Douglas Ralph Beier v. Board of Professional Responsibility of The Supreme Court of Tennessee, 610 S.W.3d 425

Background

Two separate misconduct matters: (1) Affidavit: Beier signed a witness (Grandmother)’s affidavit, notarized it, and filed it without disclosing he had signed it, prompting a juvenile court order altering parenting time. (2) Jenkins estate: Beier represented Norton (an SSI/VA-benefits recipient with a payee), obtained a 33.3% contingency fee on the “gross estate,” failed to disclose other heirs (the James children), included real property not probated in his fee calculation, and collected about $78,614 (later reimbursed after the estate was reopened).
Hearing panel found Beier’s and Grandmother’s testimony not credible, concluded Beier knowingly misrepresented the affidavit and misled the probate court, exploited a vulnerable client, and charged an unreasonable fee.
Panel found violations of RPC 3.3 (candor to tribunal), RPC 1.5 (fees), and RPC 8.4 (dishonesty/misconduct), applied aggravating factors (dishonest/selfish motive, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, victim vulnerability, substantial experience), found no mitigating factors, and recommended a two-year suspension with three months active and remainder deferred on probation.
Chancery court affirmed the violations and aggravating/mitigating findings but modified the discipline to a two-year active suspension (finding the panel abused its discretion by not considering disbarment under ABA Standard 7.1).
Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings and rule violations and upheld the chancery court’s modification: two-year suspension served entirely as active suspension; costs taxed to Beier.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Beier)	Defendant's Argument (Board/BPR/Chancery)	Held
1. Did signing and notarizing Grandmother’s name violate RPCs (3.3, 8.4)?	Beier: He had Grandmother’s permission; affidavit statements were true; not dishonest.	Panel/Board: He falsely represented Grandmother signed, notarized it, and failed to disclose—constituted deceit and misrepresentation.	Court: Substantial evidence supported knowing false statement and dishonesty; RPC 3.3 and 8.4 violations affirmed.
2. Was the Jenkins contingency fee and related conduct unreasonable or exploitative (RPC 1.5, 8.4, 3.3)?	Beier: Norton agreed and signed; uncertainty of estate value justified contingency fee; ledger sheets explained calculation.	Board: Fee was excessive (one-third of gross, including non-probate realty), Norton was vulnerable, heirs omitted to avoid court scrutiny—unreasonable and dishonest.	Court: Substantial evidence supported unreasonable fee, exploitation of a vulnerable client, and failure of candor to the court; RPC 1.5, 3.3, 8.4 violations affirmed.
3. Were the hearing panel’s findings supported by substantial and material evidence?	Beier: Panel and trial court substituted judgment, credited improper statements, and ignored mitigating facts (self-report, restitution, cooperation).	Board: Record, witness demeanor, documentary evidence, and statutory law support the panel’s credibility findings and conclusions.	Court: Applied substantial-and-material-evidence standard; upheld panel’s credibility findings and factual conclusions.
4. Was the sanction appropriate (panel’s partially deferred suspension vs. chancellor’s two-year active suspension; disbarment consideration)?	Beier: Discipline should be minimal (public censure); panel’s sanction sufficient.	Board/Chancery: ABA Standards (including Standard 7.1) support suspension or possible disbarment given intent to obtain benefit and danger to client/public; active suspension warranted.	Court: Panel erred by not considering ABA Standard 7.1 (disbarment baseline); given aggravators and lack of mitigators, two-year active suspension affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

White v. McBride, 937 S.W.2d 796 (Tenn. 1996) (one-third contingency probate fee held grossly disproportionate where attorney had information indicating estate size)
Milligan v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 166 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. 2005) (forgery, false affidavits, concealment, and conversion warranted two-year suspension)
Napolitano v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 535 S.W.3d 481 (Tenn. 2017) (significant suspension for misconduct involving client property and prior suspension)
Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Justice, 577 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2019) (disbarment affirmed where patterns of deception, multiple violations, and aggravating factors present)
Meehan v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 584 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2019) (trial courts and panels must follow ABA Standards; comparative-case analysis not a substitute for ABA Standards)
Skouteris v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 430 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2014) (substantial experience is an aggravating factor)