Board of Professional Responsibility v. Reguli
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 1058
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Board filed three disciplinary complaints against Connie Reguli in 2012 based on Castleman fee issues, Misrepresentation on her website, and Pope divorce matter.
- Fee dispute: $10,000 retainer held in escrow; Reguli treated as nonrefundable despite lack of clear writing; Castleman discharged and sought accounting and refund.
- Castleman alleged no timely accounting or refund; Reguli produced a partial accounting only at the 2013 hearing.
- Website misrepresentation: Reguli’s site claimed she was a certified specialist in Family Law and Divorce, which she conceded was false.
- Pope matter: different orders drafted by Reguli; contempt petition led to a modest attorney-fee award against Pope’s side; Panel found insufficient proof of misconduct there.
- Panel found multiple Rule violations (RPC 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.5(f), 1.16(d)(4)(6), 8.1(b), 8.4(a)(d), 7.4(b)); aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors (cancer noted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel Chair authority and rulings | Reguli argues Chair exceeded authority and issued improper rulings. | Board contends Chair acted within authority; panel participated by multiple members. | Panel Chair acted within authority; no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings. |
| Panel’s discovery and panel-appointment process | Reguli claims improper discovery on rotating panel appointment; process unlawful. | No reversible error; no distortion of appointment process proven; waiver of review occurred. | No reversible error; no substantial right implicating procedure; waiver applies. |
| Disqualification of Hodges | Reguli contends Hodges’ communications created disqualifying interest. | Disciplinary Counsel’s handling does not show actual or appearance of conflict. | Court did not abuse discretion; no disqualification required. |
| Sufficiency and reasonableness of findings and sanctions | Reguli argues Panel’s findings/citations/arising sanctions were arbitrary and inconsistent with ABA standards. | Board argues ABA standards support Panel’s sanctions; trial court properly reviewed. | Panel’s findings upheld; sanctions reinstated with restitution. |
| Restitution and probation modification legality | Board claims trial court properly modified sanctions; Reguli challenges TLAP, monitoring scope, and active time. | Trial court properly ordered restitution but erred by altering TLAP, monitor scope, and duration. | Restitution proper; other modifications to Panel’s sanctions reversed; Panel’s sanction reinstated with restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabry v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 458 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2014) (Court authority to regulate lawyer discipline; deference to panels)
- Brown v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (jurisdiction and due process framework for discipline)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (standard of review and disciplinary procedure framework)
- Allison v. Bd. Prof'l Responsibility, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (weight of evidence and deference to panel credibility findings)
- Sallee v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 469 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard and evidentiary rulings)
- Long v. Bd. Prof'l Responsibility, 435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) (ABA standards as guideposts; panel independence in disciplinary process)
- Moncier v. Bd. Prof'l Responsibility, 406 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. 2013) (procedural protections in attorney discipline)
- Threadgill v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (sanction standards for fee misappropriation and failure to account)