Loring E. Justice v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 693 S.W.3d 225

Loring E. Justice, a Tennessee attorney, filed four motions in a child custody case regarding his minor child containing harsh, pejorative statements about the presiding trial judge, Judge Ash.
The Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging Justice violated multiple Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), specifically rules prohibiting conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, false or reckless statements about judicial integrity, and conduct prejudicial to justice.
The BPR hearing panel found Justice violated these RPCs and recommended a three-year suspension; the trial court affirmed RPC violations but increased punishment to disbarment.
Justice appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, raising issues about procedural fairness, First Amendment protections, evidentiary sufficiency, and the propriety of his discipline.
The Supreme Court affirmed findings of misconduct and the suspension, but reversed the trial court's imposition of a harsher penalty, reinstating the hearing panel's three-year suspension, effective immediately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discovery sanctions for failing to answer interrogatories	Sanctions were too harsh and violated rights	Sanctions were proper after repeated noncompliance	Sanctions were proper and not prejudicial
Violation of RPCs and First Amendment protection	Statements were reasonable and constitutionally protected	Statements were derogatory, disruptive, not protected speech	No First Amendment protection for these statements; RPC violations affirmed
Denial of motion for summary judgment	Should have been granted since Board did not sufficiently respond	Sufficient evidence existed to create fact issues; Board's delay was justified	Denial of summary judgment affirmed; any errors harmless
Trial court's increase of discipline from suspension to disbarment	Trial court erred by increasing discipline without cross-petition	Suspension was too lenient for severity and repeat nature of the misconduct	Increase improper; only reviewing party's rights could be addressed, not enhanced discipline

Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Justice, 577 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2019) (discussing the Court’s role as final authority in attorney discipline)
Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Parrish, 556 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. 2018) (articulating standards for attorney speech about judges)
Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Slavin, 145 S.W.3d 538 (Tenn. 2004) (First Amendment scrutiny of attorney criticism directed at the courts)
Bailey v. Bd. of Prof. Resp., 441 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2014) (unprofessional court language justifies discipline)