# FILED

July 6, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE (Heard at Knoxvil le)

FOR PUBLICA

TION Filed: July 6, 1998

IN RE: JOHN MARK HANCOCK ) No. 01S01-9711-BP-00256 ) ) (Board of Profess ional Res ponsibil ity)

For John Mark Hancock: For Board of Profe ssional Ralph E. Harwell Resp onsi bili ty: RALPH E. HARWELL, P.C. William W. Hunt, III Knoxville, Tennessee Disciplinary Coun sel Nashville, Tennessee



## O P I N I O N

HELD IN CONTEMPT ANDERSON, C.J.-2- This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed in this C ourt by the Board of Professional Responsi bility against John Mark Hancock. The petition alleged that Hancock violated an order of suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, which requires a suspended attorney to notify clients of an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provi de notice to adverse attor neys when clients hav

e not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain from taking new ca ses.

Following a hearing to address the allegations in the petition, this Court appoint ed the Ho norable John K. Bye rs to serve a s Special Master an d to resol ve any and all factual issues raised by the parties. On April 13, 1998, after conducti ng an evidentiary heari ng and considering sti pulations offered by the parties , the Special Master filed a report of factual findings indicatin g that the Board’s allegations were supported by sufficient evidence and that Hancock had he ld himself out to the public as an att orney after his license had been suspended.

Accordingly, after co nsideration of the record, arg ument of the parties, and the findings of the Special Master, it is the judgment of this Court th at John Mark Hancock is adjudged in c ontempt for violating the or der of suspension by failing to comply with Tenn. Su p. Ct. R. 9, §18. John Mark Hanco ck is sente nced to f ive days in jail, suspended upon the condi tion that he refrain in the future fro m the type of conduct set forth in the contempt petition an d complies with the rules of this Court with regard to his

suspension.

BACKGROUND
The record shows that John M ark Hancock received his law license i n the State of Tennessee in 1981. On June 15, 199 4, this Court suspended his license to practice law pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Board a nd Hancock regarding1 Prior t o this suspensi on, Hancock’s li cense to practi ce law was suspended i n 1984 due to a federal dr

ug convicti on. His l icense was rei nstated on Jul y 12, 1988. -3- acts of misrepresentation, misappropriation, an d misuse of client funds by Hancock. 1 The suspension of Hancock’s lic ense was ordered to last until at least January

1, 1996. Hancock has not applied for rei nstatement.

On November 18, 1997, the Board of Professional Responsibilit y filed a petition for orde r of cont empt all eging that Hancock h ad violate d the orde r of susp ension b y failing to comply w

ith Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, w hich requires suspended at torneys to notify cl ients of the suspe nsion, wit hdraw fro m represe ntation in pendin g cases, give notice to adverse attorney s when clients have not found substitute counsel, refrai n from accepting new cases, a nd file an affidavit with the Court and the Board stating that the attorney has complied w ith the Court’s order. The petition alleged numerous i nstances in which Hancock conti nued to practice law and/or represented himself to members of the public as a lic ensed lawyer, includ ing:

Hancock used letterhead and sta tionery designating

himself as “Esq.” and/or “Consultant and Counsel or” and/or any other re lated designation. Hancock identified himself as an at torney, or held himself out a s an attorney, for Alfred Crew s to Alfred Robinson of Alfred Robi nson Realty Company and/or Robert N. B ailey, attorney for Al fred Robinson. Hancock failed to inform Alfred Robinson or Robert Ba iley that his license to practice law had been s uspended. Hancock represented to Ms. Jennie Angele that he was , at the time, a licensed attorne y. Hancock represented to Ms. Doris Heath that he wa s, at the time, a licensed attorne y. Hancock sought students for “ John Hancock University” by using letterhead or stationery designating himself as “ Esq.” and/or “Consulta nt and Counselo r” and/or an y other re lated term. Hancock used letterhead or s tationery referring to himself as “Attorney and Counselor at Law” in soliciting University of Tennessee football players to use him as an ag ent. Hancock submitted a resume to Gen eration Power Company indicating that he wa s, at the t ime, an a ttorney.-4- The Special Master, in his report for the Court, made the f ollowing findings:

Hancock used letterhead or s tationery designating

himself as “Esq.” and/or “Consultant and Counselor” and there is no factua l basis for his claim that this was i nadvertent. Robert M. Bailey, att

orney for Alfred Robinson, r eceived letters from Hancock which bore the letterhead designating H ancock as “Esq.” and “Consultant and Counselor.” Bailey responded to the l etters and addressed Hancock as an attorney. Hancock never corrected Bailey’s reference to him as an attorney . There is not sufficient evi dence to find that Hancock held himself out as an attorney to Alfred Robins on or Alfred Crews. Hancock never informed Alfred Robinson or Robert Bailey that his license to practice law had been s uspended. Hancock d id repres ent to Je nnie Ange le that he was a licens ed attor ney. Hancock d id repres ent to Dor is Heath t hat he was a license d attorn ey. Hancock sought students for “ John Hancock University” by using letterhead or stationery designating himself as “ Esq.” and/or “Consulta nt and Counselor.” Hancock used letterhead referring to himself as “Attorney and Counse lor at Law” in soliciti ng University of Tennessee football players to us e him as an agent. Hancock submitted a resume to Gen eration Power Company indicating that he was an attorney, but the letter was undated and there is no evidence that it was sent when Hancock’s li cense was suspended. Hancock continued to be list ed in the phone book as an attorney and took no steps to have that list ing removed.

The Special Master concluded t hat Hancock had “held himself out to the public as an attorney after his licens e to practice law w

as suspended and that this was done to garner financial return whether he received remuneration in all instances or not.”

In a case involving

similar issues but more egregious conduct, In re Saperstein , 811 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. 1991), the Board of Professional Res ponsibility filed a peti tion for order of contempt alleging that Saperstein violated Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, §18 by continuing to practice l aw and to accept new cas es despite an order of suspension. Saperstein failed to respond to the charges and also f ailed to appear before this Court2 The proposed settl ement agreement submitted to the Special Master by t he parties is, therefor e, rejecte d by this Co urt. -5- at the sch eduled c ontemp t hearing . After re viewing the r ecord an d the cha rges, we found that Saperstein’s failure to comply with the Cour t’s order of suspension and the provisions of Rule 9, and h is failure to respond to the c ontempt charges either by pleading or appearance, was “willful, contumacious, and contemptu ous.” We therefore held that Saperstein was g uilty of 18 counts of contempt and impos ed a sentence of 10 days imprisonment and a $50 fine on each count.

In this case, after consideration of the find ings of the Special Master, this Court finds that Hancock willfully violated the order of suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to c

omply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18. Therefore, this Cour t holds John Mark Hancock in cont empt and sentences him to a five-da y sentence, suspended upon the condition that he refrains in the future from the type of conduct s et forth in the Board’s contempt petition and adher es to this Court’s rul es with respect to sus pension. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3)(1980 & Supp. 19 97). 2

CONCLUSION Having considered the petition for order of contempt against John Mark Hancock filed by the Board of Professional Responsibility, H ancock’s response to that peti tion, arguments of the parties, and the fin dings of the Special Master , we conclude that John Mark Hancock viola

ted this Court’s order of suspension by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18. We theref ore hold John Mark Hancock in contempt of this Court and sentence him to five days imprisonment, suspended upon the condi tion that he refrains in the future from the ty pe of conduct set forth in the Board’s contempt petition and fully complies wi th the rules of this Court r egarding his suspensi on.

Costs of this proceeding ar e taxed to John Mark Hanc ock, for which executi on may issue if neces sary.-6- _______________________________ RILEY ANDERSON, CHIEF JUSTICE

CONCUR: Drowota, Birch, and Holder, JJ. Reid, Sp. J., Not Participating