489 S.W.3d 408
Tenn.2015Background
- Board filed petition (July 16, 2012) alleging Connie Reguli violated multiple RPCs based on: (1) handling of a $10,000 retainer from client Robert Castleman, (2) false website statements claiming certification/specialty in family/divorce law, and (3) alleged incorrect post-judgment order in a Pope divorce matter (dismissed for insufficient proof).
- Castleman paid $10,000 under a written fee agreement stating funds would be "held in escrow" and returns were "at the discretion of the firm"; he discharged Reguli ~3–4 weeks later and requested an accounting and refund, which he says he never received.
- Reguli produced billing records only at the disciplinary hearing showing ~$2,199.25 billed; Panel found she retained the unearned balance and failed to timely respond to requests from Castleman and the Board.
- Reguli’s website listed "Certification/Specialties: Family Law, Divorce" though she was not certified; she claimed a third‑party website vendor added the language and she didn’t notice it until 2011.
- Hearing Panel found multiple RPC violations (including RPC 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 7.4(b), 8.1(b), 8.4) and imposed an 11‑month, 29‑day suspension to be served on probation plus monitoring and TLAP evaluation; Panel did not order restitution.
- Trial court affirmed findings but modified sanctions: reduced suspension to 60 days (all suspended), 1‑year probation with modified monitoring, eliminated TLAP evaluation, and ordered $7,800 restitution to Castleman. Supreme Court reinstated the Panel’s sanction but added the trial court’s restitution requirement ($7,800).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel chair exceeded authority / acted improperly | Chair made unilateral evidentiary rulings, rude remarks, and signed others' order | Chair acted with advice/consent of panel; other members actively participated | Rejected — chair acted within Rule 9 authority and did not abuse discretion |
| Discovery of panel appointment process / selection unlawful | Panel selection was not "rotating" as required; demanded documents | Board: random vs rotating is functionally equivalent; no prejudice shown | Waived (no final ruling pursued); even on merits no unlawful procedure or prejudice |
| Disqualification of Disciplinary Counsel (Hodges) | Hodges' email revealing Reguli's cancer and resulting condolence letter created bias/appearance of conflict | Counsel's communications were sympathetic; no evidence of improper motive or compromised judgment | Rejected — no actual or apparent disqualifying conflict; panel did not abuse discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for RPC violations (fees, communication, advertising, nonresponse) | Reguli: she provided accounting, fee was nonrefundable by agreement, website errors due to vendor | Board: fee was a security retainer (escrow) so unearned balance required refund; writing didn’t make fee nonrefundable; attorney responsible for website content; she failed to respond to Board | Affirmed — substantial and material evidence supports violations of RPC 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 7.4(b), 8.1(b), 8.4 |
| Sanction appropriateness / trial court’s modification | Reguli: trial court reduced sanctions and eliminated TLAP; argued modifications were appropriate | Board: trial court erred in reducing scope of probation, eliminating TLAP, and restructuring suspension; trial court properly added restitution | Mixed: restitution order affirmed; otherwise Supreme Court reinstated Panel’s original suspension/probation conditions and TLAP requirement |
| Constitutional challenges to disciplinary system / burden of proof | Reguli: preponderance standard unconstitutional; Board structure violates due process; alleged antitrust issues | Board: prior Tennessee precedents uphold system and preponderance standard and procedural protections | Rejected — court reaffirmed constitutionality and prior controlling precedents; preponderance standard upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabry v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 458 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2014) (Supreme Court is source of Board authority; standard for review)
- Moncier v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 406 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for disciplinary panel decisions)
- Long v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) (Board functions are functionally separate; due process upheld)
- Sallee v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 469 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2015) (discipline upheld for unreasonable fee, failure to account)
- Threadgill v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (one‑year suspension for failure to deliver accounting among other violations)
- Bailey v. Bd. Prof'l Responsibility, 441 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2014) (ABA Standards as guideposts in sanctioning)