William Caldwell Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
447 S.W.3d 844
Tenn.2014Background
- William C. Hancock, a Tennessee attorney, sought roughly $372,000 in fees in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the bankruptcy court denied the fees and criticized his conduct.
- Hancock appealed the denial to the district court; after extensions and a late 128‑page brief, the district court summarily affirmed and Hancock later appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
- Nine months after the bankruptcy court decision, Hancock emailed Judge George Paine calling him a “bully and clown” and demanding an apology; Hancock then appealed the district court decision to the Sixth Circuit.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility charged Hancock with multiple ethics violations; a hearing panel found violations of RPC 3.5(b) (ex parte communications), 3.5(e) (conduct to disrupt a tribunal), 8.2(a)(1) (false statements about a judge), and RPC 8.4 provisions and recommended a 30‑day suspension.
- The chancery court affirmed the suspension but modified the panel’s judgment to add violations relating to Hancock’s noncompliant district‑court briefs; the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that modification, upheld the findings on ex parte contact and disruptive conduct, reversed the finding under RPC 8.2(a)(1), and affirmed a 30‑day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hancock) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hancock’s September 28, 2009 email was a prohibited ex parte communication under RPC 3.5(b) | Email sent after appeal to district court, so not "during the proceeding"; Rule 9003(a) (Bankruptcy Rule) purportedly permits some post‑decision contacts | Proceedings remain pending through appeals; "during the proceeding" includes the appellate window; federal bankruptcy rule does not preempt state RPC | Held: Violation of RPC 3.5(b); a matter is pending through appellate process; federal Rule 9003(a) does not preempt Tennessee RPC authorities |
| Whether the email constituted "conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal" under RPC 3.5(e) | Email was after primary proceedings and thus could not disrupt tribunal; protected or at least not sanctionable as disruption | Email was abusive, threatening in tone and could interfere with tribunal functioning while matter remained pending | Held: Violation of RPC 3.5(e); panel’s finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Hancock violated RPC 8.2(a)(1) by making false statements about Judge Paine | Rule 8.2 is unconstitutional as applied; Board did not prove publication or falsity; email was private to judge | Statements undermined judicial integrity and were sanctionable | Held: Reversed as to RPC 8.2(a)(1); court requires publication to a third party and record lacked proof Hancock published the disparaging statements to others (lead opinion) |
| Whether chancery court properly modified the hearing panel’s judgment to add violations based on Hancock’s district‑court briefs | Hancock argued panel did not find those violations and chancery court substituted its judgment | Board argued omissions were oversight and modification appropriate to conclude discipline | Held: Chancery court erred; it substituted its judgment for the panel’s without showing one of the limited bases for reversal under Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, §1.3; modification reversed |
| Appropriate sanction for the admitted misconduct | Suspension excessive; public reprimand sufficient (alternative view) | Suspension appropriate given ABA Standards, aggravating factors, and disruptive contact with judge | Held: 30‑day suspension affirmed (panel’s sanction consistent with ABA Standard 6.32 and rule limits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hancock v. McDermott, 646 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2011) (appellate affirmance of district court decision)
- In re Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1988) (interpreting ex parte communication rule in bankruptcy context)
- Maddux v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 409 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for hearing panel disciplinary findings)
- Ramsey v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 771 S.W.2d 116 (Tenn. 1989) (discussing harm from lawyers’ false statements about judges)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (recognizing permissible regulation of attorney speech in judicial context)