William B. Penn v. Board of Professional Responsibility

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed William B. Penn’s appeal from a disciplinary sanction because his petition for a writ of certiorari was neither sworn nor accompanied by a statement that it was the first application for the writ. Applying Board of Professional Responsibility v. Cawood, the Court held that these defects deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, vacated the trial court’s order, and directed the Board to submit the Hearing Panel’s order for review because the sanction exceeded a three-month suspension.

Holdings

1. A petition for writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel decision must comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106 by being sworn and stating that it is the first application for the writ; failure to satisfy those requirements deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The appeal must be dismissed, the trial court's order must be vacated, and because the disciplinary sanction exceeded a three-month suspension and no appeal was properly perfected, the Board must file the Hearing Panel's order for review by the Supreme Court under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 8.4.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penn's petition for a writ of certiorari conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court despite not being sworn.
2. Whether the petition conferred subject matter jurisdiction despite not stating that it was the first application for the writ.
3. What disposition was required after determining that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review the disciplinary hearing panel's decision.

Disposition

dismissed