3:18-mc-00039
E.D. Tenn.Aug 30, 2019Background
- Elliott J. Schuchardt (Respondent) was accused by Bankruptcy Judge Bauknight of repeated unprofessional and unethical conduct in multiple 2017–2018 bankruptcy matters; Judge Bauknight referred the matter for disciplinary proceedings under E.D. Tenn. Local Rule 83.7.
- Core factual allegations: Schuchardt publicly accused the Chapter 13 trustee and Judge Bauknight of ex parte communications without credible proof; failed to comply with court directives; and continued to practice or assist in bankruptcy matters during a six‑month moratorium set by an Agreed Order resolving earlier show‑cause proceedings.
- Specific misconduct found: (1) making reckless accusations about judicial ex parte contacts (violating Tenn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2); (2) preparing bankruptcy pleadings and reaffirmation agreements for allegedly pro se debtors while the Agreed Order barred him from representing clients (ghostwriting/undisclosed participation), violating Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and Tenn. R. Prof. Conduct (3.3, 8.4, et al.); (3) procedural/competency lapses in several cases (missed hearings, filings with errors, mis‑filed PII), raising concerns under Tenn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 and related rules.
- Procedural posture: Magistrate Judge reviewed the record without an additional hearing, recommended findings of violations and discipline, and denied Schuchardt’s motion to vacate prior sanction orders under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
- Recommended discipline: public reprimand for false accusations against the judge; two‑year suspension from practice in the Eastern District of Tennessee (with eligibility to apply for early reinstatement after one year subject to conditions, apology letter, CLE/professionalism training, probation, and proof of remediation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Judge Bauknight/Complaint) | Defendant's Argument (Schuchardt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schuchardt’s public allegations that Judge Bauknight engaged in ex parte communications violated professional rules | Allegations were made recklessly without credible evidence and harmed the court’s integrity | He had a good‑faith basis (third‑hand information) and pointed to timing of sua sponte orders as circumstantial proof | Court held allegations were made with reckless disregard for truth and violated Tenn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2; sanctionable conduct |
| Whether Schuchardt violated the Agreed Order by assisting Webb and the Edingtons (unauthorized practice/ghostwriting) | Agreed Order prohibited new/continued representation and required referrals; completing forms and negotiating reaffirmations constituted representation and nondisclosed attorney participation | He claims assistance was uncompensated, pro bono, or merely informal advice; cites statutory allowance for laypersons to prepare petitions | Court found he prepared forms and negotiated reaffirmations without disclosure, creating the false appearance of unassisted filings; violated Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, Tenn. R. Prof. Conduct (candor, 8.4), and the Agreed Order |
| Whether other filing, competency, and procedural lapses (missed hearings, filing errors, PII disclosures) amounted to ethical violations | Pattern of carelessness and delays showed incompetence and violation of duties (Rule 1.1, 3.2, etc.) | Some errors were explained (software glitches, case‑management practice); not every mistake equates to ethical violation | Court deemed some issues non‑ethics violations after explanation (e.g., software glitch, time‑entry system), but found overall pattern supported remedial discipline and professionalism training |
| Whether prior sanction orders should be vacated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) | Schuchardt sought vacatur of three sanction orders as improperly motivated or unsupported | He argued orders were procured for improper purpose and lacked consideration; he asserted appellate rights | Court denied motion to vacate, finding the orders were properly issued (August 10 sanctions for reckless statements; Agreed Order entered by mutual resolution; June 10 contempt for violating the Agreed Order) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (federal courts possess inherent authority to control their dockets and discipline attorneys)
- In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (courts have inherent authority to suspend or disbar attorneys admitted by them)
- In re Cowan, 620 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) (discusses progressive discipline and factors for appropriate sanctions)