Thomas Fleming Mabry v. Board of Professional Responsibility Of The Supreme Court Of Tennessee
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1046
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Thomas F. Mabry, licensed in Tennessee since 1980, was the subject of a Board of Professional Responsibility petition filed June 22, 2011 based on three complaints (two arising from his representation of Velda Shore).
- Mabry filed suit alleging civil conspiracy; he voluntarily dismissed one defendant (Goddard) and thereafter did not respond to the remaining defendant Fields’ safe-harbor letter and motions to dismiss and for Rule 11 sanctions.
- The Blount County Circuit Court imposed $5,000 in Rule 11 sanctions against Mabry for failing to dismiss or amend the conspiracy claim.
- A Board hearing panel found Mabry violated RPC 1.3 (diligence) and RPC 8.4(a) and imposed a 45-day suspension, finding aggravators including multiple prior disciplinary actions. The Panel rejected other alleged violations.
- The Knox County Chancery Court affirmed the Panel after a limited review; Mabry appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Mabry’s procedural, evidentiary, and substantive challenges and upholding the 45-day suspension as supported by ABA Standards and the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mabry) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural sufficiency of petition / due process | Petition defective under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 for not stating requested relief; procedural rules and other defects deprived him of due process | Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9 governs disciplinary petitions; Mabry received adequate notice and procedural protections | Petition met Rule 9 requirements; no due process violation; claim rejected |
| Continuance / discovery and pre-hearing filings | Denial of continuance (filed 6 days before hearing) and surprise by Board filings prejudiced defense and counsel | Mabry had long notice, delayed attempts to secure witnesses, and late counsel appearance not grounds for continuance | Panel did not abuse discretion denying continuance; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of additional evidence at chancery review (TLAP witness / Mabry as expert) | Trial court erred in excluding proffered TLAP testimony and Mabry’s expert testimony about proceedings | Review is generally limited to panel transcript; proffered testimony was cumulative or not expert-qualified | Exclusion proper: evidence cumulative and Mabry not qualified as unbiased expert; trial court acted within discretion |
| Substantive finding of misconduct and sanction severity | Contends findings arbitrary/capricious and sanction excessive | Record shows failure to act after safe-harbor letter, sanctions by trial court, prior disciplinary history; ABA Standards support suspension | Findings supported by substantial and material evidence; 45-day suspension appropriate given prior sanctions and ABA Standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2000) (Supreme Court as source of Board authority)
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (Court’s duty to regulate the profession)
- Skouteris v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 430 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2014) (standard of review for Supreme Court on disciplinary appeals)
- Hoover v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 395 S.W.3d 95 (Tenn. 2012) (discretionary review of continuance decisions)
- Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (use of ABA Standards in selecting sanctions)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (repeated misconduct supports suspension)