Roger David Hyman v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
437 S.W.3d 435
Tenn.2014Background
- Roger D. Hyman, Tennessee lawyer (licensed 1984), faced a Board petition combining two client complaints (Tanner and Korten). He denied misconduct.
- Tanner matter: Hyman directly contacted a represented spouse, sought entry to inspect her home, behaved abusively at a deposition, and later filed a replevin with a $1,000,000 lis pendens that a trial court declared void.
- Korten matter: Hyman advised removal of audio from a client-created DVD, failed to appear at a discovery hearing (resulting in sanctions), paid sanctions late, and later behaved abusively toward opposing counsel and court staff.
- The hearing panel found multiple Rule violations (including Rules 3.1, 3.4, 3.5(e), 4.2, 4.4(a), 8.4(a),(d)), treated prior discipline as aggravating, and imposed a six-month suspension plus six extra hours of ethics CLE.
- Hyman sought certiorari review in Knox County Circuit Court (which affirmed). On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court he argued due process defects in panel selection, improper admission of prior discipline, misapplication of ABA sanction standards, and that the six-month suspension was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hyman) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 9 panel-selection method violated due process by denying Hyman the right to question panel members | Hyman: He should be allowed to participate in or question panel selection to expose bias | Board: Rule 9 provides adequate procedural protections; panels are selected by Chair on rotation and must recuse where a judge would | Court: No due process violation; selection method proper and Hyman alleged no actual bias |
| Whether evidence of prior discipline was improperly admitted and unduly prejudicial | Hyman: Prior sanctions created impermissible guilt-by-history and some prior matters were dismissed | Board: Prior discipline is admissible under Rule 9 to prove aggravating circumstances when determining sanction | Court: Admission was proper under Rule 9 §8.2 and ABA Standards as aggravating evidence; prior private reprimand was relevant and admissible |
| Whether the hearing panel misapplied ABA Standards and whether six-month suspension was excessive | Hyman: Mischaracterized mental state (negligence v. knowledge) and misapplied standards; six months too harsh | Board: Applied ABA Standards (6.22, 6.32, 8.2) appropriately given knowing violations, interference with proceedings, and repeated misconduct | Court: Substantial evidence supports application of ABA Standards cited and six‑month suspension; affirmed |
| Whether findings were unsupported by substantial and material evidence or the proceedings arbitrary/capricious | Hyman: Contested factual findings and overall conduct of hearing | Board: Record contains testimony and documentary evidence supporting findings | Court: Findings are supported by substantial and material evidence; not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995) (Court’s inherent power to regulate the bar)
- Brown v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (Rule 9 disciplinary framework)
- Threadgill v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (Rule 9 satisfies due process review comparable to administrative review)
- Lockett v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (ABA Standards are guideposts; aggravating/mitigating factors illustrative)
- Moncier v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 406 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. 2013) (disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal; due process scope)
- Maddux v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 409 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2013) (deference to hearing panel on factual weight)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (disciplinary proceedings’ quasi-criminal character)