M. Josiah Hoover, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 811
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- BPR filed a 2010 petition for discipline alleging five misconducts by attorney Hoover from multiple former clients and another attorney.
- A hearing panel denied Hoover’s motion to continue two days before the December 8, 2010 hearing; panel proceeded with the hearing.
- Alleged misconduct includes: Whitton’s improper bankruptcy claim, Tituses’ failed timely appellate brief, LeQuire’s deposition prep and delays, Edwards v. Powers sanction data, and Disney v. Hoover frivolous filing.
- Hoover’s prior discipline included eight prior actions, including a 30-day suspension in 2008 for similar issues.
- Panel sustained multiple RPC violations across the complaints and recommended disbarment; trial court affirmed; Hoover appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed disbarment, addressing continuance, Edwards evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, propriety of disbarment, and record-supplementation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance denial abuse of discretion | Hoover contends denial prejudiced due to illness | Panel properly exercised discretion; no prejudice shown | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Admissibility of Edwards conduct evidence | Neuenschwander’s Edwards report was improper since he had no case involvement | RPC 8.3 allows reporting misconduct by another lawyer regardless of involvement | Properly admitted; no merit to challenge |
| Sufficiency of evidence for RPC violations | Hoover argues insufficient evidence of violations | Record contains substantial and material evidence supporting findings | Evidence supports panel's findings |
| Disbarment as sanction | Disbarment too harsh; lesser sanctions should apply | ABA Standards support disbarment given pattern and aggravation | Disbarment warranted |
| Motion to supplement the record | Trial court should consider deposition transcript to contradict testimony | Notice of appeal divested trial court; record review limited to panel record | Motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 314 S.W.3d 882 (Tenn. 2010) (motives for complaints irrelevant to findings; proper weight of evidence review)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (court does not reweigh the panel’s factual determinations)
- Rayburn v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 300 S.W.3d 654 (Tenn. 2009) (supreme authority for attorney disciplinary review; standard review guidelines)
- Allison v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (uniform sanctions consideration in comparable misconduct cases)