647 S.W.3d 357
Tenn.2022Background
- Candes Vonnies t Prewitt, a Tennessee lawyer, represented Demetrius Tucker (and another plaintiff) in a personal-injury suit while engaged in an on‑again/off‑again romantic/sexual relationship with Tucker.
- Prewitt filed expert disclosures that failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(4)(A)(i); the trial court excluded two experts (including the only liability/security expert).
- Prewitt did not notify her clients of the expert exclusion or pending summary-judgment motions, did not respond to those motions, and moved to withdraw shortly before hearings; she asserted a $121,750 lien (later released) that impeded retention of successor counsel.
- Successor counsel obtained a continuance but the trial court later granted summary judgment for defendants; Tucker filed a disciplinary complaint against Prewitt.
- A Board hearing panel found violations of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 1.16, and 8.4(a), suspended Prewitt for 30 days, required extra ethics CLE and a six-month practice monitor, and assessed costs; the chancery court affirmed.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the panel’s findings and sanctions, held Prewitt waived her claim of a panel-member conflict, and upheld assessment of costs under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 31.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (Prewitt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 (Competence): adequacy of expert disclosures | Disclosures violated Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(4) and show lack of competence; exclusion of experts caused potential/prejudicial harm | Disclosures were substantially similar to others and exclusion didn’t prove prejudice; panel’s reliance on trial exclusion was improper | Court: Disclosures were facially deficient; violation of Rule 1.1 supported by substantial evidence; prejudice not required for discipline |
| Rule 1.3 (Diligence): failure to timely oppose motions/withdraw | Prewitt failed to act with reasonable diligence (no response to summary-judgment motions; delayed withdrawal) | She represented until she could not and there was no single moment of culpable delay | Court: Delay and failure to protect client interests violated Rule 1.3; finding supported by record |
| Rule 1.7 (Conflict): romantic/sexual relationship with client and asserting lien | Relationship created a concurrent conflict that materially limited representation; no informed written consent; lien put lawyer’s interests first | Relationship predated representation; no subjective belief of conflict; client knew relationship so written waiver unnecessary | Court: Relationship (on‑again/off‑again) and conduct posed significant risk; Rule 1.7 required disclosure and written informed consent; failure violated Rule 1.7; lien evidenced putting lawyer’s interests ahead of client |
| Rule 1.16 (Withdrawal): withdrawal causing material adverse effect | Withdrawal was timed and executed in a manner that materially prejudiced client (late, no notice, unreasonable lien, lack of cooperation) | Withdrawal was for good cause under Rule 1.16(b)(7) | Court: Even if good cause existed, Rule 1.16(d) required steps to protect client which Prewitt failed to take; violation upheld |
| Rule 8.4(a) (Misconduct) | Violations of other RPCs amount to professional misconduct under 8.4(a) | If no other rules violated, 8.4(a) claim fails | Court: 8.4(a) sustained because underlying rule violations were upheld |
| Sanctions appropriateness (30‑day suspension, CLE, monitor) | Suspension appropriate under ABA Standards given known conflict, neglect, and potential injury; aggravating factors (lack of remorse) and mitigation (inexperience) considered | No rule violations or, if any, sanctions excessive | Court: Thirty days (minimum) not an abuse of discretion; practice monitor and CLE appropriate |
| Panel conflict & costs assessment | N/A (Board sought costs after judgment) | Prewitt alleged a panel-member conflict and argued costs assessment violated public policy / was one-sided | Court: Prewitt waived panel‑conflict claim by failing to substantiate before panel; assessment of costs was authorized by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 31.3 and is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunlap v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 595 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2020) (describing this Court’s supervisory authority over lawyer discipline)
- In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (intimate/sexual relations between lawyer and client can create a Rule 1.7 conflict)
- Maddux v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2009) (suspension appropriate for pattern of neglect and related misconduct)
- In re Sitton, 618 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. 2021) (use of comparable sanctions and CLE requirements in disciplinary context)
- Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Reguli, 489 S.W.3d 408 (Tenn. 2016) (waiver of issues not litigated before the panel)
- Green v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 567 S.W.3d 700 (Tenn. 2019) (practice-monitor requirement appropriate for attorneys with recurring practice deficiencies)