Fletcher Whaley Long v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed a chancery court judgment upholding a hearing panel’s public censure of attorney Fletcher Whaley Long for violations of professional conduct rules involving client fees, trust-account funds, fee accounting, and refunding unearned fees. The Court rejected Long’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, laches, and res judicata. It also addressed and rejected his facial constitutional challenge to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, which governs attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Holdings

1. The hearing panel's decision to impose a public censure was not arbitrary or capricious and was not based on unlawful procedure.
2. Substantial and material evidence supported the hearing panel's findings that Long violated RPCs 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.16(d)(5), and 8.4(a).
3. The doctrine of laches does not apply to Tennessee attorney-disciplinary proceedings brought by the Board of Professional Responsibility.
4. The disciplinary charges were not barred by res judicata because the prior disciplinary matter involved different clients, allegations, and facts and did not concern the same claim.
5. Rule 9 is not facially unconstitutional under due process principles merely because investigative, enforcement, and adjudicative functions are placed within the same Board, where those functions are performed by different groups of individuals and ultimate review is vested in the Supreme Court.
6. Rule 9 is not facially unconstitutional because its cost-assessment provisions do not create a constitutionally impermissible financial incentive or institutional bias in the adjudicatory body.
7. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.04 does not apply to Long's facial challenge because the Board, a state agency, was a party to the disciplinary proceeding; however, the panel's contrary ruling was immaterial because the panel and trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the facial validity of Rule 9.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing panel acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or pursuant to unlawful procedure by imposing a public censure rather than private discipline.
2. Whether substantial and material evidence supported the findings that Long violated RPCs 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.16(d)(5), and 8.4(a).
3. Whether the disciplinary charges were barred by laches.
4. Whether the disciplinary charges were barred by res judicata based on a prior disciplinary matter involving Long.
5. Whether Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 is facially unconstitutional because it combines investigative, enforcement, and adjudicative functions, creates a financial incentive to pursue formal proceedings, or creates institutional bias in favor of finding misconduct and imposing discipline.
6. Whether the hearing panel erred by requiring notice to the Attorney General under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.04 before considering Long's facial constitutional challenge.

Disposition

affirmed