Opinion ID: 2677168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: s tandard of r eview

Text: The Supreme Court of Tennessee is the source of authority of the Board of Professional Responsibility and all its functions. Brown v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 445, 449 (Tenn. 2000). As a part of our duty to regulate the practice of law in Tennessee, we bear ultimate responsibility for enforcing the rules governing our profession. Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d 465, 469-70 (Tenn. 2003). We review judgments under our “inherent power [and] essential and fundamental right to . . . administer [the] rules pertaining to the licensing . . . of attorneys.” Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631, 640 (Tenn. 2008) (citing In re Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tenn. 1995)). When reviewing a hearing panel’s judgment, a trial court must consider the transcript of the evidence before the hearing panel and its findings and judgment. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3. On questions of fact, the trial court does not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing panel as to the weight of the evidence. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Allison, 284 S.W.3d 316, 323 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Love, 256 S.W.3d 644, 653 (Tenn. 2008)). Any reversal or modification of a hearing panel’s decision must be based on the reviewing court’s finding that the hearing panel’s decision was: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the panel’s jurisdiction; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted 1 The petition for discipline alleged that Mr. Long violated RPCs 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.16(d)(5), and 8.4(a) as they existed at the time of the alleged misconduct. We note that the Panel’s legal conclusions cite current RPC 1.4(a)(4) and quote a portion of current RPC 1.16(d)(6). Because the rules, as written at the time of the alleged misconduct, are not substantively different from their current versions, our analysis is not affected by the Panel’s erroneous references to those current rules. -2- exercise of discretion; or (5) unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1.3; Love, 256 S.W.3d at 653. Our standard of review on appeal is the same as that of the trial court. Hoover v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 395 S.W.3d 95, 103 (Tenn. 2012).