# FILED
July 6, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

FOR PUBLICA TION Filed: July 6, 1998

IN RE: GUY S. DAVIS ) No. 01S01-9801-BP-00006 ) ) Board of Professional Respons ibility

For Guy S. Dav

is For Board of Profe ssional Guy S. Davis, Pro Se Responsibility P. O. Box 742 Sandy Garrett Dyersburg, Tennessee 380 25 Disciplinary Coun sel

Nashville, Tennessee



## O P I N I O N

HELD IN CONTEMPT ANDERSON, C.J.1 The incident s both invol

ved physica l alt

ercations, one of which re sulted i n Davis’s conv icti on for sim ple assa ult. -2- This matter is before the Court t o determine whether the res pondent, Guy S. Davis, should be held i n contempt for practicing l aw after the entry of a thir ty-day temporary suspension.

After co nsiderat ion of th e record a nd the arg uments o f the pa rties, we conclude that Davis willfully and knowingly violated the order of temporary suspension on one occasion. We therefore hold Dav is in contempt and impose a sentence of confinement f or one day, suspended on the condition that he fu lly comply with the rul es and orders of this Court.

BACKGROUND In October of 1996, Guy S. Dav is, a practicing attor

ney, entered a conditional guilty plea to two acts of disciplinary misconduct 1 in exchange for a priv ate reprimand from the Board of Professional Responsibility. The pr ivate reprimand contained several conditions:
1. That Davi s receive a n evaluat ion at Cha rter Lake side, com ply with treatment and aftercare p rograms recommended by the treatment center, and prov ide a copy of the treatment center’s report and treatment plan to the BPR. 2. That Davis enter a contrac t with Lawyers

Concerned for Lawyers or Lawyers Helping Lawyers for 18 months, with the contract to pr

ovide for reports to the BPR and at least 12 drug tests. 3. That Davis have a monitor with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers who shall make quarterly reports to the BPR.
The private reprimand stated that a thirty-day te mporary suspension wo uld be sought if Davis violated any of the conditions.-3- In April of 1997, the Board of Professi onal Responsibility,after determining that Davis had viol ated these conditions, rev oked the private reprimand and requested this Court to enforce the thirty day s uspension. This Court entered an order on January 16, 1998, w hich stated that “the respondent ’s conditional guilty plea shall be enforced and the Resp ondent shall receive a th irty (30) day suspension.”
Shortly after the entry of the order of temporary suspension, Disciplinary Counsel learned that Davis represented clients in court in criminal cases on January 16, 20, 23, and 26. When notified of these allegations, Davis responded in writing that he did not receive a c opy of the suspension order unti l January 23, 1998. When he was unable to reach disciplinary counsel by telepho ne that morning to ask about the effective date of the suspension,he made a court appearance that afternoon. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Davis again called disciplinary counsel and this time was informed the effectiv e date of the suspension was Janua ry 16, 1998.
Davis’s response to the Board conceded that he made an additi onal appearance in the Lake County Circuit Court on January 26, 1998, despite the fact he had learned from disciplinary counsel that his license had been temporarily suspended. Davis’s written response explai ned:

there was no time to adv ise my clients nor ar

range for either of my two assis

tants to cover the court as both were already schedul ed to appear in other courts. I took the chance I felt I needed to take, appear ed and practiced. Lake County Circuit court meets very infrequently. A continuan ce and re-assignment of the cases would have, in my opinion, caused my cl ients and the court more prob lems tha n the prob lems I woul d have if my appearance was ques tioned. I did not practice a fter the morning of the 26th until the s uspension had passed. Based on the foregoing event s and Davis’s admissi on, the Board filed a petition asking that Davis be

held in contempt for violati ng the temporary suspensi on order.-4- On May 18, 1998, we entered an order requiring Davis to appear before this Court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Davis’s response was essentially the same as contained in his let ter to disciplinary

counsel: that he had not received a copy of the suspension order prior to appearing in court on January 16 and 20, 1998; that he w as uncertain as to the effective date of the suspension prior to appearing in court on January 23, 1998; and that he knowingly violated the suspension or der by appearing in co urt on January 26, 1998, for the reasons set forth in his letter.
After reviewing the record and responses of the par ties, we conclude that the court appeara nces prior to Davis’s re ceipt of the su spension orde r and knowledge as to its effective date, do not es tablish knowing and w

illful violations of the suspension order so as to amount to contemptuo us conduct. In contrast, Davis’s admissions indicate that his court appearance on January 26, 1998, constituted a knowing and will

ful violation of the order of tempor ary suspension and, therefore , warrant a finding of contempt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3)(1980 & Supp. 1997).
Although not providing a defense for this conduct, we are mindful of and take into consideration the candor displayed by Mr. Davis both with disciplinary counsel and this Court in mak ing these admissions and in explaining the reasons for his violation of the suspens ion order on January 26, 1998. Having held Guy S. Davis in contempt of this C ourt, we therefore sentence hi m to one day of imprisonment, suspended upon the condi tion that he fully complies with the rules and orders of this Court.
Cost of this proceeding ar e taxed to Guy S. Dav

is, for which executi on may issue if n ecessary.

_____________________________ RILEY ANDERSON, CHIEF JUSTICE-5-

CONCUR: Drowota, Birch, Holder and Barker, JJ.