Yarboro Sallee v. Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 566
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Yarboro Sallee, a Tennessee lawyer since 1994, was retained orally in Sept. 2010 by Frances Rodgers and Vearl Bible to investigate and pursue a wrongful-death claim for their daughter; they paid $54,000 plus additional sums (totaling $59,000 for an expert) within weeks.
- Sallee billed a voluminous, post-hoc “billing statement” claiming ~493.5 hours over ~3 months (many entries for watching TV, long single-day hours, and administrative tasks) and asserted both hourly and contingency claims without a signed written fee agreement.
- The clients terminated Sallee in Jan. 2011; Sallee refused to promptly deliver all file materials (including medical records and autopsy brain slides), filed an attorney’s lien, and sent threatening emails (including threats of criminal charges) to the clients’ new counsel.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility charged Sallee with multiple ethics violations (communication, unreasonable fees, failure to surrender client property, threatening criminal/disciplinary charges, and misconduct).
- A hearing panel found violations of Tenn. RPC 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 4.4, and 8.4 and suspended Sallee for one year; the Chancery Court affirmed on certiorari review; the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Sallee's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge failed to review full record before affirming panel | Judge Ash lacked the hearing transcript when ruling; remand required | Record and entire file were before the trial court; judge thoroughly reviewed materials | Rejected — trial court had the record and adequately considered it |
| Whether post-judgment outcomes (later settlements) rendered proceedings unripe or warrant reconsideration | Case was unripe at panel time; later settlements show clients benefited solely from Sallee’s work so discipline is unfair | Discipline concerns billing, communication, and post-termination conduct; later settlements do not negate misconduct | Rejected — Panel properly adjudicated fee/ conduct issues; post-judgment facts irrelevant to ethics violations |
| Whether fees/communication findings lack substantial and material evidence (excessive billing, no written fee agreement, inadequate updates) | Claimed hours reasonable, lower-than-market hourly rate, extensive client emails show communication | Billing records and client testimony show unreasonable hours/rates, surprise time-and-a-half charges, no itemized statements, and minimal case results | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports violations of RPC 1.4 and 1.5 |
| Whether withholding files and threatening emails were unsupported or do not violate RPCs | Claimed emails were drafts/sent inadvertently and were not authenticated; no client harm from withheld items | Sallee admitted sending emails; she withheld critical items, causing extra litigation and delay; threats violate RPC 4.4 | Affirmed — violations of RPC 1.16 and 4.4 established; threats actionable on sending regardless of receipt proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (Supreme Court’s supervisory role over attorney discipline)
- Rayburn v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 300 S.W.3d 654 (Tenn. 2009) (standards for reviewing disciplinary sanctions and ABA guidance)
- Maddux v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 409 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2013) (disciplinary hearing process and appellate review framework)
- Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Cowan, 388 S.W.3d 264 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for hearing panel findings)
- Threadgill v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 299 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2009) (upholding one-year suspension for communication, accounting failures, and related misconduct)
- Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19 (Tenn. 2012) (use of ABA Standards and consideration of sanctions consistency)