George Ernest Skouteris, Jr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 120
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Skouteris was licensed in 1988; prior disciplinary actions occurred in 1997 (informal admonition), 2000 (publicly censured), and 2003 (informal admonition).
- Three Petitions for Discipline were filed (Aug 26, 2010; Apr 6, 2011; Jan 23, 2012) alleging six misconduct counts from 2007–2011 across multiple clients.
- Panel (May 23, 2012) found multiple Rule violations and recommended disbarment, with restitution to Pruett and Cox as a condition to reinstatement.
- Trial Court (Feb 4, 2013) affirmed the Panel; Skouteris appealed; Court of Appeals reviewed and upheld.
- ABA Standards cited (4.11, 4.41, 4.61, 5.11, 7.1) with aggravating factors; extensive evidence of mishandling client funds and dishonesty; expenses and restitution discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may supplement petitions for discipline and consolidate counts | Skouteris argues amendments were cumulative/unduly prejudicial | Board satisfied Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.04 and notice was adequate | Yes; amendments proper and not prejudicial |
| Whether the Trial Court properly considered Skouteris's evidence | Skouteris contends evidence was overlooked | Court should not reweigh evidence; standard deferential to Panel | No reversible error; evidence supported Panel findings |
| Whether the Court incorrectly treated prior disciplinary offenses | Mischaracterization of prior discipline, affecting context | Irrelevant to the extent of violations here | Incorrect description ignored; proper sanction unaffected |
| Whether disbarment was an appropriate sanction | Some argue for lesser sanction given career length | Pattern of conversion and dishonesty warrants disbarment per ABA Standards | Disbarment affirmed; restitution required as condition to reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (adoption of Tenn. Rule 9 procedures in discipline actions)
- Allison v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (standard of review for panel findings; substantial evidence required)
- Love v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 256 S.W.3d 644 (Tenn. 2008) (enumerated grounds for reversal/modification of panel decisions)
- Hoover v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 395 S.W.3d 95 (Tenn. 2012) (same standard of review as trial court in disciplinary matters)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (court authority to regulate profession and enforce rules)
- In re Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995) (historical basis for disciplinary jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (authorizes Board to discipline attorneys and framework for sanctions)