R. Sadler Bailey v. Board of Professional Responsibility
441 S.W.3d 223
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Bailey, a Tennessee lawyer since 1985, faced disciplinary charges based on disruptive behavior during the Watkins v. Methodist Healthcare System trial.
- Judge Karen Williams supervised the Watkins trial, which involved extensive contentious conduct and numerous speaking objections by Bailey and opposing counsel.
- Bailey’s conduct culminated in a finding of criminal contempt and a mistrial in April 2008, following a morning of abrasive exchanges with the court.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a discipline petition; the Hearing Panel found violations of Rules 3.4(c), 3.5(e), and 8.4(a)/(d) and sentenced Bailey to a sixty-day suspension.
- The Chancery Court affirmed violations but reduced the sanction to a public censure, prompting the Board to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reinstated the Hearing Panel’s sixty-day suspension, rejecting the Chancery Court’s reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABA Standard 6.22 supports suspension | Board argues 6.22 applies; Bailey contends not improper. | Bailey contends 6.22 misapplied; his conduct was not a knowing violation. | Bailey’s conduct warranted suspension under 6.22 |
| Whether ABA Standard 7.2 applied to Bailey | Board contends 7.2 is applicable given multiple offenses. | Bailey argues 7.2 inapplicable because no false/misleading communications or solicitation issues. | 7.2 does not apply; standard 6.22 governs sanction |
| Whether aggravating/mitigating factors support the sanction | Board asserts aggravators outweigh any mitigators to justify suspension | Bailey argues mitigating factors and remoteness reduce sanction | Panel properly weighed factors; sanctions upheld |
| Whether a sixty-day suspension is appropriate in light of comparable discipline | Board argues suspension fits the misconduct and is consistent with precedent | Bailey claims harsher or different results in similar cases require modification | Sixty-day suspension appropriate and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 771 S.W.2d 116 (Tenn. 1989) (advocacy conduct in court; duties of decorum and respect)
- Farmer v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 660 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1983) (suspension for scurrilous and improper language to court)
- Slavin v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 145 S.W.3d 538 (Tenn. 2004) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; court discipline context)
- Cowan v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 388 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for attorney disciplinary decisions)
- Maddux v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 409 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2013) (ABA Standards framework; evidentiary standard for discipline)
- Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (aggravating/mitigating factors; permissible discretion in sanctions)