A l t ho ug h t hi s ca s e or i gi nat ed i n a Bo ar d of Pr ofes s i on al Responsi bi l i t y di s ci pl i nary pr oceedi ng , t he part i es 1 have app eal ed f

r om a r ul i ng o f

t he Shel by Co un t y C hancer y C ou r t

. A ccor di ng l y, w e have r ef er enced t he do cket num ber

a s s i gn e d i n t he Cha nc e r y Co ur t

. The BP R do c ke t nu m be r f or t hi s c a s e i s BOPR No. 20 05 P- 14 98

- 9- LC.



### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE

IN R E: K A TH LE EN L. C A LD WE LL , BP R#99 16

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelb y County No. CH-08-0229- 1 WalterL. Evan s, Chancellor 1

No . M 20 08 -0 02 62 -S C- BPR -B P- Filed June 19, 2008

In this appea l, we consider whe ther the tria l court er red in staying a disc iplinary proce eding pending befor e a he aring pa nel of the Boar d of Profe ss i o n al Responsibili ty. We hold that the tria l court lacke d jurisdiction to stay the disciplinary proce eding. Acc ordingly, we reve rse the stay order issued by the trial court, and we dismiss the responde nt’s motion for a stay.

Or de rof th e Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d and T r ial Co ur t P r oc e e ding Di sm iss e d.

J ANIC E M. H OLDER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM M. B ARKER , C.J., and C OR NE LI A A. C LA RK , G AR Y R. W ADE , and W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., JJ., joined.

S an d ra Jane Le ach G arr ett, Deputy Chief Disc iplinary Counsel, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the movant, Board of Prof

essional Responsibilit y of the Supreme Court of Tenne ssee.

Sa mue l J. Mu lda vin , M e mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the re sp on de nt, Kathl e e n L . Ca ldw e ll.

OP IN ION

S U M M A RY O F F A CT S & P RO CE ED IN G S B EL OW

InMa rc h 20 05
, Di sc ipl ina

ry Cou ns e l, on be ha lf of the Boa rd of Pr of e ssi on a l Re sp on sib ili ty (“B P R ”)
, fi led a pe tition for discipline against Kathlee n L. Caldwell (“ Caldwell”). D isciplinary Cou ns e l f ile d “ su pp le me nta l” pe tit ions for di sciplin e a ga ins t Ca ldw e ll i n Se pte mbe r 2 00 5 a ndin Marc h 2006. In Oc tob er 2 007, Disciplinary Counsel and Caldwe ll agree d to set the disciplinary proce eding for he aring by a hearing panel on Februa

ry 11-13, 2008.

On Janua ry 31, 2008, Caldwell’s attorney for war ded a le tter by t elef ax to Disciplinary Cou ns e l a sk ing that th e he ari ng be c on tin ue d. Ca ldw e ll’ s att orne y sta te d in hi s le tte r that Ca ldw e llOur o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e fi l i n g o f s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f s wa s n o t fi l e d u n t i l a ft e r t h e s c h e d u l e d d a t e oft he 2
di s ci pl i nar y he ar i ng. O ne t her ef or e m i ght conc l ude t hat t he m ot i on t o l i ft t he s t ay had bec om e m oot

. I t s houl d be not ed, h o w e v e r, th a t t h e d isc ip lin a ry p ro c e e d in g w a s sta y e d b y th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt “ p e n d in g fu rth e r o rd e rs o f [th a t] C o u rt.” B eca use t he chancer y cou r t purport ed t o re t ai n j uri s di ct i on over t he di s ci pl i nary p r oceedi ng , t he m ot i on t o l i ft t he s t ay

w as not r ende r ed m oot w hen t he dat e s et f or t he di s ci pl i nar y he ar i ng ha d pa s s ed.

-2- was e ngaged in a lengthy trial in f eder al district c ourt and did not e xpect to be f inished with that trial b y F eb ru ary 11. Caldwell’s reque st f or a continuance was considere d by the hearing panel in a telephone con fe re n ce call with Disciplinary Counsel and Caldwe ll’s attorney. During that confe renc e call, Disciplinary C ounsel objected to a continuance on the gr ounds that Caldwell had been gr anted two pr evious continuanc es and that Disciplinary Counsel alre ady had subpoe naed

seven w itnesses for the hearing. After hearing the parties’ ar guments, the hea ring pane l entere d an order denying Caldwell’s re quest for a continuance

.
On Februa

ry 5, 2008, Caldwell’s attorney filed a doc ument entitled “Motion of Respondent for Stay and Continuance of Disciplinary Panel He aring” in the Chance ry Court for Shelby County. The motion reque sted the chancer y court to stay the pending disciplinary proce eding on the ground that Caldwell was e ngaged in a fede ral j u ry t ri al and ther efor e could not attend the disciplinary he ari ng

. On Fe br

ua ry 5, 20 08
, the c ha nc e ry c ou rt c on du c te d a te le ph on ic he ari ng on the mot ionin which both Disciplinary Counsel and Ca ldwell’s attorne y particip at ed

. During the he aring, the

c ha nc e llo r co nta c te d U.S. Di stric t Court Judg e Jo n P. Mc Ca lla c on c e rn ing the pe nd ing jury tria l in his court. Judge McCa lla confirme d that the fe dera l jury trial likely would not be completed by February 11, 2008, the date the di sciplinary hearing was schedule d to commence

. At the conc lusion of the h e ar in g , th e c h a n c e r y c o u r t g r a n te d Ca ld w e ll ’ s mo ti o n a n d e n te r e d a n o r d e r s tay ing the disciplinary proc eeding “ pending furthe r orde rs of this Court.”

On F ebrua

ry 6, 2008, Disciplinary C ounsel filed i n this Court an “Eme rgenc y Motion to Lift Stay” asking the Court to lift the stay enter ed by the c hance ry cour t

. C aldwell’s attorney

su b s eq u en t l y filed a r esponse to the motion to lift the stay. On February 14, 2008, we e ntere d an

or de r d ir e c tin g th e pa

rt ie s to su bmi t su pp le me nta l brie fs a dd re ssi ng the jurisd ic tio na l ba sis fo r a state trial court to conside r an interlocutory appea l f rom a BPR disciplinary proce eding. The pa rties filed 2 the ir su pp le me nta l brie fs on the jurisd ic tio na l is su e , a ndwe no w co ns ide r that issu e on theme ri ts.

A N A LY SIS
Disciplinary proc eedings a gainst lawyer s licensed in Te nnessee are governe d by Rule 9 of t h e R u l es o f t h e Te nnessee Supreme Court. Whe n a complaint is filed alleging misconduc t by a Tenne ssee lawyer, the matter is first investigated by the office of Disciplinary C ounsel. See Te nn. R. Sup. C t. 9, § 8.1 (20 0 7 ). Up o n the conc lusion of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation, Disciplinary Counsel may rec ommend: ( 1) dismiss al of the c omplaint; (2) an informa l admonition; (3) a private r eprimand; (4) a public censur e of the attorney conce rned; or ( 5) prose cution of formal

c ha rg e s b e fo re a

he ari ng pa ne l. I d. A for ma l di sc ipl ina ry pr oc e e din g b e fo rea

he ari ng pa ne l is instit uted by a pe tition file d b y D is c ip li nary Counsel a gainst the responde nt-attorney ( “re spondent”), including clear

and spec ific allegations of misconduct. Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 9, § 8

. 2 (2 007). The responde nt is require d to file an a nswer to the pe tition. Id. If the plea dings raise a ny issues of fa ctT h e p a rtie s d o n o t a rg u e , a n d w e d o n o t c o n sid e r, w h e th e r th e c o m m o n -la w w rit o f c e rtio ra ri is a v a ilab le to 3

r evi ew t he hea r i n g p anel ’ s or der de nyi ng t he r eque s t ed cont i nuanc e. Tenne s s ee Code Annot at ed s ec t i on 27- 8- 101 ( 2000) pr ovi des t hat t he com m on- l aw w r i t of c er t i or ar i i s av ai l ab l e w her e t he i nf er i or t r i bunal “ has e xce ede d t he ju risd ic tio n c o n fe rr e d , o r is a c tin g il le g a lly .”

-3- or if the r espondent re quests an o p p o rtunity to be hear d, the hea ring pane l sets the matter for a hearing. Id. If the panel finds at t he conclusion of t he hearing t hat t he respondent has c ommitt ed mis c on du c t, the pa ne l’ s ju dg me nt s pe c if ie s th e typ e of

dis c ipl ine to b e imp os e d. Te nn . R. Sup . Ct

. 9, § 8.4 (2007). Rule 9, section 1.3, permits either the responde nt or Disciplinary Counsel to se ek judicial revie w of the he aring pa nel’s judgm en t “i n the manner provided by T.C.A. § 27-9- 101 et seq., exc ept as other wise provided he rein.” Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 9, § 1.3 (2007).
The pe nding case involves a purported “inter locutory appe al” of the hea ring pane l’s pre- trial denial of Caldwe ll’s “motion” for a continuance of the he aring. The dispositi ve i s s u e b ef o re the Cou rt is w he the r the tr ia l c ou rt

ha d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r a n int e rl oc uto ry ru lin g of a BPR he ari ng pa ne l. We be gin our ana lysis by noti ng that “the Boa rd
, i ts authority, and all of its functions ar e derived from the Supre me Court” and that “ ‘the rema inder of the judiciary are power less to review action or inac tion of the Board or its employee s exce pt as expre ssly authorized by the Su p reme Court.’” Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibili ty, 29 S.W.3d 445, 449 (2000) ( quoting Fl etche r v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibili ty, 915 S.W.2d 448, 45 0

- 5 1 ( Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)). A s previously discussed, this Court has granted to trial courts jurisdiction to hear ap p ea l s from hearing pane ls’ “judgment[s].” Tenn. R. Su p. Ct. 9, § 1 .3 . Bu t ne ith e r R ule9, se c tio n 1 .3 , n or a ny ot her pro vi si on of

Rul e 9 e xp re ssl y authorize s interlocutory appea ls of matters pending befor e a hearing panel. Bec ause this Court has

no t e xp re ssl y e mpo we re d tria l c ou rt s to he ar i nte rl oc uto ry app e a ls o f h e ari ng pa ne l ruli ng s, we mus t conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the a ppeal in this cas e. Acc ordingly, we 3

re ve rs e thestay o rd e r e nte re d b y th e tr ia l c ou rt a nddis mis s Ca ldw e ll’ s mo tio n f ile d inthetr ia l c ou rt

.
Cal d w e ll ar g u e s th a t R u le9
, g o v e r n in g in te r lo c u to r y ap p e a ls b y p e r mi s s io n f r o m th e tr ial court, or Rule 10, gove rning extra ordinary app ea l s b y permission on original application in the appellate court, of the Tenne ssee Rul es of Appellate Proce dure c onfer red jurisdiction on the trial court to consider

her motion for a

stay. This argumen t , h o wever, is without merit. Rule 1 of the Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du re state s, in p e rt ine nt p art, “Th ese rules sh a ll g ov e rnpr oc e du re in proce edings befor e the Supreme Court, Court of Appea ls, and Court of Criminal Appeals.” Tenn. R. A pp . P. 1 ( 20 07 ). Con se qu e ntl y, ne ith e r Rule 9 n or Rul e 10 a pp lie s to Ca ldw e ll’ s p ro c e e din g in thec ha nc e ry c ou rt

. Notwithstanding our holding, we are somewhat puzzled as to why the hea ring pane l denied Caldwell’s re quest for a

continuance . It is undisputed that Caldwell was invo l v ed i n an ongoing fede ral jury tria l, and she obviously could not be in two place s at t he same time. While the member s of the he aring pan el m ay h av e been displea sed with Caldwell’s ac tion in agree ing to set the disciplinary proceeding for hearing on February 11-13, 2008, knowing her feder al j ury t rial also wa s set at the same time, it seems that there wa s no alternative to granting a c ontinuance of the disciplinary hea

ring. We are even mor e p u zzle d why Caldwell fa iled to disclose to Disciplinary Counsel and the hearing panel in October 2007, when the disc iplinary proce eding was se t for hea ring in February 2008, that she had a possible conflict with that date due to the setting of her f eder al juryA law y e r w h o a g re e s to se t co n flic tin g d a te s fo r tw o d iffe re n t tria ls in v ites th e w ra th o f a t l e a st o n e trib u n a l, 4

if n o t b o th , i n th e e v e n t b o th c a se s p ro c e e d to trial.

-4- tr i a l

. I t w a s i m p ru d e n t , t o s a y t h e l e a s t , f o r h e r t o s c h e d u l e t w o c o n f l i c t i n g tr i a l s o v e r t he sa me period, e ven if she believed the federa l case might be settl ed or the j ury t rial might be postponed. 4 We direct that the hea

ring pane l set this matter for he aring on the e arliest, mutually available date( s),

a ndwe f u r th e r d ir e c t th a t Ca ldw e ll s ub se qu e ntl y n ot s c he du le a ny c on fl ic tin g matte rs fo r tho se date s.

The c osts are ta xed to Kathlee n L. Caldwell, for w hich exe cution may issue if nec essary.

JA NI CE M . H OL DE R, J UST IC E