Homer L. Cody v. Board of Professional Responsibility of The Supreme Court of Tennessee, 471 S.W.3d 420

Homer L. Cody, a Memphis attorney, entered appearances for both Pee Wee Wisdom Child Development Center (the Center) and its executive director, Vivian Braxton, in a chancery action brought by the Attorney General alleging misapplication of assets and seeking dissolution. Braxton had pled guilty to theft related to the Center and later was held liable to the Receiver for ~ $296,000.
Despite a Court of Appeals ruling disqualifying Cody from representing either the Center or Braxton in matters related to the chancery litigation, Cody continued to file pleadings and later sued many participants in federal court, accusing them of operating as “judicial mobsters.”
The Board of Professional Responsibility initiated disciplinary proceedings. A hearing panel initially publicly censured Cody for concurrent representation; later misconduct (continued filings and federal suit) prompted a second hearing panel finding violations of RPC 1.7(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
The hearing panel recommended a 180‑day suspension, citing aggravating factors: prior discipline, pattern and multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and substantial experience; no mitigating factors were found.
The Shelby County Circuit Court affirmed the hearing panel. Cody appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, raising jurisdictional, due process, sufficiency, and other challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Board had probable cause / jurisdiction to bring disciplinary charges	Cody argued Board lacked probable cause and tribunals lacked jurisdiction	Board argued it had authority under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 and inherent court power to regulate attorneys	Court held Board and panels had authority; proceedings properly before them
Whether Cody’s concurrent representation violated RPC 1.7(a)	Cody contended he was permitted to represent both and denied existence of conflict	Board said representation of adverse interests (Center v. Braxton/Receiver) created a concurrent conflict	Court held Cody’s representation presented a concurrent conflict and violated RPC 1.7(a)
Whether Cody’s continued filings after disqualification/public censure constituted professional misconduct (RPC 8.4(a),(d))	Cody argued rulings and sanctions were wrong and proceedings flawed	Board argued ignoring court orders and repeating misconduct prejudiced administration of justice	Court held Cody’s repeated conduct violated 8.4(a) and (d) and was prejudicial to the administration of justice
Appropriateness of 180‑day suspension	Cody argued discipline excessive; challenged sufficiency and standards applied	Board and panels pointed to prior censure, recidivism, aggravating factors and ABA Standards supporting suspension	Court affirmed 180‑day suspension as supported by ABA Standards and record

Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (Supreme Court is source of Board authority)
Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (Court’s ultimate responsibility to regulate the bar)
Skouteris v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 430 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2014) (standard for trial court review of hearing panel factual findings)
Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (disciplinary review principles)
Mabry v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 458 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2014) (appellate standard for Board appeals)
Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (use of ABA Standards in sanction analysis)
Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (consideration of factors relevant to sanctions)
Allison v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (deference to hearing panel on weight of evidence)
Love v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 256 S.W.3d 644 (Tenn. 2008) (standards for modifying hearing panel decisions)