Hughes v. Board of Prof. Respon. Tenn

Decision Date10 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. M2007-01562-SC-R3-BP.,M2007-01562-SC-R3-BP.
Citation259 S.W.3d 631
PartiesDennis J. HUGHES v. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Richard McGee, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Dennis J. Hughes.

Nancy S. Jones, Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of Professional Responsibility and James A. Vick, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Investigations, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

OPINION

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

This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the trial court, which set aside a decision by a hearing panel designated by the Board of Professional Responsibility granting a disbarred attorney's petition for reinstatement of his law license. The issue presented is whether the attorney, who was convicted of bribing a witness and conspiracy to bribe a witness in a criminal trial, has met the criteria for immediate reinstatement to the practice of law. Although the panel properly determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly proved the moral qualifications of the attorney and his knowledge of state law, we hold that the evidence failed to so meet the threshold as to the third requirement — that reinstatement would not be detrimental to the standing of the bar, the administration of justice, and the interest of the public. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dennis J. Hughes, the appellant, was licensed to practice law in Tennessee in 1987. In early 1995, while acting as defense counsel for Wayford Demonbreun, Jr., on a first degree murder charge, Hughes and Demonbreun's girlfriend, Suvonnya Lakeisha Smith, offered money to an eyewitness to the murder, Rhonda Williamson, in an effort to persuade her to recant her prior testimony during a preliminary hearing. In 1997, Hughes was convicted in Davidson County of bribery, a Class C felony, and conspiracy to commit bribery, a Class D felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-16-107 (2006) and 39-12-103 (2006).1 The criminal court ordered concurrent sentences of four and one-half years and three years, respectively, and imposed fines totaling $15,000. On December 28, 1998, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Hughes, M1997-00084-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1257882 (Tenn.Crim.App. Dec.28, 1999). On May 22, 2000, we entered an order denying an application for permission to appeal.2 On December 28, 2001, Hughes was released after serving two years in the county workhouse.

On June 24, 1997, immediately after the convictions and pursuant to section 14 of Supreme Court Rule 9, Hughes was summarily suspended from the practice of law. Later, the Board of Professional Responsibility ("BPR") filed a petition for final discipline. Pursuant to section 15 of Supreme Court Rule 9, Hughes filed an affidavit consenting to disbarment. On March 30, 2004, we entered an order of enforcement prohibiting Hughes from the practice of law effective the date of his summary suspension.

Reinstatement Proceedings

In October of 2004, seven and one-half years after his suspension from the practice of law, Hughes filed this petition for reinstatement. In 2006, a three-member panel ("Panel") appointed by the BPR heard the evidence.3 See Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 8.2 (2007). In addition to the issues directly leading to Hughes being disbarred, the parties stipulated as fact that Hughes, forty-two years old when he was licensed to practice law and sixty-one at the time of the hearing, had been the subject of other disciplinary proceedings. For example, on July 1, 1991, the BPR filed a petition for discipline against Hughes arising out of four complaints of misconduct; he ultimately entered guilty pleas to the charges in exchange for a public censure.4 In April of 1994, Hughes was indicted by the Criminal Court of Davidson County for assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest arising out of a May 26, 1993, night court incident; thereafter, he was granted pre-trial diversion on the assault charge pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-15-105 (Supp.1995) (amended Supp.2007). At the same time, the disorderly conduct and resisting arrest counts were dismissed.5 On November 13, 1996, the BPR filed a petition for discipline against Hughes arising out of complaints of misconduct related.6 In December of 1997, shortly after his convictions, Hughes was suspended from the practice of law for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. Finally, on January 27, 1998, the BPR filed a Supplemental Petition for Discipline against Hughes arising out of six complaints of misconduct.7

At the hearing, Hughes, who acknowledged a previous history of problems related to his use of alcohol, testified that he last consumed alcohol on August 15, 1997. He then described his dramatic religious conversion in 1998 and his extensive efforts toward rehabilitation. Fifteen other witnesses, including distinguished judges and attorneys, also testified in support of Hughes' reinstatement. These witnesses included Ben H. Cantrell, attorney and former Judge of the Court of Appeals from 1980 until 2003; David Raybin, former Chairman of the Tennessee Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Criminal Procedure and current member of the Tennessee Supreme Court Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure; Ed Yarbrough, former President of the Nashville Bar Association and criminal defense attorney who also represented Hughes at trial; Hamilton Gayden, Circuit Judge in Davidson County; Stephen Young, attorney and past President of Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Edward T. Kindall, school board vice-chair, attorney in Davidson County for twenty-eight years, and member of the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization; Aaron Holt, Judge of the Davidson County General Sessions Court, Division XI, for eight years; John P. Brown, Judge of the General Sessions Court, Davidson County, for twenty-four years; Ross Alderman, former trial lawyer and current Public Defender for Davidson County; Andrei Lee, Administrative Law Judge, State of Tennessee Department of Administration and State Board of Equalization; and Carol Crews, court officer for thirty years, twenty-four of which had been with the Davidson County General Sessions Court. More than sixty individuals, representing a broad cross-section of the public, submitted letters in support of Hughes' petition for reinstatement.8

Judge Cantrell was asked why he was supporting Hughes reinstatement:

I believe a person who has paid their debt to society and has turned their life around and intends to lead a new life is entitled to a second chance.... [A]fter Dennis got out of prison[,] ... he came to see me in my office. He was very, very contrite. I think since we had been friends and I had introduced him to the supreme court, Dennis thought that he had disappointed me which he had. He wanted to make sure that he made amends for that, and he convinced me that he realized that he brought all of that calamity on himself and was determined to lead a new life, that he was not ever going to let that happen again.

It was his opinion that Hughes had been fully rehabilitated and that readmission to the bar, under his unique circumstances, would have no adverse effect upon the integrity of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Raybin testified favorably to Hughes' knowledge of the law and his rehabilitated moral character. It was his opinion that the reinstatement of Hughes would be an asset to the public and to the profession "so that other lawyers could learn the message about what not to do and how you can potentially redeem yourself." Yarbrough testified similarly. It was his belief that Hughes had made "crucial errors" by getting too close to his criminal clients. He stated that Hughes' experiences and his willingness to publicly acknowledge his mistakes had served to benefit those in the practice of criminal law who might be tempted to act in a similar manner.

Judges Gayden, Brown, Holt, and Lee all expressed the view that Hughes had not only reestablished his good moral character but had maintained his knowledge of the law throughout his disbarment. Each believed that Hughes had undergone a substantial positive change for the better and opined that his reinstatement as a lawyer would not be detrimental to the standing of the bar or the interest of the general public. Public Defender Alderman described Hughes as a different person since his trial and conviction. It was his opinion that Hughes had been completely rehabilitated and that his reinstatement would be no impunity to the bar or the administration of justice. Attorneys Kindall and Young testified similarly, attesting to Hughes' good moral character and his knowledge of the law. Carol Crews and her husband and family have maintained a friendship with Hughes, who often stayed at their residence after his release from custody. She stated that since his conversion, he no longer drank or used profanity and consistently tried to help others through prayer or other means of support.

Hughes' employer, Matthew Yorke, the owner of Signature Limousine Service, described Hughes as a model employee. Having been made fully aware of Hughes' background before his employment as a chauffeur, Yorke stated the two men enjoyed a positive relationship and that he would have no hesitation in hiring Hughes as his lawyer should he be reinstated. Ronnie Fox, a fellow Rotarian, befriended Hughes; he was aware of his background and expressed admiration for the reputation he had built in the Clinton and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Steinhorn
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 20, 2018
    ...judicial oversight functions."), superseded by statute , Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3, as recognized in Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility , 259 S.W.3d 631, 638 (Tenn. 2008). Respondent also failed to submit any supporting documentation justifying the reasonableness of the fees sought, in......
  • Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 13, 2012
    ...39, ¶ 10, 176 P.3d 1194, 1200–01 (citing 75 O.S. § 322). 7.See, e.g., Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Court of Tenn., 259 S.W.3d 631, 639–640 (Tenn.2008) (quoting Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Love, 256 S.W.3d 644, 652 (Tenn.2008)) (holding that the amendment to the stan......
  • Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Parrish
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • August 14, 2018
    ... 556 S.W.3d 153 BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY v. Larry Edward PARRISH No. ...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 ... that would lead a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion." Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility , 259 S.W.3d 631, 641 (Tenn. 2008) ......
  • Long v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • June 4, 2014
    ... 435 S.W.3d 174 Fletcher Whaley LONG v. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT of Tennessee. No. M2013–01042–SC–R3–BP. ...administer [the] rules pertaining to the licensing .. of attorneys.” Hughes v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631, 640 (Tenn.2008) (citing In re Burson, 909 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT