In re Parrish
| Decision Date | 08 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. W2020-00907-SC-R3-BP,W2020-00907-SC-R3-BP |
| Parties | IN RE Larry E. PARRISH |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Larry E. Parrish, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Sandy Garrett and A. Russell Willis, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility.
Holly Kirby, J., not participating.
This Court suspended an attorney from practicing law for six months, with one month on active suspension. The discipline resulted from a report of misconduct received by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility in 2013. In 2018, we reinstated the attorney to the practice of law based on his eligibility for reinstatement and his compliance with the order of discipline. Before being reinstated, the attorney agreed to a monthly payment plan to satisfy the Board's assessed costs from the disciplinary case. Soon after he was reinstated, the attorney petitioned the Board to revoke the agreed costs. The attorney argued he did not owe the costs because the Board improperly assessed costs under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 in effect when the 2013 disciplinary proceeding was initiated instead of Rule 9 in effect when he was reinstated. A hearing panel found the Board had properly assessed costs based on Rule 9 in effect when the disciplinary proceeding began. The attorney appealed. We affirm. Based on this Court's Order promulgating revised Rule 9 and our subsequent decisions, the version of Rule 9 that was in effect when the disciplinary case was initiated in 2013 governs the assessment of costs regardless of when this Court reinstated the attorney to the practice of law. Thus, we hold the Board followed the correct procedure in assessing costs. We order the attorney to pay the costs assessed against him within forty-five days of the filing of this opinion. Failure to timely pay the costs may serve as a ground for revocation of the attorney's reinstatement to practice law.
Effective January 1, 2014, this Court adopted extensive revisions to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, which governs attorney discipline. Rule 9, as revised, applies prospectively to matters "filed with or initiated before the Board of Professional Responsibility" on or after January 1, 2014.1 The primary issue here involves which version of Rule 9 applies to the assessment of costs in a disciplinary case initiated in 2013 resulting in a suspension from which the attorney was reinstated in 2018. This issue has arisen because the procedure for assessing costs depends on which version of Rule 9 applies.2 Pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3 applies to the assessment of costs from a disciplinary case filed or initiated before January 1, 2014, while 2014 Rule 9, section 31.3 governs the procedure for assessing costs in cases filed or initiated on or after January 1, 2014.
In October 2013, the Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against Memphis attorney Larry E. Parrish after three appellate judges reported that Mr. Parrish had made pejorative statements about them in motions he filed in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Parrish , 556 S.W.3d 153, 156, 162 n.7 (Tenn. 2018). The Board later filed formal charges against Mr. Parrish. Id. at 160. A hearing panel found that Mr. Parrish was guilty of misconduct and should be sanctioned with a public censure. Id. at 161. The Shelby County Circuit Court affirmed the finding of misconduct, but determined that a six-month suspension, with one month on active suspension, was the appropriate sanction. Id. at 161–62. In 2018, this Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Id. at 170.
On September 21, 2018, Mr. Parrish petitioned for reinstatement, stating under oath he would "pay, when a statement of the amount is delivered and justified by [the] Board of Professional Responsibility, all outstanding costs owed to the Board of Professional Responsibility by respondent for prior disciplinary proceedings." On October 1, 2018, the Board assessed costs under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3 for the 2013 disciplinary proceeding and billed Mr. Parrish $10,305.06 in costs.3
Soon after receiving the cost bill, Mr. Parrish emailed the Board, challenging the Board's authority to assess costs under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3. In response, the Board's Disciplinary Counsel informed Mr. Parrish:
Mr. Parrish emailed Disciplinary Counsel, (Emphasis added). Later in the email reply, Mr. Parrish stated, "Whether I choose to make an issue by contesting is a decision I will make later depending on many factors, mostly related to time availability." Disciplinary Counsel responded, "I understand," and provided Mr. Parrish with contact information so he could arrange for a payment plan.
On October 3, 2018, Mr. Parrish agreed to a payment plan of $500 per month. The next day, the Board acknowledged receipt of Mr. Parrish's first $500 payment. The Board, based on the agreed payment plan, filed a notice of submission advising this Court that Mr. Parrish had satisfied the conditions of the order of discipline and was eligible for reinstatement. On October 5, 2018, this Court reinstated Mr. Parrish to the practice of law, effective October 7, 2018.
Less than a month later, Mr. Parrish filed a "Petition to Revoke Imposition of Costs." Mr. Parrish neither disputed the amount of costs nor alleged an inability to pay. Instead, Mr. Parrish argued the Board had "failed to comply with the controlling rules prerequisite to issuance of a bill of cost." A hearing panel was appointed to hear the petition, and the Board moved for summary judgment.
The hearing panel granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, ruling the Board had properly assessed costs under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3 for Mr. Parrish's 2013 disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Parrish appealed to this Court under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3, which provides for a direct appeal of the Board's decision on an assessment of costs.4
Regulating the practice of law in Tennessee is an inherent duty of this Court. Walwyn v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. , 481 S.W.3d 151, 162 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Cowan , 388 S.W.3d 264, 267 (Tenn. 2012) ). Thus, we review the decision of a hearing panel under our "inherent power and essential and fundamental right to administer the rules pertaining to the licensing of attorneys." Cody v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. , 471 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Tenn. 2015) ). This appeal involves only questions of law, so we review the hearing panel's findings de novo with no presumption of correctness. Dunlap v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. , 595 S.W.3d 593, 606–07 (Tenn. 2020) ); Walwyn , 481 S.W.3d at 163.
Mr. Parrish challenges the assessment of costs from the 2013 proceeding and raises two issues on appeal:
Although Mr. Parrish asks this Court to rule on whether 2014 Rule 9, section 30.4 governs his reinstatement, there is no dispute about this issue. 2014 Rule 9, section 30.4 applies to attorney reinstatements on or after January 1, 2014, no matter when the attorney's suspension occurred—"[r]einstatement other than [from administrative suspension or inactive status] shall be pursuant to this Section, regardless of when or under what procedure the suspension or disbarment occurred. " Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 30.4(a) (emphasis added).
Mr. Parrish argues the Board erred by assessing him with costs from his 2013 disciplinary proceeding under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3. Mr. Parrish urges this Court to hold the Board is not entitled to costs because the Board failed to follow the assessment procedure in 2014 Rule 9, section 31.3.
Under pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3, the Board assesses the costs from a disciplinary proceeding and serves the cost bill on the attorney after entry of a judgment of discipline. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 24.3 (2006) (amended 2014). The attorney may then petition the Board for relief from the costs within thirty days of receiving the bill or at the end of the disciplinary proceeding, whichever occurs last. Id. The attorney may appear before the Board, after which the Board or hearing panel files its decision. Id.5
On January 1, 2014, the procedure for assessing costs changed when 2014 Rule 9, section 31.3 replaced pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3. Under section 31.3, the Board's Disciplinary Counsel must apply for its costs with the appropriate tribunal (the hearing panel, the trial court, or this Court) within fifteen days of the tribunal's decision. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 31.3(a)–(c). The application must document the hours spent by...
To continue reading
Request your trial