Board of Professional Responsibility v. Allison

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
November 5, 2008 Session

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY v. JAMES T. ALLISON

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County
No. CH-07-1059-3 Allen W. Wallace, Senior Judge

No. W2008-00338-SC-R3-CV - Filed May 14, 2009

This is a direct appeal of a trial court judgment that modified a hearing panel’s order suspending an
attorney from the practice of law for sixty days. The trial court did not disagree with the hearing
panel’s findings regarding the attorney’s misconduct but determined that the punishment was too
harsh and, instead, ordered a public censure. After an independent review of the record, we conclude
that the hearing panel’s findings that the attorney commingled his personal funds with client funds,
paid personal bills out of his trust account, failed to maintain proper trust account records, and failed
to timely respond to Board inquiries were supported by substantial and material evidence and that
this conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. These violations, coupled with the
aggravating factor that in 1998, the attorney was publicly reprimanded for commingling his personal
funds with trust account funds and for paying personal expenses from his trust account, warrant the
sanctions imposed by the hearing panel which require that the attorney be suspended from the
practice of law for sixty days, that his trust account be monitored for a period of one year following
reinstatement of his law license, that he submit trust account bank statements and ledger sheets every
thirty days during this one-year period, and that he pay all costs of the proceeding. Accordingly, we
reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it modifies the sanctions imposed by the hearing
panel.

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 1.3 Direct Appeal; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part
and Reversed in Part

SHARON G. LEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER , C.J., CORNELIA
A. CLARK, GARY R. WADE, and WILLIAM C. KOCH , JR., JJ., joined.

Randall J. Spivey, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Board of Professional Responsibility.

Robert L. Green, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, James T. Allison.
 OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background

James T. Allison has been licensed to practice law in Tennessee since 1963 and, at the time
of the matters described herein, was engaged in a solo practice, sharing office space with another
attorney in Memphis. The present appeal involves two petitions for discipline filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) against Allison.

This case began on April 21, 2003, when Allison self-reported to the Board that a check he
wrote to the Internal Revenue Service on his trust account at Regions Bank had been returned for
insufficient funds. Subsequent investigation by the Board revealed that Allison had written several
checks on the trust account in payment of various personal obligations.

On September 22, 2003, the Board filed a petition for discipline (docket number 2003-1394-
9-SG), charging Allison with violation of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.15(a)1 and RPC
8.4(d),2 and alleging that he wrote a check to the Internal Revenue Service that was returned for
insufficient funds, paid personal bills from his trust account, and commingled personal funds with
trust account funds. A supplemental petition for discipline added allegations that there had been an
additional overdraft on the trust account for a check to a court reporter and that a check had been
written on the trust account payable to cash and designated “into JTA checking” with no client or
case reference reflected.

Nearly three years later, on March 27, 2006, the Board filed a second petition for discipline
(docket number 2006-1585-9-SG), charging Allison with violation of Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 8, RPC 1.3,3 1.4,4 1.5,5 1.16,6 8.1,7 and 8.4,8 in his representation of client Ricky Aaron. This

1
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R 8., RPC 1.15. Safekeeping Property

(a) A lawyer shall hold property and funds of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s
possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property and
funds. A lawyer in possession of clients’ or third persons’ property and funds incidental to
representation shall hold said property and funds separate from the lawyer’s own property
and funds.

2
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 8.4, provides that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . (d) engage in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

3
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.3. Diligence.

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

4
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.4. Communication.

(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply

2
petition alleges that Aaron, while incarcerated in the state penitentiary at Tiptonville, Tennessee, paid
Allison $1,750 to represent him in a federal civil rights case, but, thereafter, Allison failed to file
Aaron’s complaint, failed to respond to his telephone calls and letters, failed to keep him informed,
and neglected his case. Additionally, this second petition alleges that after filing a complaint on
behalf of another client, Dwayne Knight, Allison neglected Knight’s case and failed to respond to
his request for information and keep him informed. The second petition further alleges that Allison
failed to respond to requests for information by the Board’s disciplinary counsel. The petition seeks
an increased degree of discipline because of Allison’s substantial experience in the practice of law,
his previous public censure for disciplinary rule violations, and his “pattern of misconduct and
multiple offenses.”

The two petitions for discipline were heard by the Board’s hearing committee panel (“the
Panel”) on November 27, 2006, and on May 1, 2007, the Panel entered a judgment ordering that
Allison be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days, that his trust account be monitored for
a period of one year following reinstatement of his law license, that he be required to submit trust
account bank statements and ledger sheets every thirty days during this one-year period, and that he
pay all costs of the proceeding. The judgment includes the following findings with respect to the
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8:

The Panel finds that in case 2003-1394-9-SG the Respondent
commingled personal funds with trust funds, paid personal expenses
directly from his trust account, failed to maintain required trust
accounting records and by his actions has violated Rule 1.15(a) of the
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Panel finds that in case 2006-1585-9-SG (Ricky Aaron) the
Respondent failed to communicate with his client and by his actions

with reasonable requests for information within a reasonable time.

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to
make informed decisions regarding the representation.

5
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5. Fees. As pertinent to this case, section (a) of this Rule provides that “[a] lawyer’s fee and
charges for expenses shall be reasonable” and sets forth various factors to be considered in that regard.

6
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.16. Declining and Terminating Representation. As pertinent to this case, section (d) of this
Rule provides that “[u]pon termination of the representation of a client, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client’s interests, including: . . . (5) promptly refunding any advance payment for fees that have not been earned.”

7
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters. As pertinent to this case, this Rule provides that
“a lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not. . . (b) . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority. . . .”

8
See Appendix 1.

3
 violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4 of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct.

The Panel finds that in case 2006-1585-9-SG (Dwayne Knight) the
Board failed to prove that the Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,
1.15, and 8.4 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Panel finds that in case 2006-1585-9-SG (Dwayne Knight) the
Respondent failed to timely respond to the Board inquiries and by his
actions violated Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4 of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct.

Upon Allison’s petition for certiorari, a hearing was conducted by the Chancery Court for
Shelby County on November 27, 2007. By order entered January 30, 2008, the trial court modified
the hearing panel’s judgment and ordered that Allison receive a public censure rather than the
sanction imposed by the Panel, stating that “the ruling of the Board of Professional Responsibility
suspending the Respondent’s license for sixty days is too harsh for a lawyer who has practiced as
long as he has, although the court acknowledges he violated some of the rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.” Thereafter, the Board filed a direct appeal to this Court pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3.

Analysis

The source of authority of the Board of Professional Responsibility and its functions lies in
the Supreme Court. Nevin v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 271 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tenn. 2008);
Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445, 449 (Tenn. 2000). Included in our duty to
regulate the practice of law in this state is the ultimate disciplinary responsibility for violations of
the rules governing the legal profession. See Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465,
469-70 (Tenn. 2003). Thus, we review judgments in light of our “inherent power . . . [and]
fundamental right to prescribe and administer rules pertaining to the licensing and admission of
attorneys.” In re Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tenn. 1995).

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, presents the trial court with guidelines for
reviewing a decision of a disciplinary hearing panel. The rule as amended July 1, 2006,9 now restricts
the trial court’s review to the transcript of the evidence before the hearing panel unless“allegations
of irregularities in the procedure before the panel are made.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3 (2007)
(emphasis added); see also Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Love, 256 S.W.3d 644, 651 (Tenn. 2008).

After a review of the transcript and any additional necessary evidence, the trial court has

9
Prior to this amendment, Rule 9, section 1.3 provided that the trial court’s review “shall be on the transcript of the
evidence before the hearing committee, its finding and judgment and upon such other proof as either party may desire to introduce.”
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3 (2005) (emphasis added).

4
several options. The trial court may affirm the decision of the panel, remand the case for further
proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision. A reversal or modification of the panel’s decision
may be made only if the trial court finds that the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because
the panel’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or
statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the panel’s jurisdiction; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4)
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion; or (5) unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in light of the entire
record. Although the trial court may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify a hearing panel decision,
the trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the panel as to the weight of the evidence
on questions of fact. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3.

Our review of a trial court’s decision in a disciplinary matter is governed by the same
standard applicable to our review of an administrative agency’s final decision in a contested case
under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Love, 256 S.W.3d at 653. This standard, as set
forth in pertinent part at Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322, provides as follows:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case
for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the
decision if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because
the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse
of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion; or
(5)(A) Unsupported by evidence that is both
substantial and material in the light of the entire
record.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322 (h)(1)-(5)(A) (2005). Thus, in a case such as the one now before us,
where the grounds for reversal under subsections (1), (2) & (3) are not present, we must uphold the
hearing panel’s decision “unless the decision was either arbitrary or capricious, ‘characterized by an
abuse, or clearly unwarranted exercise, of discretion’ or lacking in support by substantial and
material evidence.” Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631, 641 (Tenn. 2008).
This Court has recognized that a decision not supported by substantial and material evidence
qualifies as arbitrary and capricious. In applying the substantial and material evidence test, it is our
duty to determine whether the “decision is supported by ‘such relevant evidence as a rational mind
might accept to support a rational conclusion.’ . . . The evidence will be sufficient if it furnishes a
reasonably sound factual basis for the decision being reviewed.” City of Memphis v. Civil Serv.
Comm’n of Memphis, 216 S.W.3d 311, 316-17 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Jackson Mobilphone Co. v.
Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 876 S.W.2d 106, 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)). The “substantial and

5
material evidence” standard has also been described as requiring “something less than a
preponderance of the evidence . . . but more than a scintilla or glimmer.” Jones v. Bureau of
TennCare, 94 S.W.3d 495, 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Gluck v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 15
S.W.3d 486, 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). We are constrained, as is the trial court, from substituting
our judgment for that of the hearing panel as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.
Love, 256 S.W.3d at 653.

In reviewing this case, the trial court failed to adhere to the standard of review provided by
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3. First, in reviewing the judgment of the Panel, the trial
court allowed the admission of evidence that was not before the Panel even though there were no
allegations of procedural irregularities. However, since no objection was made, the error was waived
and is not an issue in this appeal.

The trial court further erred by modifying Allison’s punishment without concluding that the
Panel’s decision involved any of the five circumstances prerequisite to a modification or reversal.
Instead, the trial court’s ruling indicates that although Allison did violate some of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, the sanctions imposed by the Panel were too severe, and that the Panel’s
decision should be modified for that reason. First, the trial court’s order stated in pertinent part as
follows:

The Respondent committed a technical violation of the Board of
Professional Responsibility trust account rules by writing checks for
personal expenses. However, his own funds were used, and no client
funds were involved and no client lost any money.

That the Respondent has a practice that serves a certain segment of
our society in need of his kind of legal services. The Court thinks this
speaks well of him.

That the ruling of the Board of Professional Responsibility
suspending the Respondent’s license for sixty days is too harsh for a
lawyer who has practiced as long as he has, although the court
acknowledges he violated some of the rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Similarly, the trial court stated as follows in its oral ruling:

Well, I’ve had these cases before, and usually they’re not too difficult.
The boards that choose this case, they do a heck of a good job most
of the time. And, they did in this case. This case gives me some
problems. No client has lost any money. [Allison]’s been candid
with the Court. He didn’t offer a reason for what he was doing. But,
he didn’t offer any excuse either for not handling that trust account

6
 right. And, nobody would argue this case. But, doggonit [sic] I can’t
get it out of my mind that he’s just one of these lawyers that’s
available to a certain segment of our society that I do not feel now
they have lawyers. And, that bothers me. It speaks well of him.

I just can’t suspend a license in this case. He done [sic] wrong. But,
I just cannot, I think the punishment is just too harsh to suspend a
lawyer that’s been lawyering as long as he has to suspend his license
in this case. I think a public reprimand is, it may be a light that [the
Board’s attorney] says that didn’t work the last time. But, Mr.
Allison is smart enough to know that his times are running out. I
think that is, it may not be sufficient in this case, but I’m going to do
it. I just think suspension of his license is just too harsh. That’s the
judgment of the Court.

It is apparent that the trial court failed to find the presence of any of the five circumstances
necessary for modification under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, but rather,
impermissibly substituted its own judgment for that of the Panel. We will review each of the Panel’s
findings in turn.

The Trust Account

First, we review the Panel’s findings that Allison commingled his personal funds with client
funds in his trust account, paid his personal expenses directly from the trust account, and failed to
maintain required trust accounting records.

We begin by considering Allison’s argument that the trial court’s finding that he commingled
personal funds with client funds in his trust account was erroneous because “at all relevant times the
only money in the trust account belonged solely and entirely to [him].” Describing his banking
practices with respect to his trust account, Allison states that when he received case settlement
monies, he would write a check on the trust account for the client’s share of the settlement and
immediately accompany the client to the bank where he and the client would endorse the settlement
check and it would be deposited in the trust account. Allison asserts that at that same time, upon his
request, the bank would cash the check to the client and “[t]he result was the client’s part of the
settlement never really got into the trust account because he/she received cash simultaneously with
the deposit of the check.”

Allison’s assertion that the client’s part of the check “never really got into the trust account”
contradicts his simultaneous assertion that the settlement check was deposited in the trust account.
Allison’s concession that all of the settlement monies were deposited in the trust account and then
the bank cashed the check representing the client’s portion of the settlement shows that during the
period of time between the initial deposit and the moment funds were removed from the account to
pay the client’s portion of the settlement, the client’s funds and Allison’s personal funds were

7
commingled. Further, it appears from the following testimony that Allison admitted that he
commingled funds belonging to himself with client funds:

Q. Mr. Allison, you testified that you did not commingle funds in
your trust account; is that correct?

A. I don’t think that I said I did not. I said to my knowledge I never
knowingly did it.

Q. But didn’t you knowingly make client deposits into that account?

A. I’m sorry. What do you mean?

Q. Didn’t you make client deposits into that trust account while your
money was also in that account?

A. Yes.

It is our determination that the Panel’s finding that Allison commingled personal funds with
client funds was supported by substantial and material evidence. Allison’s commingling of personal
funds with client funds in his trust account was a violation of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC
1.15(a), which requires a lawyer to hold the property and funds of clients separate from the lawyer’s
own property and funds.

Next, Allison does not deny, and his testimony before the Panel confirmed, that on many
occasions, he paid personal expenses from funds held in his trust account. During the time Allison
was paying these personal expenses, the only funds the account contained represented attorney’s fees
belonging solely to Allison, and there is no proof that, in paying such personal expenses, Allison
misappropriated any client funds or engaged in any acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation. Nevertheless, Allison’s use of his trust account to pay personal expenses clearly
constituted a violation of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.15(a)(1), which, in pertinent part,
states that “[a] lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in [the trust account] for the sole purpose
of paying bank service charges on that account, but only in an amount reasonably necessary for that
purpose.” This Rule effectively prohibits an attorney from depositing his or her own monies in the
trust account in order to use the account as a personal checking account as was done by Allison.

As to the Panel’s finding that Allison failed to maintain required trust accounting records,
Allison admitted that during 2003, and for a portion of 2004, he did not maintain a trust account
receipt book, trust account disbursement records, or client ledger sheets and failed to reconcile his
trust account bank statements. Requirements related to the maintenance of trust account records are
addressed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 29(A)(2), as follows:

Every lawyer engaged in the practice of law in Tennessee shall

8
 maintain . . . the records of the [trust] accounts, including
checkbooks, canceled checks, check stubs, vouchers, ledgers,
journals, closing statements, accounting or other statements of
disbursements rendered to clients or other parties with regard to trust
funds or similar equivalent records clearly and expressly reflecting
the date, amount, source and explanation for all receipts, withdrawals,
deliveries and disbursements of the funds or other property of a client.

The Panel’s finding that Allison failed to maintain required trust account records was
supported by substantial and material evidence, and this conduct violated Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 9, section 29(A)(2).

Communication with Client

Next, we address the question of whether the Panel’s finding that Allison failed to
communicate with a client was supported by adequate evidence. As noted above, Tennessee
Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.4, specifically addresses the lawyer’s duty to communicate with his
or her client, and requires that the lawyer “keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and comply with reasonable requests for information within a reasonable time” and “explain
a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding
the representation.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.4. Our review of the record before the Panel does
not reveal substantial and material evidence that Allison failed to meet either of these requirements.

It is unclear from the Panel’s judgment exactly what evidence the Panel relied upon in finding
that Allison failed to communicate with Aaron. The Board contends that this finding was supported
by Allison’s admission that, in a letter to Board employee Beverly Sharpe dated June 22, 2005, he
stated, inter alia, as follows:

I should not have taken a case that far from Memphis10 at a time I was
stretched so thin. I received $1,750.00 and spent 280, leaving $1,470.
I read the cases that Mr. Aaron researched and we discussed his case
thoroughly. An estimation of the time I spent on Mr. Aaron’s case is
ten hours. I apologized to him and his family for not following
through with it. If so much had not been going on in my life during
this time I probably would have given him better representation.

At most, this language amounts to an admission by Allison that he would have better
represented Aaron under different circumstances. While Allison’s statement that he apologized to
Aaron and his family “for not following through with it” may indicate Allison’s assessment that his
service to Aaron was deficient in some sense, this statement does not constitute an admission by

10
The one-way driving distance between Memphis and Tiptonville is approximately 125 miles.

9
Allison that he failed to adequately communicate with Aaron and a construction to that effect is
contraindicated by the preceding sentence wherein Allison states that he “read the cases that Mr.
Aaron researched and we discussed his case thoroughly.” The only other evidence before the Panel
that the Board references in support of the Panel’s finding of failure to communicate is Allison’s
testimony that he failed to file suit on Aaron’s behalf and failed to visit Aaron in the penitentiary.
However, neither of these admissions is sufficient to support the Panel’s finding of a failure to
communicate.

As to Allison’s failure to file suit on behalf of Aaron, we note unrefuted evidence in the
record indicating that Aaron was an unusually precocious client and that he engaged in extensive
legal research relative to his case and voluntarily filed pleadings himself. In any event, the failure
to file suit on behalf of a client does not of itself constitute a failure to communicate. As to Allison’s
failure to visit Aaron in prison, Allison was not required to meet with Aaron in person in order to
satisfy his obligations under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.4, and Allison testified
without dispute that through prior arrangement with penitentiary officials, he and Aaron had lengthy
telephone discussions and discussed his case thoroughly.

In short, none of the Panel’s findings as recounted above warrants the conclusion that Allison
failed to communicate with Aaron in violation of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.4.

Timely Response to Board Inquiries

Next, we address the Panel’s finding that Allison failed to timely respond to Board inquiries
concerning his representation of Dwayne Knight and thereby violated Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 8, RPC 8.1(b).

The proof before the Panel included three letters to Allison from Board disciplinary counsel
Sandy Garrett. The first of these letters, dated October 31, 2005, requested that Allison provide
“information regarding Mr. Trey Jordan’s involvement with Mr. Knight’s case.” The second letter,
dated November 17, 2005, reminded Allison that he had not responded to the letter of October 31,
2005, requested a written response within ten days, and stated that “your continued failure to respond
will be viewed by this office as a violation of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.” The
third letter, dated December 1, 2005, reminded Allison that he had still not responded to the
information requests set forth in the preceding letters of October 31, 2005 and November 17, 2005
and, inter alia, that his continued failure to respond “will be deemed to constitute additional
violations of your professional responsibility.”

We find that these letters constitute relevant evidence from which the Panel could have
rationally concluded that Allison failed to timely respond to Board inquires between October 31,
2005 and December 1, 2005 and thereby violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 8.1(b).
The Panel’s finding that Allison violated Rule 8, RPC 8.1(b) was supported by substantial and
material evidence.

10
 Sanctions

Finally, we address the propriety of the sanctions that the Panel imposed in this matter. The
Panel ordered a sixty-day suspension from the practice of law for Allison. Furthermore, the Panel
ordered that Allison’s trust account be monitored for a period of one year following the reinstatement
of his law license, that he be required to submit trust account bank statements and ledger sheets every
thirty days during this one-year period, and that he pay all costs of the proceeding. The trial court
felt these sanctions to be excessively harsh and held that Allison should receive a public censure
instead.

In deciding an appropriate sanction when an attorney is found to have breached the rules
governing his or her profession, we are required to review all of the circumstances of the particular
case and also, for the sake of uniformity, sanctions imposed in other cases presenting similar
circumstances. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Maddux, 148 S.W.3d 37, 40 (Tenn. 2004). We are
also guided in our decision by the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions, which have been adopted by the Board for disciplinary matters. See id.

We begin by noting that the sanctions imposed by the Panel were based upon its findings that
Allison violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by commingling personal funds with funds in his
trust account, paying personal expenses from funds in his trust account, failing to maintain required
trust account records, failing to timely respond to Board inquiries, and failing to communicate with
a client. Other than the finding that Allison failed to communicate with a client, all of these findings
were supported by substantial and material evidence. As to mitigating factors, we acknowledge that
evidence was presented showing that Allison is an attorney of good reputation, and it was not proven
that his conduct had a selfish or dishonest motive. However, in addition to these factors in Allison’s
favor, we are also compelled to note certain aggravating factors in this case. Allison has substantial
experience in the practice of law and his violations are characterized by multiple offenses and display
a pattern of conduct. Most disturbing is the fact that in 1998 Allison was found guilty of, and
publicly reprimanded for, the same violations with which he is now charged, commingling his
personal funds with funds in his trust account and paying personal expenses from that account as
Allison admitted in the following testimony:

Q. Mr. Allison, isn’t it true that in 1998 you were publicly censured
by the Supreme Court after a hearing panel found in their judgment11
that you had overdrawn your trust account, commingled personal and
operating funds and paid personal and operating expenses from your

11
It is clear from the record before this Court that both the hearing panel’s December 18, 1997 judgment imposing public
censure and the document entered by the Board on March 13, 1998, announcing the public censure and incorporating the judgment
of December 18 were entered as Exhibit 13 at the November 27, 2006 Panel hearing. However, the December 18, 1997 judgment
was erroneously omitted from the record provided to this Court and is not included in Exhibit 13.

11
 trust account?

A. Yes.

Although Allison insists, in accordance with the judgment of the trial court, that public
censure is the appropriate sanction under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree, and it is
our conclusion that the proof supports the sanctions imposed by the Panel, including the sixty-day
suspension of Allison’s license. Although no Tennessee case has addressed the question of whether
suspension is an appropriate sanction for the specific combination of violations that were found in
this case, the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Sanctions provides at Section
4.12 that “[s]upension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is
dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to the client” and
further provides at Section 8.2 that “[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been
reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct
that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.”

In light of the evidence supporting the Panel’s findings of Rule violations as discussed herein,
and the fact that some of these are violations for which Allison has previously been reprimanded,
the sanctions imposed by the Panel are appropriate. Accordingly, to the extent that it modifies the
sanctions imposed by the Panel, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein and in accordance with the controlling standard of review which
requires that a hearing panel’s decision must be upheld if supported by substantial and material
evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court to the extent that it holds that Allison violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct. The record supports findings that Allison commingled his personal
funds with client funds in his lawyer trust account, paid personal expenses out of his trust account,
failed to maintain proper records on his lawyer trust account, and failed to timely respond to Board
inquiries. The judgment of the trial court is reversed to the extent that it modifies the sanctions
imposed by the Panel. Costs of appeal to this Court are taxed to James T. Allison, for which
execution may issue if necessary.

_________________________________________
SHARON G. LEE, JUSTICE

12
 Appendix 1

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 8.4. Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) attempt to, or state or imply an ability to influence a tribunal or a governmental agency or official
on grounds unrelated to the merits of, or the procedures governing, the matter under consideration;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of
judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) knowingly fail to comply with a final court order entered in a proceeding in which the lawyer
is a party, unless the lawyer is unable to comply with the order or is seeking in good faith to
determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law upon which the order is based.

13
 Appendix 2

Rule 9 of the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provides in part
as follows:

9.0 AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION

9.1 Generally

After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be considered
in deciding what sanction to impose.

9.2 Aggravation

9.21 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that
may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation.

Aggravating factors include:

(a) prior disciplinary offenses;

(b) dishonest or selfish motive;

(c) a pattern of misconduct;

(d) multiple offenses;

(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules
or orders of the disciplinary agency;

(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary
process;

(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(h) vulnerability of victim;

(i) substantial experience in the practice of law;

(j) indifference to making restitution

14
(k) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances.

9.3 Mitigation

9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

9.32 Factors which may be considered in mitigation.

Mitigating factors include:

(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;

(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;

(c) personal or emotional problems;

(d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;

(e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings;

(f) inexperience in the practice of law;

(g) character or reputation;

(h) physical disability;

(i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when:

(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is
affected by a chemical dependency or mental
disability;
(2) the chemical dependency or mental disability
caused the misconduct;
(3) the respondent’s recovery from the chemical
dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a
meaningful and sustained period of successful
rehabilitation; and
(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and
recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely;

(j) delay in disciplinary proceedings;

15
(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;

(l) remorse;

(m) remoteness of prior offenses.

16