Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 407 S.W.3d 201

Culp, licensed 1996, was federally charged with extortion and mail fraud for attempting to extort AIM Healthcare and to manipulate witness testimony.
He pled guilty to attempted extortion and served 19 months in prison; Court suspended him for five years from practicing law.
Board filed discipline; a hearing panel suspended five years; Culp did not appeal the disciplinary judgment initially.
Culp petitioned for reinstatement in 2011; Panel denied, citing lack of clear and convincing proof of moral qualifications, learning in law, and fitness.
Trial court affirmed; the court and Panel emphasized credibility concerns and the egregious nature of the crime in undermining integrity of the bar.
This Court affirms the trial court, denying reinstatement based on the record and applicable Rule 9 standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Culp proves moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence	Culp argues he has matured and shown remorse and fitness.	Board argues credibility issues and insufficient specificity about underlying crime undermine moral qualifications.	Denied; burden not met; credibility and specificity lacking.
Whether Culp proves competency and learning in the law by clear and convincing evidence	Culp asserts continued legal learning and readiness to practice law.	Board finds witnesses insufficient to establish current competency and learning beyond his own testimony.	Denied; insufficient proof of current competency and learning.
Whether reinstatement would not be detrimental to the integrity of the bar or administration of justice	Reinstatement would not harm public trust and would enable service to clients.	Crime involved coercion of witness testimony in a civil case; egregious conduct undermines justice.	Denied; egregious conduct and credibility concerns undermine integrity and public interest.
Standard of review and appellate deference	Review should grant reinstatement if evidence supports moral qualifications and fitness.	Panel findings deserve deference; standard requires substantial and material evidence.	Affirmed; panel and trial court findings sustained under Rule 9, § 1.3 and 19.3.

Milligan v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 619 (Tenn. 2009) (credibility and interaction with witnesses required for moral qualifications)
Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008) (ultimate duty to protect integrity; disbarment for egregious conduct)
Murphy v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 924 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn. 1996) (discounted totally conclusory rehabilitation testimony)
Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (role of credibility and professional responsibility standards)
In re Reinstatement of Anderson, 51 P.3d 581 (Okla. 2002) (felony conviction not per se disqualifier; redemption possible)
Stewart v. Miss. Bar, 5 So. 3d 344 (Miss. 2008) (egregious misconduct harming bar's reputation; reinstatement denied)