BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

1101 KERMIT DRIVE, SUITE 730

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37217

TELEPHONE: (615) 361-7500

(600) 486-5714

FAX: (615) 367-2430

E-MAIL: ethics@tbpr.org

Website: www.tbpr.org

RELEASE OF INFORMATION

IN RE: NATHANAEL ELLIS ANDERSON, BPR #23216

CONTACT: SANDY GARRETT

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

1615) 361-7500

February 11, 2011

KNOXVILLE ATTORNEY DISBARRED

Nathanael Ellis Anderson, a Knoxville attorney, was disbarred and ordered to pay restitution totaling ,

$7,166.50 to former clients by Order of the Tennessee Supreme Court filed February 8, 2011, based upon

twelve (12) client complaints. The Supreme Court’s Order of February 8, 2011, does not affect the continuing

validity of the Supreme Court’s previous Order of March 2, 2009, disbarring Mr. Anderson and Ordering

restitution totaling 1370,81 1.85.

By Order filed November 24, 2010, a three (3) member Hearing Panel found Anderson violated the

Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended Mr. Anderson be disbarred and ordered to pay restitution

totaling $7,166.50 to former clients. The Hearing Panel found Mr. Anderson continued to practice law after

his suspension by the Supreme Court on September 21, 2007; made false statements to clients regarding his

suspension and accepted fees while suspended, in Violation of Rules 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.5

(fees); 1.16 (terminating representation); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and

counsel); 8.1(b) (disciplinaly matters); 8.4 (misconduct); and 1.15 (safeguarding property).

Neither Mr. Anderson, nor the Board of Professional Responsibility, appealed the Hearing Panel’s

Order, and by Order filed February 8, 2011, the Supreme Court accepted and adopted the Hearing Panel’s

Order.

Anderson l796-2.rel.doc

PLEASE NOTE

YOU MAY SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL RELEASES, FORMAL ETHICS

OPINIONS, NEWSLETTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS ELECTRONICALLY BY SIGNING IN AT

. THE BOARD’S WEBSITE

www.tbpr.01‘g/Subscriptions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

IN RE: NATHANAEL ELLIS ANDERSON, BPR #023216

An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law in Tennessee

(Knox County) F I L E D

FEB «a 2011

NO-WG-03?BOPR NO. 2-008-1‘796~2«SG R6333" “We Came

ORDER er ENFORCEMENT

This matter is before the Court upon the Petition for Discipline filed December 28,

2008; uyen Supplemental Petition for Discipline filed on April 16, 2009; upon a final

hearing on November 23: 2010; upon the Order of the Hearing l’anel entered

November 24, 2010; upon the Board’s consideration of this matter on December 10,

2010; and upon the entire record in the cause. The Respondent has not appeared or

otherwise contested or defended this matter.

From all of winch the Court accepts the Order oi? the Hearing Panel and adopts the

Order ofthe Hearing Panel as the Court’s Order.

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that:

l. The Respondent, Nathanael Ellis Anderson shall be disbarred, pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 4.1.

The Respondent is ordered to pay restitution. as set forth in the Hearing

Panel Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The» Respondent shall comply in all aspects with Supreme Court Rule 9,

Section 18, regarding the obligations and responsibilities of disbarred

attorneys.

By Order entered March 2, 2009, the Respondent was disbarred and

' Ordered to pay restitutien totaling 1370,81 1.85, The entry of this Order does

not affect the continuing validity of the prior disciplinary Order.

The Board of Professional Responsibility shall cause notice of this

disberment to be published as required by Supreme Court Rule 9, Section

18.10.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 24.3, the Respondent shall pay

to the Board of Professional Responsibility the expenses and costs of this

matter in the amount of $1,139.45, and in addition, shall pay to the Clerk of

this Court the costs inctu'red herein, for all of which execution may issue if

necessary.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, Rules of the Supreme Court, Section

18.5, this Order shall be effective ten (10) days after the date of entry.

FOR THE COURT:

WW Cl- CQCML/

CORNELIA A. CLARK

CHIEF JUSTICE

Homiamemq ,Ei'EEPM' HODGEIS DOUGHTY ET ‘1’ Ib

.

.

.| .. .

I

. ' E

' I

No.39? 9.244 ‘

l\

FILEB

i ' ‘ fizammvzn PH 2mm

1.11% fixscrthNAmr msmc'x‘ II EQARQS13%;UPEVEZSEEBRM

A OF ma: Sham???

130mb OFPROFESSIONAL msrowsxmafw“RIM

éUPREMEmam OFTIZNNESSEE IS

1

I ’ i 1

IN RE: NATHANAEL ELLIS ANDERSON 1300le N0 2008':179mm

BPR #232315, Responde‘w:

(Ar: Alwmey Licensed And ‘ '.

Admittéstltéthe Pi'abfice of V I

- Law in Tennesseé j ‘*

(Knox: Gamay) .I I

l . 1 _.4“... . 1 I . n. 1.. . . . I u “n. n. ... -..4

IIEARiNG PANEL DRINiRRECOMMENBING DISBARMENTIANI) WTITUTION

- ' "WITH FINNNGSI OFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS 'OF LAW

' , l ‘ I. Iv . r .

This cause: came ta his hard on the; 23"” day 91’ Nbvenmar 2010;, befoxe the three—

1

I

member Hearing 15am! of this Board nfpxufcassinnal :Rnspofisibilhy efalm Supmme Court of

TBIITIEE-EVSEE. Based upan Ilmelamml‘l‘sent of-discileinary mum} an bahalif ofthe Bamd'uf

Professional Requnsihiiity bf théi Supréme: {3:3an ofTennassee, a atatéemem read by

Respondmm imo the. ward Afthlg causA; the plaadiziga ansi ‘CIther docuiants filed in this

mutter and ugon the regard As a whale the Hearing éaAel makqs the failinvéing Findings of

I I . I

Fact. Conclusions ofLaw arid recbmmmptimlona to the: Supram Commof’renngssee;

a l gmnmcs mr 29AM f

1, A pAtAIunfmimiscfimm,19.011511 Docket'NA 2098~179ti§2wsawas film on

I ' ' l

Deoexnbm 22 2008. = ' i

_ I !

2. The: Pfititionwas sent via mguiar and certifiedMail to the Reapcandent at 1719

’.

Wand Song Lama. Knoxvi‘llrfg, Tang-mama 3?“? 34. I

3. Na answsr er :i'esporisa to 'the Petifion forniscipline was filed with me Exscutive

:- .} ' ' , EXHIBITA

392124.2313 RiREPM HODGES BOUGHTY ET Y ! H0.3B? P.3/14

J r

I

'. .,i1 ‘IE -

i

Secratary of the Board of Prui‘stiuiial Résponsiiiiiity and no answer or réspnnse was sawed on

Disciplinary Ccimsiai within this time peimhted by Sactim’iS.2 03$ Rulé 9, The time for filing 1hr:

answer or response was not égitiindgd by the Chair offiie Buafii {if mees'iimial Responsibility,

E

nor wasi requeii cii' martian ior an Mansion offima made 01 flied by Rfigpvnflfim t0 answar or

5

rampant! in this Peiition far Disaipiiiia, ' i

4. On February {3 2009,3164: maxing Paiiiil gtariied the Miami Motion fer Defauli

J adamant and daemecl admitiad ihéiailcgaiione: set forth'mike Peiiiion fin) DifiCipfine

5. A Supplemiiniai Petition far Diiaipliiie, BOPR Becket N0 300317962-86 was

i

filed on April 16, 2309. '

l

i

l

-r...)

1l

The Respiiiidéiit did not fiiiii an answer iii ieipcnsa to the: Supplamen’iai Petition

i

for Discipline: with the ExedutiveiSsciaiary ofihe Board of Professioniil Reiponsibiiiiy and

6.

no answw in- response was sizwed'on Di‘icipiinaiy COIHILSBA within the dine germitted by Section

32 of Rule 9 The iims for filingam answer or raspgnse was nbi extbnifiied by the Ghaiman bf

the Board of Professional Rasptaii'is iiiiliiy nor was i inquast 01 motion for extension offline;

made 0r mad by the Respiiniciiint-fn ansWer or respond to ithe Siippleménial Pati‘iiiiii for

i

Disiiplinc. , : . | 1

3’. 011 3mm 1. 20509, tiiie flaming Panel giantiid fir” Board‘s 'EMoiinn for Deit‘auli

I

Judgmeni and iilaamcd admi‘giiid fliii aiiagaiions sat fprth iii the Supgiiiiiianiai Petitiiiii for

Discipline. ' ' ' j . - :1

giLmifiiii 315132saw cimnirininiiianigrg brimiii;

1

3‘ The Camplainimt retained the ResPondem iii ripreiiimti1,821? persona}injury case

’ K

IQ ‘ '

5

I r I .

.I

l 1

_.—-£4“m----

I

fiCN;E4.EEi@ 3:27PM HODGEQ MUGWY ET Y . l No.36? P.4/14

1

. I‘

r

I iE ’ - I

9.. ' The Respond‘cnt sétfled the Complainantis case in apprqx{mately June 200?

allegedly fox 2122.00 ' 3 . . .i

E

. I '

2 . - a10. By 211221R datleé June ’1 2007 the Reslponciem p‘aid $93100310 the, Camplainam

retaining $2.560 for the Rashmndmxt’s few. and $940 for a Blue Cross Bfue Shield (BCBS)

subrogation claim i 2

1 l. In Jammy 2098 fire Respondant adviged theCemplainant that 130133 was

going to "write eff“ their $940 subtogafion ciaim and the R¢spund$nt iNbuId provida the

Compiainant with a 21ml; bf the {and of January 2008 .

12. The Reapundflnt never prmvided "th 62221131ainant with the $940

13. The: Rasnhndént £31322 to 2222p: car 22mm that Compiama'm'a calls and messages.

14 . The Reapnndén: faillad mraspond to this anmplaim 1

mm N13} 315i§23g 2- Ca0121113121211 of gag-121a i’o'lzard

15. In approximaflaly Egbruw 200 7, the Campia£nant xetaixiad the Respondent to

1

represent her in her divome- I

16. T112 Golmalainam phiti “c122 Respandenmmso |

17, The aespancid:nt faiieci to accept or 22mm theCemplainant‘s telephone calls.

I18.1% Responclcxffi nfismpreannted to the Complainant 212211;: husband had sigmd

the divorea papers 226°20‘ng$0 thaflommainants @2222.

E

19. The Raspnnfiaklt misreprakented ta 'the Complainant 2112 Elm! a court date On

November 16 2007;. anathari' cauri date:on January 15. 3908 and a thifid 2mm date in

Fabmary 2008. 1 i3,. 2

FILE 0'st u Cnmlai 009d able

20. The Gnmp!ainént retainad the Respondpn‘:1n September .2007, paying the

Respundem $1000. 5 ' . E

NOV. 24.213112} 2:2?131'1 RODGES DOUQHTY if Y I NO.3E1'? [9.5/14t

| 1 a

A g 1 ‘ a

' . i i

1113 Respondabt was suspandad fer CLE noncomplianca 0:11Septembar 21 200?

22.31115: Rasponden’t has rammed 513.59%?“ 5113.011: Sepmmha: 31, 2007

23. The .Easpandem mijsrepmscntsd to the. Complainant that lie hadfiled her case but

never pmvideci the Cnmylainam W11 any dosummation reflecting that flung

1

24. The Respondgnt neglectagi the Complainant‘s use. i

' 1

25. The R-‘egpondént failed in aueept or return the Camplainzinvs taiaphone calls.

I '. . _ 1

26. The Camplairiam réquaskgd. but did not receive, “smug from the Respundént.1 .

27. The Respondafnt failed ta gdvise the Camplairiant ofhia sinspensiom

0. 5345.24; nomgxaigm Team cgmfbarzgm

28. Tim mumfilainihm retainadfthc Reépbndsm on approxhnaté'ly Mm113],2008,

1 i

paying the, Reapandent $156 Tex-11% representation. ‘ E

29. ' The: Kespenfieht waé suspgndati at the: time the Respondcm‘t accepted the

(30131131115an5 repmsm’cfitioml , E i

30. The Raspbndéint failed to‘advise the Complainant ofhisguspcnsion.

I

31. TheReapnndelfi: tuck nu action on bahalf affine Complainant

TILE 0.31585 ~31} {210m lam mt éhael e' e a

32. The comp!amam nta'imd the Raapendant mi approximaglely Emuary 18, 2008.

paying the, Respandent a $11100 €156 for 11:139. Mspondpnt'é repragentafibln in a cugtoclylchild

support case. I - ' g

33‘ At the time 111% Raapanden’c accepted 1:315 Complainant's repmsantatinn and. $10110

fee, the Respondent was suskended farCLH noncompliama, E

34, The Raspnnde'n; faihd to fdfwise 111a Cmmplainpm of his suspension,

35‘ The Respondent faihed tn cummmficate with fixes Cumplmant and missed

1 E

. scheduled appointments Witél the Sampllaifiaut, i

i : - '' 1 ' 4 1l :

|i

. _ . g

l . I '

I

NOR/”24.22316 ' amp“ RODGES DOUGHTY E? v I NO . 38? F. 6/14

I

I

, i '

l

36. [he Respandént mi‘srepra'sented ’to the {Bumplaiuant ‘lhafiha had a June 5, 2008

court date which the Gomplginanfiaamed fwm a social worker on Junta 4 2068, was never

%

schadulcd . I Z l

E

3?. The Complairlam rélceiVecl noting of a Fabrnaxy 20, 200 8:, mm: date from Child

i

Suppart Enforcemfint. | . g

38. The Raspanqle'ht mlsadvisad the Complainfmt that it wagmat nscessary for 1h:

Ccmplainaxlt to $1th ӣ111 3 Rebruary 29,1983 hearing.

39. The Cnmplafinlént subsequently maimed noticethat the Complainant‘8 failure 10 '

amend the February 20' 2098 linearirgg rfisui’cedm a. default 01cm 9f Supztsdrt arutarad against the

I

Complainant. I

40. The Ccmplainém requastméi by lam", dated Sepwmbér 4,3919%, his fila fiam the

l

Iiaspondent. E‘ - , ' l

411 The Raspondeint Failed w geapond 1:0 mg Cdmplainant‘s Mira: requesting his file.

‘ i ' = _42. On approximately Max:311 7, 2003. The Comgalainant paid 121133 Respondent $1,500 to

I 3

represent her in he: diverge i ' . g

43. The Respondelu wasamended as: the time the Respoadsnl accepted the

l

44. On Mard124.h008,;the Respondsnt providead th‘a Complainant with a Complaint

Complainan’c‘s $1SUD fem anti agracd tn rézpresent her

for Divorce rafleating This allldgedlslgnature Manama}; flanjgmin Barnettil

45. The {lemplalnants Oomplaint for Divorwwas nevar filéd

46. The Respondelxt did 1101; 866k er nb‘tain atlomay BenjaminEmma pannisslun 1.0

sign aflnrnay Banjamm Baméfis aims to the Complainanfs Complaint fqr Divorce

47. The Respondcht mifimpresemed $9 the Clamplalnant thathca had mangecl for

i 5

NOV..84.281@ 2327’PM - HODGES DOUGHTY ET ‘1’ 510.33? {3.2/14

1

i

mediafian m1 3qu 3 2008 11%wavér this:mediativn did not 01111111.

48. The Reapandim prévided the 12011111113111.1111 With a $6503} refund 311111113

Respondent“3 111111111 1111110311%vas'not gcm'd. - iI

FILE H111 3145042-89 1.. Complaint 3215213311113 33m“

49. The Complaifiam 111121111513 the Raspnndent 1111 approxima%11ly September 141 2006.

to repreSent the Campifinam in 333611111111 (101111 3311111111111st 3111111391 (31111111.

. ' 1 . 1

$0. The Camplai%1an1 3111111 13111 Respondent 11 $175,50'fili11g fee 1111 September 34,

i

2106. ”g 1 ' %

51» The Ra$pond%nt misadmsecl the Complainant tfiat 1.13 1111? {11111111111

Complamnt's Fedaral Cour? 21111111113; 111111 1111: Respomtiont 1111,1311 axpertsiready to tastify and that

the Respondent Was 11131131111111 1101311 datEes omnpgtihie 111111113111 111111111353: availability.

52. TheResphnddni 111i$rapreé¢md 111 the Cewiainant that 1%11 Respondent was

11111113111111; the K1161: Camry $111131}; Attuma'ys affine 111 file cfimmal charges against 113101113 Depot

for deszmgtiun 11f avidm1c111%t‘11e Compiainant‘s case. 1

53. The: (Samplaix%ant learned 1111111 111a 03111163 1111331113 thatthe 3%espundenthad 11013311111

1 . 3

his federal lawsuit. ' ' = .l

1 ‘ I f ‘

54-. '3‘3111 Reamndépt alléwad the Camp31111111111311 11111111111 of 11111111111111 to expire.

55. The Reapnncieiht fm‘ied 31> 1311101111111: 1.6111111 the Complnifiam‘s 1111113 and 13133111110

respond to 1311 Camplainant's%r$g11els1$ "f0:infamafim ‘1

56. The Respondent31%3111110'151111111116 Complajnm's 3:111:11: the Complainant

|

m1 1% 31766~2~SG .. 1 (311111 11111101111111 1m

1

57. Tbs: {1011:1111 1131111111 re%ain:dthe: Respondent111 $1qu 2007%111 represent her in her

Cliverce. % | i

53. ‘I‘he Complaixiant Sims 3119, paid the Raspomiam a $7501fee.

I ' i

, : 6 ‘

" NO?.24.EB;LE zraeipm HORSES DOUQHTY I57 v £40.33? REL/1,4i

i ' %

5,9 31h: Regponfiqm took no actiun on theComplainant‘s case.

60. ' The Respandém failed to.aaaept er remm the' Cemplaimnt's malls and failed to

keep her infmmesd I : . 'I

61, fha Raapond%m ha}; failfifi to rcspbnd to this complaint.:

311;; No, 31908~2_:§G Cfimnlaint uilvm Wheeler

62. S‘t‘hé Complaitiam rétafined the Réspotigient to handla a ma} Estate dispute.

63. The Respendém filibd the'Onmplainant‘s Complaint in C'pamm Court ofKncx

County againsi YMc Mantgéage Company, et al on afiprchimafialy Juiyé’fi, 2006.

64. On August 29; 2005,, Daféndant Littongloan Sawing flied §Motitm to Dismiss

against the Gomplah‘saut. i ' ‘ I i

65, The Regponiz‘le'h‘i muted to fiia any reapnnse to tifi: Dafenciaifn‘a Mariam to Dismiss.

66, By Gram filed Novéimbcflfl2.006 the bumplamant’s caseiwaga dismissfld

6?. By tatter dang April 2.5:, 2007,m Respnndeptwrote a 1mm}: advising thattha

Cumplainams ‘brasemly have: a légai antic): wading" ‘-I

63.1% Raspenfieht‘s @12220G? 1mmwasfalse‘mthat tl'ia Complainant‘s cases

had already been dismissed, i ‘ E '

69- The Raqundeht fallgd to 12¢an the Cnmpiainam infarmed ifibout tha mm ofhis

case. , ' : , i ,

7D. The Complairiantreiguested but did not rmcivb flan: thus :jiaspnndent the return 0f

the Cumplainant‘s file, 5 11

‘71. The Raspmflémt 13mm} tu-wsponfi ’m this cdmpéaint. . 3

FILE No} 31515~§95€§ ,, cémnlgmhamm ana mind}: Walker

72. The: {ilmch'aiainants'EEtetaingad the Reaptmde-nt (in appmmmataly April 13 2003

to handle a, child suppqrt (mics. ‘ ' ' ' 1

, i

I ’E!_ 7 i

.i x'i" ‘3!

I ‘ H0\$.24.EB’J.€I $239M HGDGES BOUGHT? ET Y 140.38? 53.53/14

1

73'. The 'Rmpnndegm Wags aqspc'mded at the timahe agreed tn rcipmaent the

Complainants and had been gaspetédad sings September 21. 2507. 3k

74. The Respondént faiiecl to advises the meplaiuam of his syspension.

75. The Respondéut instrument! the Complaiménta‘ mama: tozattend a Mating

without the Raspondent beizgg pre’sent.' z 1;:

76. At that hearidg and in the ReSPDndent‘s absence, the Judge advisad the

Complainants'nmntlm that fl‘ge Refipgznden‘t was auspanded firm; pragtivring law.

T7. The Réspondént faisaly advised the Commflainanta that 1%;‘13 licaflse had been

reinstated and 1115 Raspcmdeht was ableto rapresem the (23:3:mplzatineutn‘fi.g

78. 'Iht: :Respandént hag: fat led to accept gr return the Complainants‘ ealla.

7?. The Rmspondentim; failafi to re’spend to this compiaint‘!

St). The Campiaiziants‘ rammed the Respondent in agproxin-fiately Apzii 2093,

l ' l

ragai'ding a cus‘teciy case. n ; . ' ' il

1

81. The Respondém wa's gumendefi and had {men suspendad shine September.

200?; a: the time he agreed,to mfiesm the Complainants and accepteéi tlw fee.

82. The Ccmplainants ppid thé Re’spmfldent swan hundred fifty dallars ($750) on

approximamly April 28, 2003 anti 11second payment efsevenhtmdred fifty dollars ($750) on

May 13‘ 2008. ‘. i

33. The Respondeht misfipramntad to the Damplahmms 011M: (2) occasions that

they had a mutt date: gauging Fha Complainantsto take cfffinm wax-k unnzccessarily

i

84. On bath aft‘hd alleged coin“! datas,fiheRespondent udviiad- the Complainants

that the court data had been éenn'niuad .

l

l

t

' £

35. The Respanéaht adéised the Clamplainanta thtgy had beef: awarded custody a?. I

|

a ' 8 .

HOV“ 24.236118 2:28PM HOWESI DOUGH'FY ET Y 1106.? P. 113/14

1

I

1

1

I

iI

1

l

I

|

the minor $111111, Shawn Ashfmugh but 1111111111 1111115114 11:11: Cnmplainaflts that a Virginia court

order had to be 0111111111211 1151111111 they 6011111 pick up 1125 $1111d.i

31:1,; 1119. 001111318114th 11:: not know if any or 5111111111113 infamafiunprovlded by the

Respnndent 101111: {31111191111113 Was accurate . '

187. The Raspbn‘demt 111113 11111611 10 accept 0111111111111 The C(11111311111113.1113l calls and

raquests forini‘omatian, .1 ’ . . E

1118. The Respandeam fa11ed to 1351-1131161 to this complaint. '

1111.111: 130131745u2~80-- (30111111131111 01‘David Sanflléario

89. The 01111111911115.1111 retainer! 11111 11112119111191»?1napprnxmmtely July 20117, to represent

the Complainahtin his' 111111011111. ' 1

911.1111: {3011111111ng51111163 1111 13111111113 Respondam flight hundred claims (118011)

for his fee, = '1

91. The Respondent new111111111111 Complamant’la case; i

921'Fhe 11651901111611? faijedIn accept nr return theCnmplainant‘s calls and mquests

I'

for information.

11

93. '1ha Respondent has; failed 1e respond111111111 1101119131111.

I

1......m.

u...

(10 1mm 01* LAW 1

The 111115 and 01111313111115 of the: Resppndent damned afimittfld1:11 11:13 Hem-111g Panel‘s

Orders dam! February 13 211119 111111 June 1, 21109 0131131111111 1111111131 nfiseonduat111 violatian

of 11.111133 afi’rufassionai 011111111111 13 (Diligenba); 141 {Communication}; 15 (111111511. 15

‘_ (Snfekeaping Property); 1 161(1361;111:1115:and Terminating Rapresamatian); 32 (Bxpediting

Litigation} 3 .4 (Fairness to dpposimg Party and (31111115911); 8 1(1)) (Bar 11111111331011 and

Discipiinary Matters); and 8 4' (Misconduct)

HOV.24.2@2L@ 3:88PM HODGE'S DGUQHTY ET Y E No.38? 19.11/14

. I I I

The: 8111311111111 Court hIas ndéptfid for use by1111 Ewing Fanals; thII ABA Center fur

Professionai Responsibility fItandsIrds for Ifnpnsing Lamar Smcfiam (LEA Standards)

geetion 84 0112,1111 9.}{ule11'I1f1halSupmm 0111111... . . I .

The following ABA E'ItantleIrds art: applicableto this case;

FAILURE 11:) 11111111111711 1113 0111311113 11011211111

11115111111119.1111; is génerally appropriate when 11 13,113,113} knowingly 12111111an

111111111 1319311511)! and 12111113 11131131 or 1111151111111InjuryI10 a client.

LACK. or: 1111113311133 ’3 '

[31511111111111 isIgemIally appropriate w!1111: '

(3) 11111131111 1131111110111 Izhc practicaland nausea serious I01 pfilfinfially 38110111

infiury II.” a clIent; or i

(b) a lam/1r lmowingly $111111 11: pefimfi 16311161115 for aIelient and causes

serious! :11 pntentiafly serious in§ury to a cfiien‘t; cw .

1

(c) alawyér lmohdngiy fails 1:11 pelform 111111166 for alaliem and nausea

11111111111111 11111311111113! gar-101111 injmy to a 03111111; or I

Id) 21mm: 1 111191191111 11 1121116111 ofncgleat with 1615;131:1111 01161111111111er and

11111111111 minus 111: pateniially serious injury to 11 111111111.

LACK. 01‘ 1111111311113 : I I

wiabarmem iaIgenarIaily appropriate. when a lawyea kncJWIngly decaivas a client

with 101111 intantIta behef‘z‘t thf: 1111115111: (11' 1111119111115and 11111893: minus injury or

putcnfial 5111111115111qu to :1 111111111 ' I

FALSE STATEMENTS 111111115 AND MISMPmSENTATIcIN

01811121116111 is ganerIauy appropriate when 1111mm: withtha 111111111111 dacem the

court. 1111111111113, false statement 1111111111111 11 13111311 ducumemjorimpromrly

11111111111113 matIeria-l {hfnrnmfinm and 0111111111 1131210113 111: 110 ntiafly serious Injury

to a patty, or chusesla. significant 01* 11011119111111 sigmfis 121113113136. effect on the

legai procagfiig I

I !

ABUSE 0:1 “11113 WI:PRQCESS ' I

Disbatmentils 11111219111 apprnpziata when 11111191111: ImowIneg violates a Gouri

order 01: 11111 1111 tilt} 111111111: to obtain a ’l'aenefit 1111111111 lawyar 01‘ another, and

I I

1;:18

,‘ " Nw.24.ama 2:29PM HODGEB DOUGHTY ET Y No.39? 13.12/14I

al

iI

cauaeys saxiouslinjury a: potemially serious1;;juryto a path; 0: causes serious or

pnientially serious intarfeima with a Mal proneefling.§

VIOLATIONS OF gimme, swab as A PROFESSIONAL t

l

Dmbarmam$5lganmally appmpriale whenalawyer} gly mngagss in

canducithat13 a vidiatien01‘ a duty ownd as a prefefigio With the: intent ta

obtain a benefit far the laws:- or summer, and {muses serléus or putantially missus

1213my tn! a cliant thépublic car the legal sysrem. :

lThe. foilswifigiagwévaflng oiraumstanc'w mistjustifymgtan increase111 the

discipiinc to be impnsad agfiih:31: $113 Resfiondent; ‘

a:

a9

ir

5

The RaLpondant's indifferanceto making rastimiiOn, teaming

qppmmimataly $11 6650; ‘

Th3 Rekpondlent’s pattern of miscanduct; i

1

The Raqundan’t's false flaw-Lem; '

T1155 Re'sponaenst's niefixsai to acimmwiadgethe Wrongful nature of his

madam, ' .

' 'E

The Rdsyandént‘s bad faith ¢bstmct§pfl (1!? L113 disciplinary Ismomding by

faiting [to fesyaonci fa mega ummplamtg; f

The Refpondmt':3? prior discipline 01’ one hundred twenty (120) days

suSpen ion on May, :20 2008 and disbamnsam on MM}: 2, 2009;

TheRappondem‘s mulfipiaoffmes, §

' The Eskpmciem‘s mfusal in aahaowiedge the man31:11 mum: this

candw‘t: and7 1l

Tlm Mruerabfiity affine muhipld victims.

Respondent appflared at tha‘ November 23,. 2010 hearingia determine discipline The

Hearing Panel hazard Respomiem lead in'a‘u the reward hi9 statement which included 130 contest

is tha charges as fi‘md against him gm this matter andhis We: statemefit that Respnndent has

amen diagnased with a manta} dimmer that is pennmm and (1311133013313 Respondant admits he

cannot differentiate the truth and that his mama}; illnesa'i8deterihratiVe, buch' that ht:15 rm

longer employabie. Cunscqu‘entiy; Rcsyondent mneedas rm any and an {actions the Board or

I , 1;

! ‘ ' 11 .. l

l I

.‘l . i,

‘ 11015212111121 21291111 110131353 DOUGHTY ET 1’ 110.3217 19.13/14

l 'l

I i l

I I.l’I ’J‘

" i u u

. Professional Responsibility rfiaoinmsnds, and. fmher uqngents 1'11 revocaitmn of his hmnse and

E ' i

I disbarment g I 'I

......1111,,tlmfum,01112113111313.11113115131313andDEGREE}; 51111111115111131111111 uponthe-

Findings cf Fast and {311111111113 11115 19f Law set out herein, thp ata’tement niacin by Respnndem the.

Headings filed hernia anIci t11¢ renew as a whole, the Hamng Panel raspactfully rennmmands

Resptmflent be DISBARREHI it13 firth? RECOMMENDBE 13“!" T1313 BRDER that

‘ Respondent papvida restitutian 1:115:11: following amounts 1:) the 1111111111111; Complainants.

I. Candaw Crisis ' $ 94000 E

2, Patricial13olia1‘d . 1113750110 i

:1. 01111111151ng ' . 1101.110

1. Teenadhambpflaln 1 "1511.011

5. filijah draft 1 ‘ 11 116.511

13. S‘hawn lidasse’y . $ “1511,00

2 ' :7. Danny 1:11:11 (1131:1111: Parks 11,5001110

3. David 31111111111119 ‘ 1 8111.110

This the: 514mday qfEgon] ' .

fi

' Wayegz A. 19111116, 13111111

i1.$

......

..

-_—.

......

...-.—

1_.«

.«.............._-___.

12

‘_ f NOM.24,8231I2529PM HOMES DOUGHTY E] ‘I’ No.32}? 13.14/14

:

II If

I

' I

l

E

. i

j gfimmcgm0F SEMICE 1!

I 1 II : i

I certify than mm ca ‘3: oft e foragoimg has been served a ’.

pen camel for all tunes in

A..A..“.A..i.l..l...ganxwggwagwxp,W.Pmfi'igiingPEEWEQQLI911.by“filmmaknflpymfiluflmwnhedState: mail~ ?’I 23:32:53: to counsel at their 0 0a. ;with sufficient postage thereon to carry the: same to its ’‘ n!

It

l

Nathanael Ems Andersofi, Respe'ndant

.7513 gashevilla Highway

momma, TN 37924-3 86'?

3

1

I

i Bandy Garrett 1

:Bam anmfesaioaal Ra's ensibinty ;

:thhe Supwma Onwaf anneasw i

I 1p madman Driwfiuite 220 ‘i : Brentwood,TN3702‘?

t

1 1 Rick L. Powerafliaq.“

3 . ' Rammed ‘u: Abominamavgomano

;

i

|

i

I

I

i

1. Lynn P. Talley, Esq.

: 9224 Shady Min 31.21116

’ Knoxville, TN 373922

This theflgdavnkflmw 2019. . ‘

1 Montana, mummy a». CARSON, "Pm:

IE

‘

l ,i

I I -‘

. 4. : By: {WM ‘

.

I‘ Amway at.» il 4 I

‘r‘f’ré‘fza. 255w ' EI

|

«‘5!

E

i

,. l” I

i

'-

fil. ,

|aii

E I

i I

i

. I

i a

, 13