Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli
| Decision Date | 28 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. M2015-00406-SC-R3-BP.,M2015-00406-SC-R3-BP. |
| Citation | 489 S.W.3d 408 |
| Parties | Board of Professional Responsibility v. Connie Reguli |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Connie Reguli, Brentwood, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Krisann Hodges, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
SHARON G. LEE
, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK and HOLLY KIRBY, JJ., and FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., SP.J., joined. JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., not participating.
A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel determined that an attorney violated multiple rules of professional conduct and imposed a suspension to be served on probation subject to certain conditions. The trial court affirmed the hearing panel's findings but modified the sanction by requiring the attorney to pay restitution, shortening the term of the suspension and probation, and eliminating and modifying other conditions of probation. Upon careful consideration, we affirm the trial court's order of restitution, but otherwise reinstate the decision of the hearing panel.
This is an attorney discipline case involving Connie Reguli, who maintains a law office in Brentwood, Tennessee. On July 16, 2012, the Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) filed a petition for discipline against Ms. Reguli based on three complaints of misconduct.1 The complaints arose out of Ms. Reguli's representation of Robert Castleman, representations on Ms. Reguli's website regarding her professional certification, and Ms. Reguli's representation of Sayuri Pope. The Board alleged that Ms. Reguli's conduct violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.4(a) and (b), Communication; 1.5(a) and (f), Fees; 1.16(d), Declining or Terminating Representation; 7.4(b), Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization; 8.1(b), Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; and 8.4(a), (c), and (d), Misconduct.
Ms. Reguli answered the petition and denied any misconduct. In her answer and in pretrial motions, she asserted, among other things, that the United States and Tennessee Constitutions require that the Board's allegations be proven by clear and convincing evidence, that the Board be required to produce documentation confirming that the Board's Chair selected panel committee members on a rotating basis, that the hearing panel members be recused, and that Disciplinary Counsel Krisann Hodges be disqualified. Ms. Reguli filed numerous other motions and objections, including, but not limited to, an objection to holding the hearing in a private facility, a counterclaim against the Board alleging the Petition for Discipline was unsupported by fact and law and had been brought to harass Ms. Reguli, a motion to strike exhibits, a motion to bifurcate the Petition for Discipline's allegations and assign them to separate panels, an Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation request, a motion for a declaratory ruling as to whether Panel members are judges, a motion to stay the disciplinary proceeding pending disposition of a declaratory judgment action filed by Ms. Reguli against the Board in Davidson County Chancery Court, and a motion to dismiss the alleged RPC 1.5(f) violation.
A hearing panel (“the Panel”) was appointed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.2 On July 16, 2013, the Panel ruled on a number of Ms. Reguli's pre-hearing motions and objections. The Panel denied Ms. Reguli's request that the Panel employ a clear and convincing evidence standard and also denied her motion to disqualify Ms. Hodges. The Panel also dismissed Ms. Reguli's counterclaim and took under advisement her requests for disclosures regarding the manner in which Panel members are appointed. Ms. Reguli continued to file a number of other motions and objections until the hearing.
The Panel conducted a hearing on November 13 and 14, 2013. Ms. Reguli, Robert Castleman, Kathryn Wright, and David Johnson testified before the Panel.
On July 21, 2011, Ms. Reguli and Mr. Castleman entered into a written fee agreement for Ms. Reguli to represent Mr. Castleman in his divorce proceeding. Mr. Castleman paid Ms. Reguli $10,000 and signed the fee agreement. The agreement provided that the “$10,000 will be held in escrow and the hourly fees will be charged against this retainer”; that “[o]nce the full amount of the retainer has been used for legal services, an additional retainer may be required, depending on the status of the case”; and that “[i]f services are completed or ended prior to the expiration of the funds held in escrow, the return of the funds will be at the discretion of the firm in accordance with Formal Ethics Opinion 92–F–128.”3
Ms. Reguli testified that she understood that Formal Ethics Opinion 92–F–128 provided that nonrefundable retainers are acceptable if they are in writing. Ms. Reguli believed the language “at the discretion of the firm” in the fee agreement made the retainer nonrefundable. She testified that she reviewed the fee agreement with Mr. Castleman, but did not provide him with a copy of the ethics opinion. Mr. Castleman testified that he did not know the contents of Formal Ethics Opinion 92–F–128 when he signed the agreement. Mr. Castleman stated that he only read two paragraphs of the agreement and that he did not feel the need to ask questions about the contract because he trusted Ms. Reguli as an attorney. Ms. Reguli testified that she assumed she placed the $10,000 in her escrow account and that she most likely withdrew amounts from the retainer as she worked on Mr. Castleman's case.
About three or four weeks after signing the agreement, Mr. Castleman discharged Ms. Reguli as his lawyer. Mr. Castleman testified he tried to contact Ms. Reguli to get an accounting of the time Ms. Reguli spent on his case and to recoup the unearned portion of the fee. He stated that he called Ms. Reguli's office several times and left messages that were not returned and also called Ms. Reguli's cell phone without a return call. On September 20, 2011, Mr. Castleman sent Ms. Reguli a letter requesting an itemized billing and a refund of the balance of the retainer. According to Mr. Castleman, he did not receive an accounting or a refund from Ms. Reguli. Mr. Castleman stated that his address at the time he sent the September 2011 letter was a different address than when he signed the fee agreement.
Ms. Reguli testified that in September 2011, she provided Mr. Castleman with an accounting of the time she spent on his case. Ms. Reguli stated that she mailed Mr. Castleman the requested information, but by that time, Mr. Castleman had changed his address. At the hearing, Ms. Reguli produced an accounting that listed billed hours and corresponding fees of $2,082.50 and expenses of $116.75, for a total of $2,199.25 charged against the $10,000 retainer. Ms. Reguli did not refund the balance of the retainer to Mr. Castleman.
Kathryn Wright, an administrative assistant at Ms. Reguli's law firm, testified that she answers phones in Ms. Reguli's office. Ms. Wright stated that she transfers calls to attorneys if they are available, and if not, she takes a message. Ms. Wright records messages in a computerized system. She testified that someone is always available to answer the office phone during working hours, even if she is temporarily unavailable. Ms. Wright does not answer Ms. Reguli's cell phone calls. Ms. Wright acknowledged receiving Mr. Castleman's September 20, 2011 letter. Ms. Wright stated that she scans letters and places them in attorneys' inboxes upon receipt, but she did not recall what she did with Mr. Castleman's letter. Ms. Reguli testified that she reviewed her office's computerized message system and did not see any notations of messages left for her by Mr. Castleman from August through October 2011.
The Board received a complaint from Mr. Castleman regarding Ms. Reguli on October 18, 2011. The Board forwarded the complaint to Ms. Reguli in a letter dated October 27, 2011, and requested that she submit a response to the Board. Ms. Reguli responded to the Board on November 3, 2011, stating that the fee agreement provided that any refund would be at her discretion. In letters dated January 13, 2012, and February 9, 2012, the Board specifically requested billing records or a detailed summary of Ms. Reguli's work in Mr. Castleman's case. Ms. Reguli responded on February 12, 2012, referring to her initial response to Mr. Castleman's complaint and declining to provide the requested documents. Ms. Reguli did not produce the billing records to the Board until the November 2013 hearing.
On or about November 1, 2011, attorney David Johnson filed a complaint with the Board about Ms. Reguli's website. Mr. Johnson alleged that Ms. Reguli's website misrepresented Ms. Reguli as a certified specialist in family law and divorce. Ms. Reguli's website listed the following information on her attorney profile page: “Certification/Specialties: ... Family Law[,] Divorce.” Ms. Reguli admitted that she was not certified as a specialist in family law and divorce.
Ms. Reguli testified that since 2006, she had a website hosted by a company called FirmSite and in 2007, she approved information for public posting by FirmSite. Ms. Reguli testified that she did not put the certification information on her website and was not aware that the website described her as being certified or being a specialist in family law and divorce until receiving Mr. Johnson's complaint in 2011. Ms. Reguli stated that she checked her website periodically before 2011, but never noticed the incorrect information. Ms. Reguli noted at the hearing that the website also falsely stated that she was licensed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and that she graduated from Purdue University in “Lafayette, Tennessee.”4 Ms. Reguli testified that when she received the Johnson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Parrish
...2004) ). See also Napolitano v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility , 535 S.W.2d 481, 502 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli , 489 S.W.3d 408, 424 (Tenn. 2015) ) ("When reviewing disciplinary sanctions, this Court reviews comparable cases to ensure consistency in discipli......
-
Napolitano v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility
...we review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness accorded to the conclusions below. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli, 489 S.W.3d 408, 417 (Tenn. 2015).Analysis Res Judicata Attorney argues that "[t]he trial court erred by failing to accord res judicata to the dism......
-
Meehan v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Court of Tenn.
......We apply the same standard of review for a disciplinary decision as that applied by the trial court. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli , 489 S.W.3d 408, 417 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Moncier v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility , 406 S.W.3d 139, 150 (Tenn. 2013) ). A trial court reviews a ......
-
Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn. v. Loring Edwin Justice
...Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 23.3, and Tennessee Rule of Evidence 614 allows the Panel to interrogate witnesses." Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Reguli, 489 S.W.3d 408, 419 (Tenn. 2015).2. Insufficient Findings and Conclusions Mr. Justice argues that the Hearing Panel and the trial court failed t......