Opinion ID: 2765448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arbitrary and Capricious Claim

Text: Mr. Mabry argues that the Panel acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that he violated RPC 1.3 and RPC 8.4(a) and in imposing a forty-five-day suspension. We -10- disagree. “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.3. In particular, a lawyer has a duty to pursue the client’s best interests and to take care not to place the client in a vulnerable position or unnecessarily expose the client to sanctions. See Hanzelik v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 669, 680 (Tenn. 2012) (finding that an attorney who allowed a client to be held in contempt of court due to poor communication failed to provide “diligent representation”). Additionally, diligence requires that an attorney make “reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.” Id. The Panel was presented with evidence that Mr. Mabry filed a complaint on behalf of Ms. Shore, alleging a civil conspiracy between three Blount County officials—Mr. Goddard, Mr. Fields, and Mr. Cunningham. Within a month after the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Mabry voluntarily dismissed Mr. Goddard from the case, leaving Mr. Fields as the only defendant. Mr. Mabry later expressed that, at this point, the civil conspiracy claim became moot.9 Mr. Fields notified Mr. Mabry of his intention to seek sanctions if the case were not dismissed, but Mr. Mabry did not respond. Mr. Fields then filed a motion to dismiss and requested that sanctions be imposed against Mr. Mabry and Ms. Shore. Mr. Mabry still did not respond. The Blount County Circuit Court found that Mr. Mabry’s conduct warranted a sanction of $5,000 in attorney’s fees. Upon review of these facts, we find that the Panel did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in determining that Mr. Mabry violated RPC 1.3 and RPC 8.4(a). On the contrary, Mr. Mabry’s failure to take any action in response to Mr. Fields’ safe harbor letter, motion to dismiss, and motion for sanctions was neglectful, unprofessional, and exposed his client to the very real possibility of monetary sanctions. We find there was substantial and material evidence supporting the Panel’s findings that Mr. Mabry violated the duty of diligence required of attorneys by RPC 1.3, and in doing so, that he violated RPC 8.4(a).