William S. Lockett, Jr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19

Lockett was a shareholder/officer of Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley and resigned Aug 31, 2008 to become Knox County Law Director.
He misappropriated firm funds by taking and not remitting more than 25 payments over three years.
He self-reported after firm confrontation and the board investigated concurrent misconduct including loans from clients.
A loan of $10,000 from Tim Graham, a firm client, was made while Lockett did not know Graham was a client.
He pleaded guilty in state court to theft over $10,000 and in federal court to willful failure to file income tax returns in 2010.
The Board filed three petitions; the hearing panel suspended him for four years; the chancery court reduced to two years via additional mitigating factors without explicit Rule 9.1.3 findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Modification of discipline under Rule 9.1.3.	Board argues chancery court erred by reducing without Rule 9.1.3 grounds.	Lockett argues modification permissible due to mitigating factors.	Chancery court erred; modification not supported by Rule 9.1.3; four-year suspension affirmed.
Graham loan imputation to firm client.	Board treats Graham loan as prohibited transaction imputable to firm members.	Rule 1.8 pre-amendment did not prohibit accepting loan from Graham since not a client and not imputable.	Hearing panel abused by imputing conflict; Lockett not disciplined for Graham loan.
Appropriateness of four-year suspension baseline.	Board contends four-year baseline appropriate for theft and tax offenses.	Lockett argues suspension should be shorter given mitigating factors.	Four-year suspension within ABA standards as baseline; affirmed.
Proper consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors.	Board argues court erred in applying factors beyond ABA Standards.	Lockett contends factors considered were proper.	Court recognized factors but erred in weighting; nonetheless result consistent with comparable penalties.

Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Love, 256 S.W.3d 644 (Tenn. 2008) (modification under Rule 9.1.3 requires enumerated bases; cannot substitute weight of evidence.)
Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2009) (requires Court to defer to hearing panel on factual weight.)
Threadgill v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (governs standard for aggravating/mitigating factors and punishment range.)
Rayburn v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 300 S.W.3d 654 (Tenn. 2009) (discusses standard of review for panel findings under Rule 9.)
Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (limits and informs application of ABA standards in discipline.)
Maddux v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 148 S.W.3d 37 (Tenn. 2004) (uniformity of punishment; compares sanctions across cases.)
State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. 2011) (credibility determinations are questions of fact; deference to hearing panel.)
In re Ortman, 709 S.E.2d 784 (Ga. 2011) (illustrates consideration of other penalties; cited for comparative sanctioning.)