Opinion ID: 1670354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the trial court err in affirming the hearing committee?

Text: The hearing committee recommended that Mr. Welch be suspended from the practice of law for three years. The committee found that Mr. Welch had drafted and distributed the fraudulent memo in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6) and DR 8-102(B). The chancery court adopted the hearing committee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the three-year suspension. The trial court, in ruling on an appeal from the Board's hearing committee, shall review the evidence before the hearing committee, as well as the proof either party may introduce, and shall determine the facts by the preponderance of the evidence. Patty v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 90 S.W.3d 641, 644 (Tenn. 2002); see Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 1.3. Where the trial judge bases his or her decision on the same evidence that is before the hearing committee, the trial judge must affirm the committee `[u]nless that evidence preponderates against the findings by the Committee.' Cohn v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 151 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tenn.2004) (quoting Gannon v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 671 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Tenn.1984)) (footnote omitted). Our review on appeal is limited to the transcript of the record from the circuit or chancery court, which shall include the transcript of evidence before the hearing committee. Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 1.3. We review the lower court's decision de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the trial court's action. Patty, 90 S.W.3d at 644 (citing Murphy v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 924 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn.1996)); see also Cohn, 151 S.W.3d at 481. The evidence in this case overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Mr. Welch drafted and sent the memo that defamed Judge John Wilson and the attorneys at Milligan & Coleman. The memo, the enclosed note, and the envelope were all typed on a typewriter that matched the one in the office building in which Mr. Welch leased office space and to which Mr. Welch had access. The memo contained information that could have only been known by someone who had worked for Milligan & Coleman. Mr. Welch had left Milligan & Coleman on unfriendly terms and was known to dislike Mr. Kilday and Mr. Coleman. And as the investigating agent for the TBI concluded, [he] identified only one subject who may have produced the document. Attorney Larry Welch had the means, motive, and opportunity to produce the forged document. It is undisputed that if Mr. Welch drafted the memo, he would be guilty of violating disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6) and 8-102(B). The trial court not only found that Mr. Welch drafted and mailed the memo, but that he did so with evil intent to harm and discredit his former associates and his friend, Judge John K. Wilson. Likewise, the hearing committee had found that the preparation and mailing of the memo cannot be explained away as a practical joke gone bad or an error in judgment committed in a fit of anger. Rather, it is the product of a very troubled mind that was carried out deliberately after significant forethought and preparation. The facts of this case are undeniably unique, and therefore there is little precedent for determining the extent of discipline warranted. However, given the extremely libelous nature of the memo and the nefarious intent with which it was prepared and sent, a three-year suspension is certainly not excessive. Before Mr. Welch will be allowed to practice law in this State following his suspension, he must meet the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19. Any attorney having been suspended for one year or more may not resume practice until reinstated by order of the Supreme Court. Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 19.1. Petitions for reinstatement are to be filed no more than ninety days prior to the time the attorney is eligible for reinstatement and shall be filed with the Board and served upon Disciplinary Counsel. The Board then refers the petition to a hearing committee, who shall schedule a hearing. At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this State and that the resumption of the practice of law within the State shall no be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest... . Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 19.3.