595 S.W.3d 170
Tenn.2020Background
- James S. MacDonald represented Michael Huddleston in a partnership dispute; Huddleston provided an unsigned draft "Letter" from Kenneth Harper that he said had been signed and delivered.
- MacDonald instructed his secretary to add "/s/ Kenneth Harper" by typewriter to the Letter before filing it as an exhibit to Huddleston’s affidavit; opposing counsel had previously received the unsigned version in discovery.
- At the summary-judgment hearing the trial judge admonished MacDonald for altering a produced document; opposing counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility.
- The Board charged MacDonald with violating RPC 3.3(b)–(c), 3.4(a)–(b), and 8.4(a) and (c) for offering/altering false evidence and dishonesty; a three-attorney hearing panel (the Panel) held an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the Petition in full, finding MacDonald acted in good faith and used a "conformed signature."
- The Board appealed to chancery court; the chancery court reversed, found violations of the alleged rules, and imposed a public censure.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the chancery court: it reinstated the Panel’s dismissal as to RPC 3.3(b)/(c), 3.4(a)/(b), and 8.4(a), and treated the Panel’s omission on RPC 8.4(c) as a dismissal under Hancock, thus dismissing the entire Petition.
Issues
| Issue | Board's Argument | MacDonald’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of RPC 3.3(b) and (c) (using/offering evidence known to be false) was arbitrary or unsupported | MacDonald knowingly added a signature of the adversary to an unsigned draft and thus presented false evidence | MacDonald acted in good faith based on client’s representations that Harper had signed and delivered the original; no proof he knew it was false | Panel decision reinstated: substantial evidence supported good-faith belief; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal of RPC 3.4(a)–(b) (obstructing/altering evidence; falsifying evidence) was arbitrary | Adding the signature was an unlawful alteration/falsification because MacDonald lacked authority and no signed original was produced | The notation was a "conformed signature" annotation; copies with and without the annotation were produced; no obstruction shown | Panel decision reinstated: Panel reasonably found annotation/conformed signature and no unlawful alteration or concealment |
| Whether dismissal of RPC 8.4(a) (violating/assisting violation of RPC) was arbitrary | MacDonald’s conduct violated multiple rules, so 8.4(a) applies | Panel found no underlying rule violation and thus no 8.4(a) violation | Panel decision reinstated: no underlying violations proven, so 8.4(a) dismissal supported |
| Effect of Panel’s failure to address RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit) and chancery court’s authority to decide it | The chancery court may remedy the Panel’s omission and find a violation based on the record | Omission leaves the allegation effectively dismissed absent a Board request to correct the Panel’s judgment | Held for MacDonald: under Hancock the Panel’s silence must be treated as dismissal; chancery court erred by finding a violation without Panel findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Walwyn v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 481 S.W.3d 151 (Tenn. 2015) (Supreme Court’s role in attorney-discipline review and rulemaking authority)
- Napolitano v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 535 S.W.3d 481 (Tenn. 2017) (right to evidentiary hearing before a panel and appeals standard)
- Hancock v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 447 S.W.3d 844 (Tenn. 2014) (panel omission of a specific rule finding must be treated as dismissal; reviewing courts cannot supply or substitute findings)
- Long v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) (standard prohibiting substitution of appellate judgment for panel fact-findings)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (explanation of "substantial and material" evidence standard in disciplinary appeals)