Tyree B. Harris, IV v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 645 S.W.3d 125

Tyree B. Harris, IV, a Tennessee lawyer since 1970, was a partner at Willis & Knight when the firm received a disputed client fee; the partners later distributed shares directly from escrow.
On January 31, 2011 Harris received and deposited a $225,000 check (his share) into a personal savings account while a pending juvenile-court child-support modification was underway.
At a deposition and at the juvenile-court hearing Harris was asked about draws, income, and checks from the firm but did not disclose the $225,000 deposit; the juvenile court reduced his child support obligation based on his testimony.
The law firm later sued Harris for conversion; chancery and appellate proceedings found conversion, but the BPR’s disciplinary panel declined to rely on that finding for the ethics charge.
The Board charged Harris with violations of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 8.4(c) for dishonest testimony; the hearing panel found Harris knowingly omitted material information and suspended him for one year (reduced from a presumptive disbarment because of his long, unblemished career).
Davidson County Circuit Court affirmed the hearing panel; Harris appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which affirmed the finding of an RPC 8.4(c) violation and the one-year suspension.

Issue	Harris's Argument	Board's Argument	Held
Standard of proof for discipline	Disciplinary finding effectively punished perjury and thus required "beyond a reasonable doubt"	Disciplinary proceedings are civil; preponderance applies	Preponderance of the evidence governs disciplinary proceedings (criminal standard rejected)
Whether Harris's testimony violated RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation)	Answers were literally true and responsive to the narrow questions ("draw" vs. "distribution"); intended to disclose but was prevented by objections	Harris knowingly omitted material information about the $225,000 to mislead the juvenile court and opposing counsel	Substantial and material evidence supports finding Harris engaged in intentional omissions amounting to dishonesty in violation of RPC 8.4(c)
Whether one-year suspension was an abuse of discretion	Sanction is excessive given lack of prior discipline, limited harm, cooperation, delay, and Harris’s age/health; less severe sanctions in other cases	ABA Standards support presumptive disbarment; aggravating and mitigating factors justify one-year suspension instead of disbarment	No abuse of discretion: panel reasonably applied ABA Standards, weighed aggravating/mitigating factors, and a one-year suspension is permissible

Hornbeck v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 545 S.W.3d 386 (Tenn. 2018) (describing Board’s role and appellate review of disciplinary rulings)
Barry v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 545 S.W.3d 408 (Tenn. 2018) (Court’s duty to regulate the bar and standards for review)
Walwyn v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 481 S.W.3d 151 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for Supreme Court review of disciplinary proceedings)
Sitton, In re, 618 S.W.3d 288 (Tenn. 2021) (disciplinary-review deference to hearing panels on factual findings)
Beier v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 610 S.W.3d 425 (Tenn. 2020) (definition of substantial and material evidence in disciplinary context)
Allison v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (weight of evidence and deference to hearing panels)
Dunlap v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 595 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2020) (attorney’s duty of candor and disclosure to the court)
Nevin v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 271 S.W.3d 648 (Tenn. 2008) (discipline may follow misconduct even if not criminal)
Justice v. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 577 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2019) (severity of sanctions can exceed suspension depending on misconduct)
Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1957) (bar membership is a privilege burdened with conditions)