Danny C. Garland, II v. Board of Professional Responsibility Of The Supreme Court of Tennessee
E2016-01106-SC-R3-BP
| Tenn. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Danny C. Garland II, a Knoxville family-law attorney, represented Samantha and Jason McKeogh in a stepparent adoption (filed Jan. 2011). His small office included one full-time and one part-time assistant.
- Mr. Atchley (the biological father) signed an agreed order on July 7, 2011, but the agreed order was misfiled in the client’s closed divorce file and Mr. Garland was not notified.
- After a court order to prosecute (Mar. 23, 2012), Garland prepared an amended petition; the amended petition bearing Atchley’s notarized signature (Sept. 12, 2012) was mailed to the client’s old address by mistake. The client did not receive it until late Jan. 2013.
- The amended petition was filed Mar. 23, 2013; the adoption was granted July 19, 2013. During long stretches of the case the client’s emails/phone calls went unanswered or unreturned, prompting a complaint to the Board on June 7, 2013.
- The Board charged violations of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), and 8.4(a) (misconduct). A hearing panel found violations and recommended public censure; the Chancery Court affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and public censure.
Issues
| Issue | Garland's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garland violated RPC 1.4 (communication) | Office policies were reasonable; client failed to contact Garland directly; panel imposed de facto strict liability | Lawyer must keep client reasonably informed; mental state not required for violation; Garland failed to insert himself and supervise communications | Violation affirmed: Garland failed to keep client reasonably informed and to promptly respond to requests |
| Whether Garland violated RPC 1.3 (diligence) | Delay resulted from staff mailing error, USPS/recipient, and client’s failure to forward address; not Garland’s neglect | Pattern of missteps and inaction by Garland (file review, supervision, filing delay) caused the delay | Violation affirmed: Garland failed to act with reasonable diligence and control workload |
| Whether Garland committed misconduct under RPC 8.4(a) by acts of staff | Should not be vicariously liable for staff errors; had policies complying with supervision rules | Garland’s inadequate procedures and supervision caused errors and delay; attorney responsible for staff shortcomings | Violation affirmed: Garland’s conduct (including through staff) constituted misconduct under 8.4(a) |
| Whether public censure was appropriate sanction | (Not heavily argued) contends policies existed; blames staff and client | Aggravation: prior discipline, pattern, multiple offenses, experience, blame-shifting; mitigation: no dishonest motive, cooperation | Public censure affirmed as appropriate under ABA Standards and Rule 9 |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (Supreme Court authority over Board functions)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (Court’s duty to regulate the profession)
- Skouteris v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 430 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review for disciplinary hearing panels)
- Mabry v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 458 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2014) (applying same standard of review as trial court)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (use of ABA Standards in sanctioning)
- Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (consideration of ABA Standards and factors relevant to sanctions)
- Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (deference to hearing panel factual findings)