Lufkin v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 336 S.W.3d 223

Lufkin was placed on disability inactive status in 1999 and later reinstated to active status in 2006.
In 2006 the Board sought temporary suspension; the Court granted suspension and later disciplinary proceedings were filed.
In 2009 the Board Hearing Panel recommended a two-year suspension, two-year continuing legal education, and supervision upon reinstatement.
In August 2009 the Supreme Court entered an Order of Enforcement and assessed costs of the suspension proceedings totaling $11,277.88 under Rule 9, Section 24.3.
Lufkin petitioned for relief from costs; in March 2010 the Panel reduced the costs by $2,554, leaving $8,723.88 due as a condition to reinstatement.
Lufkin filed this Court appeal in April 2010; he subsequently filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in September 2010, and discharged on December 10, 2010, which discharged the disciplinary costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the cost assessment was discharged in bankruptcy	Lufkin argues the costs are discharged	Board contends costs remain owed unless discharged	Yes; costs were discharged and the appeal is moot
Whether any mootness exceptions apply	Discretionary exceptions might avoid mootness	No applicable exceptions present	No exceptional circumstances present; case is moot

Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn.2009) (mootness principles and when a case becomes non-justiciable)
State ex rel. DeSelm v. Jordan, 296 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn.Ct.App.2009) (mootness and transactional/pending issues)
Clay v. Ford Motor Co., 984 S.W.2d 615 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (personal bankruptcy discharge abrogates certain judgments)