Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Parrish
Decision Date | 14 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. W2017-00889-SC-R3-BP,W2017-00889-SC-R3-BP |
Citation | 556 S.W.3d 153 |
Parties | BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY v. Larry Edward PARRISH |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Larry E. Parrish, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Alan D. Johnson, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility.
Holly Kirby, J., not participating.
This is a direct appeal of a disciplinary proceeding involving a Memphis attorney who filed motions to recuse containing pejorative statements about three appellate judges. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that the attorney had violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and that his sanction should be a public censure. The trial court agreed that the attorney was guilty of misconduct but modified the hearing panel’s decision, determining that the appropriate sanction was a six-month suspension, with thirty days served on active suspension and the remainder on probation. We hold that the attorney’s pejorative statements in the motions to recuse were not protected by the First Amendment and there was material and substantial evidence of noncompliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, we hold that the hearing panel acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that the attorney should receive a public censure rather than suspension. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This disciplinary action arises from pejorative statements made by attorney Larry E. Parrish in motions to recuse three judges on the Tennessee Court of Appeals after an adverse decision.
Mr. Parrish represented David Morrow and Judy Wright, the nephew and niece of Helen Goza, regarding a trust Ms. Goza had established for her son, John Goza. Under the terms of the trust, any assets remaining in the trust after the death of Mr. Goza were to be disbursed to various charities. After Mr. Goza’s death, Mr. Parrish, on behalf of Mr. Morrow and Ms. Wright, filed an action in the Shelby County Chancery Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the trust was not valid and that they were entitled to the trust’s remaining assets. The chancery court granted summary judgment, finding that the trust was valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Morrow v. SunTrust Bank , No. W2010-01547-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 334507 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011) (" Goza I ").
While the appeal in Goza I was pending, Mr. Morrow was appointed administrator of the Estate of John Goza. Mr. Parrish, representing the Estate and Mr. Morrow as administrator, filed a petition in probate court to require SunTrust Bank to turn over to the Estate the assets of the trust based on the asserted invalidity of the trust. Soon after, the Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Goza I , affirming the validity of the trust. SunTrust Bank then asserted that the probate case was barred by res judicata. The probate court denied the petition on that basis, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Estate of Goza , 397 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (" Goza II ").
Next, Mr. Parrish, as attorney for the Estate, sued SunTrust Bank in the Shelby County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed that action, finding that the validity of the trust was res judicata and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in a memorandum opinion1 authored by Judge David Farmer and joined by Judge Steven Stafford and (then)-Judge Holly Kirby. The Court of Appeals also determined the appeal was frivolous and awarded SunTrust Bank its attorney’s fees and costs. Goza v. Wells , No. W2012-01745-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4766544 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2013) (" Goza III "). Mr. Parrish moved for a rehearing and to recuse Judge Farmer. Mr. Parrish later filed motions to recuse Judges Stafford and Kirby.2
The judges submitted the recusal motions to the Board of Professional Responsibility ("the Board").3 The motions include the following statements by Mr. Parrish:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
...unwarranted, in-court statements served only "to weaken the public's trust in the judicial system." Bd. of Professional Responsibility v. Parrish , 556 S.W.3d 153, 166 (Tenn.2018). Any distraction from that focus of the court's disciplinary sanction—such as creating a First Amendment smokes......
-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
... ... Wine." Moreover, he proclaimed, "[responsibility ... for the delay must be assigned to Chief Justice O'Connor, ... since it would not have been ... the public's trust in the judicial system." Bd ... of Professional Responsibility v. Parrish, 556 S.W.3d ... 153, 166 (Tenn.2018). Any distraction from that focus of the ... court's ... ...
-
Meehan v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Court of Tenn.
...This Court has the "inherent power" and "fundamental right" to regulate the practice of law in Tennessee. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Parrish , 556 S.W.3d 153, 162 (Tenn. 2018) (quoting Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Allison , 284 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tenn. 2009) ) (internal quotation mark......
-
Dunlap v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn.
...he had a reasonable basis to do so, and that his actions were well within his rights as an advocate. In Board of Professional Responsibility v. Parrish , 556 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. 2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1216, 203 L. Ed. 2d 207 (2019), this Court addressed an attorney’s ......