Click here to load reader

iNTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY,TENNESSEE, inthechancerycourtfordavidsoncounty,tennessee, atnashville i l terryr.clayton, 1 i i ‘ petitioner, ‘ ] i.. '] w_ _ fl vs. ] no.09—1801~11]

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of iNTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY,TENNESSEE, inthechancerycourtfordavidsoncounty,tennessee,...






    ‘ Petitioner, ‘ ] i

    .. '] W _ _ fl

    vs. ] No. 09—1801~11

    ] .3. r'éP ”‘3‘

    BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ] “f, i: v.”


    TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT, 1 ‘ s3, 1...“

    I ] ‘i

    ’3:- .vd ;

    Respondent. ] \ g?) g: 3::

    ‘6" '73}, ‘3,


    JUDGMENT - s; a

    This case is before the court on a Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner,

    Terry R. Clayton. The petition seeks a reversal of thejudgnient' of the'hearing panel fried

    July 21, 2009, in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Clayton. After careful

    review of the record in this case, for the reasons set for in a Memorandum filed

    simultaneously with this Judgment which is incorporated herein by reference, the court of

    the opinion the petition to reverse the findings and conclusions of the hearing panel

    should be denied and thejudgment ofthe hearing panel should be affirmed in ali respects.

    it is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition

    seeking reversal of the findings and conclusions of the hearing panel filed July 2], 2009,

    is denied and that the judgment of the hearing panel be affirmed in all reSpects. The costs

    of this cause shall be assessed against the petitioner, Terry R. Clayton, and his surety, for

    which execution may issue, if necessary.

    This 22'“ clay-ofJuly 2010.

    ”Donald P. Harris, Senior Judge

    sitting by designation of the

    Tennessee Supreme Court


    The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the forgoing Final Decree has been

    forwarded to Randall J. Spivey, I 101 Kermit Drive, Nashville, TN 37217; and to Terry R.

    Clayton, 1402 5‘“ Avenue, Nonh, Nashville, TN 37217, this the :52 fl day of

    July, 2010.

    QM 741W“

    Clerk afiffi Master





    Petitioner, ]


    vs. ] No. 09‘1801~II

    ] , .





    Respondent. ]


    This case is before the court on a Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner,

    Terry R. Clayton.1 The petition seeks a review of the Judgment of the Hearing Panel filed

    July 21, 2009, in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Clayton.

    The hearing panel found violations of certain Rules ofProfessional Conduct. The

    panel also found Various aggravating factors. As a result, the hearing panel entered its _

    judgment recommending Mr. Clayton be suspended from the practice of law in Tennessee

    for a period of seven months. The panel further recommended he serve one month of that

    period on active suspension with the remaining six months to be served on probation

    conditioned on his attending additional continuing legal education and retaining a law

    office monitor to insure he was meeting his professional obligations to his clients. '

    Standard ofReview

    In reviewing the findings and conclusions of the hearing panel in a disciplinary

    proceeding, the court must be guided by Rule 9, section 1.3, of the Rules of the Supreme

    Court which provides in pertinent part as follows:

    lBecause Mr. Clayton is the petitioner in the proceeding before the couit and was the respondent in the

    proceeding before the hearing panel, he will be referred to in this memorandum as “Mr. Clayton.” The

    Board of Professional Responsibility will be referred to as the “Board.”


  • if") Q

    The Respondent-attorney (hereinafter “Respondent”) or the Board may have

    a review of the judgment of a hearing panel in the manner provided by

    [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 279.101 et seq., except as otherwise

    provided herein. The review shall be on the transcript of the evidence

    before the hearing panel and its findings and judgment. If allegations of

    irregularities in the procedure before the panel are made, the trial court is

    authorized to take such additional proof as may be necessary to resolve such

    allegations. The court may affirm the decision of the panel or remand the

    case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision

    if the rights ofthe petitioner haVe been prejudiced because the panel’s

    findings, inferences, conclusions er decisions are: (l) in violation of

    constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess ofthe 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 (S) unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and

    material in the light of the entire record.

    In determining the substantiality of evidence, the court shall take into

    account Whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the court

    shall not substitute its judgment for that ofthe panel as to the weight of the

    evidence on questions of fact.

    Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, §1.3 (2007).

    With that standard in mind, the court has carefully reviewed the entire record. The

    court’s findings with regard to the allegations made by Mr. Clayton in his Petition for

    Certiorari are set forth below.


    On August 1, 2008, the Board filed a Petition for Discipline pursuant to Rule 9 of

    the Rules of the Supreme Court. This petition was based upon two complaints that had

    been filed with the Board, one related to Ms. Miriam Dirie and the other to Ms. Nekia

    Smith. With respect to the Dirie complaint, the petition alleged violations ofthe Rules of

    Professional Conduct 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; 1.3,

    requiring reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients; 1.5, relating to

    fees, 5.1, relating to the responsibilities of an attorney sharing fees with another; 8.4(a),

    prohibiting the violation of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct; and 8.4(d), prohibiting a

    lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice. As a

    result of the Smith complaint, Mr. Clayton was charged with violations ofthe Rules of

  • /""“\. , ”"

    t 4

    \,_ N) \‘.l ) '

    Professional Conduct 1.]; 1.3; 1.4, requiring that an attorney to keep clients reasonably

    informed; 8.4(a); and 8.4(d).

    An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the a hearing panel on May 19, 2009.

    The evidence presented during that hearing was well summarized in the findings of fact

    included in the judgment ofthe hearing panel as follows:

    6. In August of 2006, [Mr Clayton] was contacted by a member of a

    local and purportedly informal Somalian group of cinizens in the '

    community, through Ms. Manamina Sufi. a former client of [Mn Clayton],

    who apparently was an informal leader or respected person within the local

    Somalian community, with a request for representation ofMiriam Dirie in a

    criminal case.

    7. [Mn Clayton] informed M's. Dirie and the member ofthe

    Somalian community that there was an attorney working from and in his

    office that could handle the criminal matter.

    8. Ms. Audrey Armstead, an employee of [Mn Clayton], testified

    that she scheduled the appointment about the criminal matter with

    O’DeNeal On August 23, 2006. On that date, O’DeNeal met with Ms. Sufi

    and others to discuss the terms and conditions of his representation. [Mn

    Clayton] was not present for any of the consultation. O’DeNeal’s

    involvement is further discussed below.

    10.(sic) Ms. Dirie’s file and matter Was at all times directed to

    O’DeNeal, the attorney with whom [Mr. Clayton] shared SpaCe in [Mr.

    . Clayton’s] office.

    11. Ms. Dirie completed an “intake” form which appeared on the

    letterhead of [Mr. Clayton].

    9.(sic) [ML Clayton’s] office was paid $5,000 for this


    12. [Mr. Clayton] retained the $5,000 payment.

    13. O’DeNeal was not an employee of [Mn Clayton’s] law firm, but

    rather, an “associate” or “independent contractor.” The arangement

    between them was memorialized in a later “Attorney Associate Agreement”


  • executed by [Mr. Clayton] and O’DeNeal.

    14. [Mr. Clayton] testified: that he allowed O’DeNeal, a personal

    acquaintance, to practice law out of his office; that O’DeNeal told [Mr.

    Clayton] that he had been practicing criminal law in another part of the

    state; and that [Mr. Clayton] to O’DeNe‘al that he did not practice criminal

    law and that he typically referred criminal cases to other 1aWyers. In an

    effort to assist O’DeNeal to build a clientele, [Mr. Clayton] agreed to refer

    all of “his” criminal cases to O’DeNeal once hestarted to practice law in

    Davidson County. To do so, [Mr. Clayton] ,without then entering into a '

    written agreement, told O’DeNeal that a good time for him to start “renting

    space” from him in his office would be the first ofAugust, 2006,

Search related