Fred T. Hanzelik v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 380 S.W.3d 669

Fred T. Hanzelik, a Chattanooga lawyer, faced Board discipline based on claims from three former clients (Epstein estate, Dr. Lawsin, and William Taylor) regarding billing and representation.
Epstein's widow alleged Hanzelik overbilled by filing an invalid claim for 59,653.22 against Epstein's estate after Epstein had paid him in full; the estate later objected and the claim was withdrawn when confronted with evidence.
Lawsin asserted that Hanzelik abandoned him, failed to pursue claims, failed to provide fee documentation, and caused delays and contempt issues in related divorce and employment matters.
Disciplinary counsel sought production of fee agreements, itemized statements, and time records; Hanzelik eventually produced limited time accounting after a long investigation, including a late ‘reconstructed’ time sheet.
A videotaped deposition of Dr. Lawsin was admitted at the disciplinary hearing over Hanzelik's objection, after balancing notice and procedural concerns under Tennessee rules.
The hearing panel found violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) including 1.5 (unreasonable fees), 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 (diligence and communication), and 8.1 (cooperation). It suspended Hanzelik for 45 days, and the chancery court affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports the panel's findings of professional conduct violations	Hanzelik argues the record lacks substantial support for the RPC violations.	Board contends the record shows substantive, material proof of violations (1.5, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1).	Yes; substantial and material evidence supports the violations.
Whether the videotaped deposition of Dr. Lawsin was admissible	Hanzelik argues the deposition should have been excluded due to notice/limitations.	Board contends the deposition was properly admitted and any objections were waived.	Yes; admission upheld; no abuse of discretion.
Whether ABA Standards were properly applied to determine sanctions	Hanzelik contends the sanctions were misapplied or excessive under ABA Standards.	Board asserts the panel properly considered ABA Standards 2.3, 3, 4.41, 4.42, 7.1, and 9.22 and the trial court concurred.	Yes; sanctions are consistent with ABA Standards and the record.
Whether the 45-day suspension is inconsistent with penalties for similar conduct	Hanzelik claims punishment is disproportionate compared to similar cases.	Board argues no comparable Tennessee authority dictates a different outcome; 45 days is at the low end and appropriate.	No; the suspension is proper and not inconsistent with comparable discipline.

Flowers v. Board of Prof’l Responsibility, 314 S.W.3d 882 (Tenn. 2010) (court reviews disciplinary decisions with deference)
Sneed v. Board of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (substantial and material evidence standard)
Rayburn v. Board of Prof’l Responsibility, 300 S.W.3d 654 (Tenn. 2009) (official governance of lawyer conduct)
Turner v. State, 352 S.W.3d 425 (Tenn. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Sanford v. Waugh & Co., 328 S.W.3d 836 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for evaluating professional misconduct)
Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (rigorous standard for appellate review in disciplinary matters)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (considerations in evaluating professional conduct findings)
Threadgill v. Board of Prof’l Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (substantial and material evidence review standard)