H. Owen Maddux v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
409 S.W.3d 613
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Maddux appeals a nine-month suspension from law practice following a Board of Professional Responsibility disciplinary proceeding.
- This is Maddux’s third disciplinary matter, with prior Tennessee Supreme Court suspensions in 2004 and 2009.
- From Oct. 2008 to Mar. 2009, Maddux represented Ted Hayes and Nancy Hayes in a dispute with Bean/TCE Landscaping; he sent demand letters to customers demanding payment to TCE Landscaping and later gave over $35,000 received from customers to Ted Hayes instead of depositing it with the Clerk and Master.
- Maddux failed to deposit funds or promptly notify interested parties; he gave the funds to Hayes without advising the court or opposing counsel, resulting in alleged ethical violations under RPC 1.15(b), 4.1, and 8.4(a)/(c).
- Disciplinary Counsel served a petition for discipline on Maddux on Feb. 16, 2010; he failed to answer within 20 days and a default judgment was entered after a motion filed 71 days later.
- The Chancery Court affirmed the nine-month suspension, and Maddux appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment should be set aside for excusable neglect. | Maddux contends excusable neglect supports relief. | Board argues willful failure to answer defeats relief; default valid. | Default judgment not set aside; willful conduct justifies denial. |
| Whether Maddux’s conduct created potential injury to Ms. Hayes. | Hayes asserted potential and actual injury from funds given to Hayes. | Maddux argues no potential injury established. | Substantial evidence supports potential injury to Ms. Hayes. |
| Appropriate sanction under ABA Standards (duty, state of mind, injury, aggravation/mitigation). | Nine-month suspension warranted given prior discipline and misconduct. | Discipline should be lesser; argues misapplication of standards. | Nine-month suspension affirmed; standards support remedy. |
| Weight given to disciplinary history in aggravation and overall sanction. | Prior discipline properly aggravates the sanction. | Disciplinary history overly weighted; case should stand on merits. | Court affirms nine-month suspension, finds aggravation appropriate. |
| Any additional challenges to procedure or evidence underlying the panel’s findings. | Maddux argues process or evidentiary issues undermine findings. | Record supports panel’s findings and the trial court’s affirmation. | No reversible error; record supports sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Maddux, 148 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. 2004) (suspension and probation for misappropriation of partnership funds; prior discipline)
- Maddux v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 288 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2009) (suspension for multiple ethical violations; neglect and commingling; prior discipline)
- Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (default judgments and excusable neglect standards)
- Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475 (Tenn. 2003) (factors guiding post-judgment relief)
- Cowan v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 388 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review; ABA Standards framework)
- Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (aggravating/mitigating factor considerations in sanctions)