting in serious injury, after a deposition; and for engaging in a pattern of harassment against his ex-wife and her attorneys.

_______________________________

Fernando J. Ramos, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for a period of thirty (30) days beginning March 1, 1992, and ending March 30, 1992. Ramos pled guilty to a Petition for Disciplined filed against him by the Board.

Ramos was suspended for neglect of certain Bankruptcy Court matters and for handling the matters without adequate preparation.

_______________________________




Robert L. Randall, a Jonesboro attorney, was suspended for sixty (60) days by order entered June 26, 1991. The suspension was pursuant to a guilty plea. Randall was guilty of neglect in his representation of several clients. He also failed to timely respond to the complaint filed against him resulting in his law license being previously suspended for fifty-four (54) days until he filed a response. The instant sixty (60) day suspension was ordered by the Court to include said fifty-four (54) days as time already served.

_______________________________




Robert C. Rosenbush, a Memphis attorney, was suspended for thirty days by Order entered on June 24, 1994. In one case, Rosenbush failed to timely file a brief or request any extension to file a brief in a custody matter. In another case, Rosenbush failed to draft an order reflecting the parties' settlement of a child support matter. He also failed to appropriately respond to the Board. Rosenbush submitted a guilty plea to the Petition for Discipline.

_______________________________




Robert E. Royal, a Memphis attorney, was suspended by Order entered on January 19, 1994. The suspension was for thirty days and commenced on February 14, 1994, or indefinitely thereafter until Royal repays a $7,500 retainer to a client, pays the costs of the disciplinary hearing, and attends twelve hours of CLE.

A hearing panel found that Royal failed to answer pleadings, failed to appropriately communicate with his clients and keep them advised of the status of their legal matter; failed to appropriately communicate with others involved in the litigation; failed to prepare to contest a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiffs; failed to advise his clients of a situation which presented the appearance of a conflict of interest; and failed to provide the necessary information to his client when his employment was terminated.

_______________________________




Brian L. Ruyle, of Nashville, was suspended on January 13, 1998 for five months beginning retroactively on August 11, 1997 - the date the Supreme Court initially suspended his license. Ruyle submitted a conditional guilty plea for violating DR 1-102 and T.C.A. 23-3-201 for failing to respond to numerous requests from the state's disciplinary agency.

_______________________________




James T. Sanderson, a Bolivar attorney, was suspended by Order entered on November 8, 1994. The suspension was for one year, with all time suspended except for a period of thirty days, with Sanderson being on probation, conditioned upon him complying with certain conditions. Sanderson was ordered to employ a person to evaluate his law practice management and comply with whatever recommendations were made. Sanderson further was ordered to have a monitor who was to make quarterly reports to the Board, and also attend three additional hours of CLE in the area of law office management and ethics.

_______________________________




Martha S. Seigel, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, was suspended for ninety (90) days pursuant to an Agreed Order for Reciprocal Discipline entered April 29, 1992.

Seigel's license to practice law in Florida was suspended in Florida on September 10, 1987. The ninety (90) day suspension in Tennessee was retroactive to September 10, 1987.

_______________________________




B. Holt Shoaf, a Milan attorney, was suspended September 18, 1991. This suspension was for a definite period of thirty (30) days and additionally for an indefinite period until he made restitution of $9,532.84 to a former client.

Formal charges were filed against Shoaf and the Hearing Committee found Shoaf had failed to represent his client with competence, failed to appeal an adverse judgment after advising her he would do so. He failed to notify her he had not appealed for several months; told her he would advise his malpractice insurance company to contact her and after failing to notify his malpractice carrier, deceived her by indicating he had done so and she would be contacted. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

_______________________________

Robert Shockey, of Chattanooga, was suspended for an indefinite period by order entered November 16, 1989. He was placed on immediate suspension an April 25, 1989, following his misdemeanor conviction of failure to pay federal income taxes. A hearing was held on September 5, 1989, to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed. The hearing committee ordered that Respondent be suspended for a period of six months retroactive to April 25, 1989, and an additional period of time which shall end thirty days after Respondent's release from confinement in prison or other penal institution.

_______________________________




Andrew J. Sinor, a Cleveland attorney, was suspended for thirty (30) days by order entered November 19, 1990. A Petition for Discipline was filed and a hearing was held. The Hearing Committee recommended a thirty (30) day suspension. Mr. Sinor appealed. The suspension was affirmed by both the Bradley County Chancery Court and the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Sinor had represented Barbara Dale in an employment compensation action. At the same time he represented Ms. Dale he also represented Mr. Paul Bunch who was accused of assault on Ms. Dale.

_______________________________




Shelby W. Smoot, of Kingsport, on December 17, 1996, agreed to a thirty (30) day suspension of his license. Smoot agreed that his employee had failed to maintain his escrow account in 1992 and part of 1993 according to acceptable bookkeeping standards. Even though none of Smoot's clients lost any monies, proper bookkeeping of escrow accounts is of the highest of priorities.

While Smoot could not practice during the thirty days, he was permitted to keep his office open.

_______________________________




Charles P. Toney was temporarily suspended upon his conviction in the U.S. District Court of acquiring $65.00 worth of food stamps in exchange for $50.00 cash. The final discipline imposed was a thirty-day suspension retroactive to the temporary suspension. In the criminal case, he received a $1,000 fine, a six-month suspended sentence, placed on probation for three years, and ordered to perform 200 hours of public service work.

_______________________________




Ellen T. Turley, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for thirty (30) days by an order entered March 15, 1991. The effective date of the suspension is March 23, 1991.

The matter was heard by a Hearing Committee which issued a judgment on March 5, 1991. The parties entered an agreed order waiving appeal of the judgment.

Turley represented two clients in domestic relations matters. In both cases, she received attorney fees and withdrew from representation shortly thereafter without refunding the unearned fees. She willfully failed to carry out the employment contract with both clients. It was also determined that Turley failed to reasonably explain a legal matter to her client, that being her withdrawal from representation. She neglected a legal matter by failing to allege adultery as a ground in her client's divorce complaint. Turley engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation in that she told the Complainant that she would re-enter an appearance after withdrawal when that was clearly not her intention.

_______________________________




Edmund W. Turnley, III, a Nashville attorney, was suspended for thirty days by Order entered on March 30, 1994. The suspension ran from June 3, 1994 to July 2, 1994. Turnley submitted a conditional guilty plea to charges that he signed his wife's name to two general guarantees, although it is disputed whether he did so with permission. The plea also encompassed a second complaint alleging neglect in a litigated matter.

_______________________________




D. Michael Van Sant, of Nashville, on May 8, 1997, was suspended for ninety days commencing February 26, 1997. Van Sant's suspension resulted from his failure to file an appellate brief on behalf of his client with the Court of Criminal Appeals, for which he was held in contempt by the court, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6); DR 6-101(A)(2)(3); DR 7-101(A)(4)(6) and DR 7-106(7). Van Sant had been on temporary suspension since February 26, 1997, due to his failure to respond to the disciplinary complaint. The temporary suspension was merged into the ninety-day suspension. The Court further ordered that Van Sant pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

_______________________________




James Wachter, a Madison attorney, was suspended for one hundred (100) days by order entered August 15, 1991.

Wachter was charged with numerous ethical violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and a hearing was conducted by the Board on June 18, 1991 which found him guilty of unprofessional conduct, neglecting legal matters entrusted to him, failing to keep clients informed regarding their legal matters, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

_______________________________




Randall Wakefield, a Carthage, Tennessee, attorney, tendered a Conditional Guilty Plea on May 21, 1986, to the Board of Professional Responsibility to charges he aided in the concealment of his client's arrest for possession of a controlled substance from his client's probation officer and lied to his client as to action he never actually took. Wakefield agreed to a 30-day suspension.

_______________________________




Harry Curtis Williams, of Johnson City, was suspended for 60 days by order entered September 4, 1990. A hearing was held before a Hearing Committee, and its recommendation was approved by the Supreme Court.

In 1976 Respondent received in trust certain monies. The monies were the proceeds from a closing Respondent handled wherein the parties could not agree on the distribution. Respondent failed to put the monies into escrow and subsequently converted it for his own personal use. In 1989 a complaint was filed with the Board. Respondent made full restitution to one party and arrangements for payment with the other after the complaint was filed.

The hearing committee found the passage of time and Respondent's failure to be the subject of any other disciplinary inquiry mitigating factors.

_______________________________




Russell C. Winston, of Shelby County, was suspended for eight months on January 26, 1982, upon recommendation of a hearing panel after a conviction of aiding and abetting in the sale of seven grams of cocaine. The hearing panel found minimal involvement and mitigating circumstances.

Return to The Putnam Pit

______________________________

Escati Free Counter
You are Visitor No:
View Counter Stats