In Re: Paul Julius Walwyn, BPR 18263
531 S.W.3d 131
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- Walwyn represented Jonathan Gutierrez in a 2011 first-degree murder trial; Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced to life plus other terms. Walwyn filed a motion for new trial (denied) but did not file a timely notice of appeal; the notice was filed May 8, 2015 (over three years late). The Court of Criminal Appeals accepted the late-filed notice in the interest of justice.
- Gutierrez complained to the Board alleging Walwyn repeatedly assured him an appeal would be filed, failed to provide records, and became largely unresponsive. The Board charged violations of RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.4.
- At the disciplinary hearing, Walwyn acknowledged missing the deadline due to inadequate calendaring and a large caseload, asserted he sought successor appellate counsel, and claimed sporadic contact with the client; he had extensive prior discipline for similar conduct.
- The Hearing Panel found violations of RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a),(d), imposed a public censure, one-year practice-monitor probation, and six additional CLE hours; it amended its judgment after Rule 9 required some active suspension.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed under Rule 9 §15.4, concluded the Panel’s sanction was inadequate given ABA standards and Walwyn’s prior disciplinary history, and modified the sanction to a one-year suspension (six months active suspension, six months probation with a practice monitor) plus six CLE hours.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (notice of possible sanction) | Walwyn: lacked adequate notice of Court’s potential to increase punishment after he declined trial-court appeal | Board/Court: Rule 9 and ABA Standards provided notice; Court complied with Rule 9 notice procedures | Court held procedural due process satisfied; notice was adequate |
| Substantive due process / access to courts | Walwyn: post‑panel review to increase sanction (after he accepted panel judgment) is oppressive and infringes access | Board/Court: regulation of law is a privilege; review to ensure uniformity is not conscience‑shocking and does not deny access | Court held no substantive due process violation; review is permissible |
| Appropriateness of sanction (duty/mental state/injury) | Walwyn: public censure + monitoring + CLE adequate; mitigating factors (no dishonest motive, cooperation) justify leniency | Board: prior disciplines and pattern of missing deadlines warrant suspension longer than prior six‑month suspension | Court held suspension appropriate under ABA Standards: one‑year suspension (six months active, six months probation with monitor) + six CLE hours |
| Uniformity with prior decisions | Walwyn: suspensions reserved for more egregious misconduct historically | Board: comparable cases show suspensions of 6–18 months for missed deadlines and poor communication; Walwyn’s repeat misconduct supports active suspension | Court held one‑year suspension consistent with and supported by comparable precedents and Walwyn’s disciplinary history |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (Court’s supervisory authority over lawyer discipline and use of ABA standards)
- Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Resp., 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (Court’s ultimate disciplinary responsibility)
- Bd. of Prof'l Resp. v. Maddux, 148 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. 2004) (consideration of circumstances and uniformity in sanctions)
- Bd. of Prof'l Resp. v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (guidance on ABA Standards in sanctioning)
- Walwyn v. Bd. of Prof'l Resp., 481 S.W.3d 151 (Tenn. 2015) (Walwyn’s prior disciplinary suspension relevant to aggravation)
- Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006) (procedural due process framing)
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) (substantive due process scope)