Hubert Patty v. Board of Professional Responsibility

Summary

The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed disciplinary proceedings against attorney Hubert Patty arising from his representation of clients in criminal and civil matters. The court upheld findings that Patty violated several disciplinary rules but modified the sanction, reducing the suspension to four months and replacing law-school course requirements with specified continuing legal education requirements.

Holdings

1. The evidence preponderated in favor of affirming the findings that Patty violated DR 1-102, DR 6-101, DR 7-102, and DR 7-106.
2. A period of suspension was justified because of the nature of Patty's conduct, his unwillingness to acknowledge wrongdoing, and his prior disciplinary history.
3. The one-year suspension was excessive; the proper sanction was a four-month suspension conditioned on completion of six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and twelve hours in civil trial practice or civil litigation, in addition to the annual credit requirements.
4. The Supreme Court reviews the decision de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the trial court's action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence supported the findings that Patty violated the cited disciplinary rules in the Boruff and Turner matters.
2. Whether the disciplinary sanction imposed below was appropriate in light of Patty's conduct, prior disciplinary history, and sanctions imposed by the courts in which the conduct occurred.
3. Whether the reinstatement requirement should be modified.

Disposition

affirmed