Timothy Darnell Flowers v. Board of Professional Responsibility

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary proceeding involving Memphis immigration attorney Timothy Darnell Flowers. The court affirmed a one-year suspension from practicing law and an order requiring restitution to three clients, concluding that the hearing panel's findings were supported by substantial and material evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. The misconduct included neglect of immigration matters, failure to communicate, mishandling client funds, unauthorized practice during administrative suspensions, and other professional-conduct violations.

Holdings

1. The self-interested motivation of clients to file disciplinary complaints does not invalidate the complaints or require the disciplinary authorities to disregard them; the complaints remain subject to investigation and independent evaluation by Disciplinary Counsel, the Board, the hearing panel, and the reviewing courts.
2. Tennessee disciplinary authorities may regulate the professional conduct of Tennessee-licensed attorneys practicing immigration law; federal immigration authorities do not exclusively displace state professional-discipline oversight.
3. The record supported the communication violations involving Ahmed Bah, Victor Perez-Mendez, and Aliou N'Diaye, because those violations concerned failures to communicate about significant matters or misleading or inaccurate communications. The communication violations concerning Mamadou Pame were vacated because Disciplinary Counsel failed to rebut Flowers's evidence concerning oral communication with an illiterate, non-English-speaking client and failed to present competent evidence concerning appropriate communication practices.
4. An attorney violates the professional-conduct rules by abusing appellate procedures through frivolous immigration appeals filed primarily to obtain stays and then allowing those appeals to languish and be dismissed, rather than engaging in legitimate zealous advocacy.
5. The finding that Flowers violated RPC 1.5(a) by charging unreasonable fees for the eighteen Sixth Circuit filings could not stand because the record did not establish what fees he charged or provide evidence concerning reasonable fees for those services.
6. The remaining violations that were neither conceded by Flowers nor set aside by the trial court or Supreme Court were supported by substantial and material evidence.
7. The one-year suspension, restitution order, costs, and reinstatement conditions were not excessive and were affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the clients' disciplinary complaints should have been disregarded or given reduced weight because they may have been motivated by efforts to reopen immigration proceedings.
2. Whether Tennessee disciplinary authorities had jurisdiction to regulate the professional conduct of a Tennessee-licensed attorney practicing immigration law.
3. Whether substantial and material evidence supported the findings that Flowers violated the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning client communication, improper delay, unreasonable fees, and other admitted or contested misconduct.
4. Whether the hearing panel properly considered the vulnerability of Flowers's immigration clients as an aggravating factor.
5. Whether the one-year suspension, restitution, costs, and reinstatement conditions were excessive.

Disposition

affirmed