Fletcher Whaley Long v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
435 S.W.3d 174
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Board filed a Petition for Discipline against Fletcher Long in 2011 based on alleged misconduct in Ralph representation.
- Hearing Panel found violations of RPC 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.16(d)(5) and 8.4(a) and imposed a public censure in May 2012.
- Long appealed to the Montgomery County Chancery Court which affirmed the Panel’s findings in March 2013.
- Long challenged Rule 9 as unconstitutional, raising due process concerns about the Board’s structure and incentives.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Long’s constitutional challenge and other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Rule 9 as applied to discipline | Long argues Rule 9 unconstitutionally combines functions and creates bias. | Board contends no due process violation; functions are structurally separate within the Board. | Rule 9 not facially unconstitutional; no due process violation. |
| Public vs private discipline sanction | Panel should have imposed private reprimand if discipline warranted. | Panel properly used public censure per ABA Standards applicable to misconduct. | Public censure affirmed; not arbitrary or unlawful. |
| Substantial and material evidence for RPC violations | Written fee agreement modification unclear; de minimis accounting and refund duties. | Panel properly credited Ferrell’s testimony; credibility determinations defer to Panel. | Panel's findings of RPC 1.4(a), 1.15(a), and 1.16(d)(5) supported. |
| Laches | Disciplinary charges barred by undue delay. | Laches not applicable to attorney disciplinary proceedings. | Laches inapplicable; delay did not prejudice Board. |
| Res judicata | Earlier public censure in separate case bars current charges. | Different clients and misconduct; not the same claim. | Not barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (source of general authority for Board’s role and review)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (agency review and due process framework)
- Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (ultimate responsibility to regulate the profession)
- Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Public Education, 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012) (confirms limited due process protections in civil/admin contexts)
- Moncier v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 406 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. 2013) (discusses bias risks in combined investigative/adjudicative roles)
- Varallo v. People, 913 P.2d 1 (Colorado 1996) (noting due process considerations in disciplinary structures)
- Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977) (addressed financial incentives in disciplinary-like contexts)
- In re Dender, 571 S.W.2d 491 (Tenn. 1978) (state costs/incentives in disciplinary proceedings)
- Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) (due process concerns about financial incentives and bias in adjudication)
- In re Ross, 656 P.2d 832 (Nev. 1983) (institutional bias concerns in disciplinary boards)