556 S.W.3d 153
Tenn.2018Background
- Larry E. Parrish, a Memphis attorney, filed motions to recuse three Tennessee Court of Appeals judges after adverse rulings in related trust/probate litigation involving the Estate of John Goza.
- The recusal motions contained extensive pejorative allegations accusing Judge Farmer (and two colleagues) of bias, fabrication of facts, prejudging issues, usurping judicial power, and conduct analogous to accepting bribes, though Parrish disclaimed any bribery evidence.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility charged Parrish with violating Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5(e), 8.2(a)(1), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). A hearing panel found violations and imposed a public censure.
- The Board sought certiorari review in Shelby County Circuit Court; the trial court affirmed the violations but found the proper sanction to be a six-month suspension (30 days active, remainder on probation), applying ABA Standards 6.12 and 6.32.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed de novo legal questions and the trial court’s application of the ABA Standards, affirming the finding of misconduct, holding the recusal pleadings were not First Amendment protected, and concluding the hearing panel was arbitrary in imposing only a public censure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrish’s in-pleading accusations are protected speech under the First Amendment | Board: pleadings in judicial proceedings are not absolutely protected when they attack judicial integrity and threaten tribunal function | Parrish: his statements are protected criticism about judicial reform and are constitutionally protected | Court: In-court pleadings are not entitled to absolute First Amendment protection; objective reasonable-attorney standard applies and statements were unprotected |
| Proper standard to evaluate attorney speech in disciplinary context | Board: objective "reasonable attorney" standard is appropriate for in-court statements | Parrish: relied on First Amendment protections (argued subjective actual malice or broader protection) | Court: Adopted objective reasonable-attorney standard for in-court disciplinary review |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of Professional Rule violations (3.5(e), 8.2(a)(1), 8.4(a), 8.4(d)) | Board: motions contained knowingly false or recklessly false attacks prejudicial to administration of justice | Parrish: argued his claims stemmed from belief in judicial reform and were permissible criticism | Held: Material and substantial evidence supported violations of the cited RPCs |
| Appropriate sanction (public censure v. suspension) | Board: suspension appropriate under ABA Standards given knowledge and prejudice to administration of justice | Parrish: censure sufficient; suspension would unconstitutionally suppress speech | Held: Hearing panel acted arbitrarily in imposing censure; ABA Standards 6.12/6.32 support suspension—Court affirmed six-month suspension (one month active, remainder probation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Prof'l Responsibility v. Slavin, 145 S.W.3d 538 (Tenn. 2004) (in-court pleadings attacking judges are not absolutely protected by First Amendment)
- Ramsey v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 771 S.W.2d 116 (Tenn. 1989) (out-of-court attorney statements to media may be protected absent actual malice; in-court misconduct remains sanctionable)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for defamation of public officials)
- Farmer v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 660 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1983) (discipline for scurrilous language in briefs; suspension affirmed)
- Bailey v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 441 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2014) (discipline and sanctions analysis; attorney conduct prejudicial to administration of justice warrants suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 793 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 2003) (adopting objective standard; suspension for reckless, baseless accusations in court filings)