Opinion ID: 2103926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First Petition

Text: In February 1995, Walker placed an advertisement for divorce services in the Chattanooga News Free Press TV Magazine. The ad was published over the week of February 12 through 18, 1995 and states in its entirety: DIVORCE, BOTH PARTIES SIGN, $125 + COST, NO EXTRA CHARGES, Ted Walker, [address & telephone number]. On March 29, 1995, the Board's Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Walker alleging that this advertisement listed divorce as a specific area of practice but did not include the disclaimer required by DR 2-101(C) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule provides: A lawyer who publishes or broadcasts a communication with regard to any area of law in which the lawyer practices shall: ... (3) [i]f the lawyer has not been certified as a specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization in an advertised area in which certification is available, state with respect to each such area,  Not certified as a (area of practice) specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.  DR 2-101(C)(3) (emphasis added). In his response to the complaint, Walker argued that his advertisement fully complied with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) and that the law, as set out by the United States Supreme Court, is governing over a conflicting law by the Tennessee Supreme Court. After an exchange of correspondence with the Disciplinary Counsel, Walker apparently agreed to change his advertisement to add the required disclaimer. On March 29, 1996, the Board issued an Informal Admonition and stated that the file would be closed; however, the Board's letter stated that Walker could request a formal hearing on the matter within twenty days after receipt of the admonition. On April 3, 1996, Walker sent a letter to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel asking that the proposed discipline be vacated and that a formal proceeding be initiated pursuant to Rule 9 (Disciplinary Enforcement) of the Supreme Court Rules. As a result, the Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for discipline on October 31, 1996 alleging that Walker had violated DR 1-102, which prohibits the violation of any of the disciplinary rules, in this case DR 2-101(C).