Thomas F. Mabry v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 563 S.W.3d 192

Thomas F. Mabry, an attorney, filed a notice of disability under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 27.4(a), claiming mental illness prevented him from responding to pending disciplinary charges; the Court placed him on disability inactive status and referred the matter to a hearing panel.
Hearing occurred Oct. 21, 2016; Mabry testified to generalized anxiety, episodic suicidal ideation tied to disciplinary pressure, panic when addressing legal matters, recovery from alcoholism, and limited recent psychiatric care.
Mabry submitted medical records showing generalized anxiety disorder and a letter from a licensed clinical social worker (Doug Ernst) recounting Mabry’s statements; Ernst stated Mabry was not psychiatrically hospitalized and did not opine that Mabry lacked capacity to defend himself.
Evidence from the Board included Mabry’s recent legal correspondence, his self-prepared disability notice, participation in telephonic depositions (where he represented himself), and social-media posts showing active outdoor pursuits.
The hearing panel found Mabry was not incapacitated and could respond/defend; the chancery court affirmed; Mabry appealed directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Mabry met the burden (preponderance of the evidence) under Rule 9, § 27.4(a): that he has a disability (mental illness) and that the disability makes it impossible to respond to or defend against the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mabry proved by a preponderance that he has a disability making it impossible to respond/defend against disciplinary charges	Mabry: medical records and Ernst’s assessment show anxiety and suicidal ideation tied to disciplinary stress, supporting incapacity	Board: Submitted proof does not address Mabry’s actual capacity to respond/defend; evidence shows he has engaged in legal activity and communications	Held: Mabry failed to prove the disability made it impossible to respond/defend; disability status removed

In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (explaining the Court’s authority over attorney discipline)
Long v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review for disciplinary proceedings)
Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (Court’s ultimate disciplinary responsibility and standard-setting authority)
Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (role of the Court in regulating the legal profession)
Fletcher v. State, 9 S.W.3d 103 (Tenn. 1999) (allocating costs on appeal)