618 S.W.3d 288
Tenn.2021Background
- Winston B. Sitton, a Tennessee lawyer (licensed 1997), replied on Facebook to a public post by Lauren Houston about carrying a gun, identifying himself as a lawyer.
- Sitton advised non‑lethal alternatives, then wrote: "If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in..." and later urged Houston "as a lawyer" to delete the thread and "keep mum."
- Shelby County DA learned of the exchange, the Board of Professional Responsibility charged Sitton with violating RPC 8.4(a) and (d), and a hearing panel found violations and suspended him 60 days.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the sanction under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 15.4, concluded the posts (and public posting) were prejudicial to the administration of justice, and increased discipline.
- The Court held Sitton’s comments were not mere sarcasm, credited the panel’s credibility findings (including lack of remorse and prior discipline), treated public posting as an aggravating factor, and imposed a four‑year suspension (one year active, three years probation) plus nine CLE hours on ethical social‑media use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (Sitton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sitton violated RPC 8.4(a) and (d) by advising how to commit murder and fabricate self‑defense | Sitton counseled criminal conduct and advice was prejudicial to administration of justice | Comments were sarcastic/dark humor meant to dissuade and lacked criminal intent | Court affirmed panel: conduct violated RPC 8.4(a) and (d); panel’s credibility findings controlling |
| Whether public posting on social media is an aggravating factor | Public forum amplified harm and fostered a corrupt image of lawyers | Public posting undermines claim of sinister intent (wouldn’t post if serious) | Court held public social‑media publication is an aggravating factor that increases discipline |
| Appropriate sanction / uniformity | Suspension or disbarment appropriate given potential to cause serious harm and to interfere with proceedings | 60‑day suspension adequate; conduct mischaracterized | Court imposed four‑year suspension (1 year active, 3 years probation) + nine CLE hours on ethical social media use |
| Procedural / evidentiary challenges (context, presumption of innocence, scope of evidence) | Panel properly considered evidence; Board met burden by preponderance | Panel misweighed context, denied presumption of innocence, evidence incomplete | Court rejected Sitton’s procedural arguments; deferred to panel on factual findings and credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Prof Responsibility v. MacDonald, 595 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 2020) (Court’s role in regulating the profession)
- Walwyn v. Bd. of Prof Responsibility, 481 S.W.3d 151 (Tenn. 2015) (disciplinary proceedings are not criminal; Board bears burden)
- In re Cope, 549 S.W.3d 71 (Tenn. 2018) (review of attorney discipline and uniformity of sanctions)
- In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (use of ABA Standards as guideposts for sanctions)
- Bd. of Prof Responsibility v. Cowan, 388 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. 2012) (framework for presumptive sanctions and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Hyman v. Bd. of Prof Responsibility, 437 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2014) (reading ABA Standards in context)
- In re Edson, 530 A.2d 1246 (N.J. 1987) (disbarment for advising fabrication of evidence; extreme breach of professional integrity)
- In re Anderson, 791 S.E.2d 285 (S.C. 2016) (suspension for counseling/participating in criminal conduct and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- People v. Gifford, 76 P.3d 519 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2003) (discipline, including disbarment, where attorney counseled client to engage in criminal conduct)
- People v. Ritland, 327 P.3d 914 (Colo. 2014) (lengthy suspension where attorney submitted false evidence and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)