600 S.W.3d 317
Tenn.2020Background
- George H. Thompson III (attorney) represented Mary Hall in a 2013 personal-injury suit; he filed a voluntary nonsuit in 2014 but failed to refile within the one-year window, so the underlying claim was time-barred.
- Thompson acknowledged the error, gave Hall a $500 check and later agreed to pay $5,000 for a full release of a potential malpractice claim; he did not advise her in writing to seek independent counsel before settlement.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition alleging violations of RPCs 1.1, 1.3, 1.8(h)(2), 7.3, and 8.4(c),(d); Thompson stipulated to violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.8(h)(2), and 8.4(c).
- The hearing panel found multiple violations, relied on ABA Standards (including 4.41 and 8.2), noted aggravating factors (extensive prior discipline, pattern of neglect, multiple offenses, long experience) and mitigating factors (restitution, cooperation, reputation).
- The panel imposed a one-year suspension (30 days active suspension; remainder on probation with conditions including a practice monitor).
- The chancery court affirmed the panel's judgment; the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding the sanction was not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspension was an appropriate sanction | Suspension would likely destroy his practice and force involuntary retirement; misconduct was not intentional or dishonest; requests public censure instead | Prior similar reprimands/suspensions and repeated neglect justify suspension under ABA Standards; misconduct caused injury/potential injury to client and involved dishonesty | Affirmed: suspension appropriate (1 year, 30 days active); panel properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (describing Supreme Court authority over Board and disciplinary proceedings)
- Long v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) (disciplinary oversight principles)
- Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (court's ultimate disciplinary responsibility)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (disciplinary authority and review)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Daniel, 549 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2018) (use of ABA Standards as guideposts)
- Maddux v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 409 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2013) (ABA Standards not rigid rules)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Cowan, 388 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. 2012) (two-step ABA Standards analysis: duty/mental state/injury, then aggravators/mitigators)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli, 489 S.W.3d 408 (Tenn. 2015) (review standard for disciplinary decisions)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (arbitrary and capricious review requires evidentiary support)