Herbert S. Moncier v. Board of Professional Responsibility
406 S.W.3d 139
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Moncier was suspended for 11 months 29 days with most time probated; costs of $22,038.32 were assessed under Rule 9, §24.3; he petitioned for relief from costs; the Board denied relief and this Court reviewed; on appeal Moncier raised multiple challenges to the disciplinary process and cost assessment; the Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s denial of relief from costs.
- Moncier I (disciplinary) involved various Rule 8 violations tied to conduct in federal criminal proceedings and related contempt findings; the Moncier I panel imposed discipline including probationary monitoring and ethics CLE; judicial review proceedings in state and federal courts occurred, culminating in a June 1, 2011 Order of Enforcement and cost assessment.
- Moncier II proceedings were held to consider relief from costs, with extensive filings, discovery disputes, and discovery rulings; the panel denied relief from costs on December 13, 2011, and the Court granted review under Rule 9, §24.3.
- Moncier argues Rule 9, §24.3 is void for vagueness, violates due process, and that the underlying disciplinary process was unconstitutional; the Court held Rule 9, §24.3 sufficiently provides for relief standards and that due process was met; the Court also rejected claims of bias, oath deficiencies, and other nonconstitutional grounds in the context of relief from costs.
- The Court affirmed the Moncier II panel’s denial of relief from costs and noted the Board’s proper role as an administrative body in disciplinary matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9, §24.3 is void-for-vagueness | Moncier argues lack of standards for relief from costs | Board argues rule provides defined costs and review standards | No; rule is not void-for-vagueness |
| Whether due process required pre-assessment notice/hearing | Moncier claims he lacked notice/hearing before costs | Rule 24.3 provides notice and opportunity to be heard; Board's actions adequate | No due process violation; notice and hearing satisfied |
| Whether the Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to assess costs | Rule 24.3 procedure not followed in Moncier I | Board complied via proposed order and detailed invoice | No jurisdiction defect; procedures complied |
| Whether the disciplinary process in Moncier I was unconstitutional | Disciplinary process violated constitutional rights | Process afforded Ruffalo-era due process and protections | No merit; process adequate under due process standards |
| Whether Board panel recusal and oath issues tainted relief decision | Panel bias and oath concerns | No bias; Board is administrative; no oath issue for panel | Panel did not abuse discretion; no due process violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shannon, 876 P.2d 548 (Ariz. 1994) (costs authority and deterrence in discipline)
- Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1966) (void-for-vagueness concerns in costs statute)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (overlapping investigative/adjudicative functions permitted in admin agencies)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (due process rights in disciplinary proceedings; notice and opportunity to be heard)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Buck, 196 S.W. 142 ( Tenn. 1917) (office-of-trust-or-profit concept; ouster context)
- Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Public Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012) (due process in state proceedings)
- Walker v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 38 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2001) (notice and opportunity to respond in discipline)