Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment of attorney Michael Sneed following disciplinary proceedings involving eight separate complaints. The court rejected Sneed's procedural and evidentiary challenges, including arguments concerning the failure to hold a prehearing conference, the filing of supplemental petitions, and restrictions on witness testimony. The court concluded that the hearing panel's findings were supported by substantial and material evidence and that disbarment was warranted.

Holdings

1. The failure to conduct the required prehearing conference did not warrant relief because Sneed failed to show that the omission prejudiced his rights.
2. Even assuming the panel erred by allowing supplemental petitions without disciplinary counsel first obtaining leave, Sneed was not entitled to relief because he had ample notice and opportunity to respond and suffered no prejudice.
3. The panel did not err by refusing to allow Sneed to call disciplinary counsel or the Board's executive secretary as witnesses.
4. The panel's findings that Sneed violated the ethical rules were supported by substantial and material evidence, including findings concerning client communication and diligence, conflicts of interest, safeguarding third-party funds, trust-account practices, and assistance of unauthorized practice of law.
5. Sneed was not denied meaningful trial-court review because he failed to identify evidence he would have presented or prejudice resulting from the scheduling and filing of the administrative record.
6. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Sneed's pattern of intentional misconduct, serious or potentially serious injury, extensive prior discipline, and multiple aggravating factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted through unlawful procedure because the hearing panel did not hold a prehearing conference.
2. Whether the hearing panel improperly permitted two supplemental petitions for discipline without prior leave.
3. Whether the hearing panel improperly refused to allow Sneed to call disciplinary counsel and the Board's executive secretary as witnesses.
4. Whether the evidence substantially and materially supported the panel's findings of professional misconduct.
5. Whether Sneed received meaningful review in the trial court.
6. Whether disbarment was an appropriate sanction.

Disposition

affirmed