Opinion ID: 2718594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of ABA Standards

Text: In order to determine the appropriate discipline in a given case, we turn to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 8.4; Maddux, 409 S.W.3d at 624. These standards are “guideposts” rather than rigid rules for determining appropriate and consistent sanctions for attorney misconduct. Maddux, 409 S.W.3d at 624. -10- The ABA Standards provide a framework that gives “courts the flexibility to select the appropriate sanction in each particular case of lawyer misconduct.’” Id. (quoting ABA Standards, Theoretical Framework). The ABA Standards specify that when imposing a sanction, the court should consider: (1) What ethical duty did the lawyer violate? (A duty to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession?); (2) What was the lawyer’s mental state? (Did the lawyer act intentionally, knowingly, or negligently?); (3) What was the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct? (Was there a serious or potentially serious injury?); and (4) Are there any aggravating or mitigating circumstances? Id. (quoting ABA Standards, Theoretical Framework). These inquiries aid in shaping our discussion as we address the issues raised by the parties. The Hearing Panel found that Mr. Bailey knowingly disobeyed a court order, and that Mr. Bailey’s behavior was “disruptive and caused actual injury to the legal system and profession,” therefore warranting suspension under the ABA Standards. Under ABA Standard 6.22, “[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.” ABA Standard 6.22. According to the ABA Standards, “knowledge” is “the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.” ABA Standards, Black Letter Rules, Definitions. “Injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer’s misconduct.” Id. “‘Potential injury’ is the harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession that is foreseeable at the time of the lawyer’s misconduct, and which, but for some intervening event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer’s misconduct.” Id. Addressing the initial requirements of Standard 6.22, the Board argues that Mr. Bailey “knowingly” “violated a court order or rule” when he continued to make speaking objections after being instructed not to, and when his behavior escalated into a series of insulting and demeaning statements to the court. Mr. Bailey counters that Judge Williams did not enforce her ruling regarding speaking objections and even encouraged him to speak up as necessary, and therefore no court rule was broken. The proof in this record establishes that Judge Williams did instruct both attorneys to avoid making speaking objections, ordering them to “stand up, say I object, and sit down. -11- Do not interrupt each other.” During Mr. Bailey’s opening statement, defense counsel asked to approach the bench four times to make an objection and thus avoided making speaking objections within the jury’s hearing. During Mr. Shannon’s opening statement, however, Mr. Bailey made twelve speaking objections, often before the jury, and he continued to object even after Judge Williams instructed him to let Mr. Shannon finish his opening statement uninterrupted. Mr. Bailey also testified that his statements to the court were intentional, albeit made in the interest of representing his client. The evidence therefore supports the Hearing Panel’s finding that Mr. Bailey knowingly disobeyed a court order. The Board also argues that Mr. Bailey’s conduct caused “interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding” insofar as his disruptive behavior violated his professional duty to refrain from abusive conduct and resulted in interference with a legal proceeding. Namely, his behavior resulted in Judge Williams’s declaration of a mistrial in Watkins. The Board also argues that his behavior resulted in “actual injury” or “potential injury” to his own client, Ms. Watkins, who might have been damaged by the mistrial, although ultimately she was able to settle the case. Mr. Bailey argues that his comments were all made in furtherance of legal arguments, and thus were not disruptive to the legal process but rather a necessary means of partaking in it. Moreover, he argues that the granting of a mistrial was improper and unforeseeable because the pertinent comments took place outside the presence of the jury.14 Finally, he argues that his client suffered no injury, as his efforts were all attempts to zealously represent her and she ultimately received a favorable settlement. Like the Hearing Panel, we quote from Comment 5 to Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5, which directly addresses the duty of lawyers to behave in a manner conducive to creating a civil courtroom atmosphere, even in difficult circumstances. The advocate’s function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the advocate’s right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge, but should avoid reciprocation; the judge’s default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics. 14 As a result of the mistrial, Ms. Regina Watkins brought a malpractice suit against Mr. Bailey, which was ultimately dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The trial court’s ruling was later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, which noted that “although Mr. Bailey’s behavior warranted some form of punishment, the declaration of a mistrial was unnecessary.” Watkins v. Bailey, 484 F. App’x at 22 n.2. -12- Rule 8, RPC 3.5, Comment 5. A court may sanction attorney speech and behavior precisely because the “integral role that attorneys play in the judicial system . . . requires them to refrain from speech or conduct that may obstruct the fair administration of justice.” Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Slavin, 145 S.W.3d 538, 550 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 793 N.E.2d 425, 428-29 (Ohio 2003)). Attorneys have a duty to maintain a “respectful attitude” toward the court, and to refrain from “doing anything which will tend to destroy the confidence of the public in the courts.” Ramsey v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 771 S.W.2d 116, 122 (Tenn. 1989) (quoting In re Hickey, 258 S.W. 417, 430 (Tenn. 1924)). Specifically, a lawyer’s duty to advocate zealously on behalf of his client is no excuse for unprofessional conduct that threatens to disrupt a courtroom, as “the idea that there is a conflict between zealous advocacy and ethical and professional behavior is completely false.” In re Moncier, 550 F. Supp. 2d 768, 807 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Even if an attorney believes that the court has issued an erroneous ruling, zealous representation of a client “‘never justifies the use of disrespectful, unprofessional or indecorous language to the court.’” Id. (quoting Conklin v. Warrington Twp., No. 1:05-CV-1707, 2006 WL 2246415, at  (M.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2006)). “When zealous advocacy degenerates into impertinent, scandalous, and insulting language, it is the court’s duty to address squarely the offending conduct, and to tailor a sanction appropriate to the offense.” Id. (quoting Conklin, 2006 WL 2246415, at ). Here, the proof supports the Hearing Panel’s finding that Mr. Bailey’s conduct caused interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding as well as actual or potential injury to the clients or parties. Mr. Bailey’s twelve objections during opposing counsel’s opening statement were extremely disruptive and in violation of Judge William’s express order that there be no speaking objections. Most significantly, however, directly before and after Mr. Shannon’s opening statement, Mr. Bailey badgered and insulted Judge Williams. Among other abusive statements, he called her rulings “bizarre” and “crazy”; claimed that she “almost always” got the law “wrong” in her rulings; accused her of setting a “world record for reversible error”; ridiculed the “salmon-colored card” she used to cite attorneys for contempt; and described her as indifferent to whether a lawyer was “lying to [her].” Indeed, even Mr. Bailey’s later testimony was markedly disrespectful toward Judge Williams as well as the Hearing Panel itself, insofar as he continued to describe her rulings as “crazy” and the disciplinary hearing as “nonsense.” The effects of Mr. Bailey’s behavior are also clear. Mr. Bailey’s outbursts on the morning of March 27th were so outrageous that they caused opposing counsel to move for a mistrial. Judge Williams shortly thereafter granted a mistrial, citing Mr. Bailey’s “contentious conduct.” As a result of the mistrial, Mr. Bailey decided to settle the case, and -13- his client ultimately accepted a settlement offer slightly lower than the offer the defense made just before trial began. We agree with the Board that the Chancery Court erred in holding that the Hearing Panel’s decision to apply ABA Standard 6.22 was arbitrary and capricious and conclude that the Chancery Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Hearing Panel regarding the weight of the evidence. Substantial and material evidence supports the Hearing Panel’s finding that Mr. Bailey’s behavior warranted suspension pursuant to ABA Standard 6.22. However, we agree with Mr. Bailey that the Chancery Court correctly determined that the Hearing Panel should not have applied ABA Standard 7.2 to his case. Upon reading Standard 7.2 in context, we agree that it falls under section 7.0 and thus applies only to cases involving “false and misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services,” as well as violations of rules regarding client solicitation and representation, improper fees, the unauthorized practice of law, or a failure to report misconduct. ABA Standards 7.0. Once the Hearing Panel determined that Mr. Bailey was not to be sanctioned for violating any such rules, the discipline described by ABA Standard 7.2 did not apply. See Hyman v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, No. E2012-02091-SC-R3-BP, 2014 WL 1280265, at  (Tenn. Mar. 31, 2014) (finding sanctions set forth in ABA Standard 7.2 to be inapplicable where the party was not alleged to have committed violations described in ABA Standard 7.0).15 B. The Assessment of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors After properly identifying the “presumptively appropriate sanction applicable to the established misconduct”—in Mr. Bailey’s case suspension pursuant to ABA Standard 6.22—the next task is to “consider whether that sanction should be increased or decreased due to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, if any.” Cowan, 388 S.W.3d at 268. Greater or lesser sanctions may be appropriate depending on whether or not aggravating or mitigating factors exist. ABA Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3. We have held that the factors enumerated in ABA Standard 9 are “illustrative rather than exclusive,” and that “any considerations or factors” justifying an increase or decrease in the sanction may be 15 Although it relied exclusively on ABA Standards 6.22 and 7.2 when determining the appropriate sanction to impose in Mr. Bailey’s case, the Hearing Panel also could have relied on ABA Standard 6.32, based on Mr. Bailey’s violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(e). See ABA Standards app. 1 (stating that violations of Rule 3.5 trigger the presumptive sanctions of Standard 6.3). However, because we have concluded that the Hearing Panel’s application of ABA Standard 6.22 is supported by substantial and material evidence, the Hearing Panel’s failure to cite ABA Standard 6.32 does not entitle Mr. Bailey to relief. See Lockett v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19, 28 (Tenn. 2012) (“A hearing panel does not abuse its discretion when it makes a choice among several acceptable alternatives.”). -14- considered, Lockett, 380 S.W.3d 19, 28 (Tenn. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing ABA Standards 9.21, 9.22). The Hearing Panel found no mitigating factors and five aggravating factors, the latter including Mr. Bailey’s substantial experience in the practice of law, his demonstrated pattern of misconduct, his prior disciplinary sanction, the fact that he committed multiple offenses in violating several Rules of Professional Conduct, and his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct. The Chancery Court found that the Hearing Panel abused its discretion in this finding, and instead cited the remoteness and inadvertent nature of the infraction that gave rise to the prior discipline, as well as the unselfish motivations for Mr. Bailey’s behavior, both of which the Chancery Court found should mitigate Mr. Bailey’s sanction, in light of the highly combative atmosphere of the Watkins courtroom. The Board argues that the Hearing Panel properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the Chancery Court erred by holding that the Hearing Panel’s assessment of these factors was arbitrary and capricious. Although the Board concedes that Mr. Bailey’s motivations were unselfish and that his prior disciplinary sanction occurred over twenty years ago, it also argues that, even after taking into account the unusually vituperative nature of the Watkins case, the aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors in Mr. Bailey’s case and justify the Hearing Panel’s imposition of a sixty-day suspension. Mr. Bailey argues that the Chancery Court properly weighed the mitigating factors to find that a public censure would be more appropriate. After reviewing the record, we find that the Hearing Panel properly considered the pertinent aggravating and mitigating factors in recommending a sixty-day suspension, and that its judgment was supported by substantial and material evidence and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Even if Mr. Bailey’s prior disciplinary sanction was remote and non-serious, and even if Mr. Bailey believed himself to be acting in the best interest of his client in a difficult situation, these factors as cited by the Chancery Court are not determinative in this case. The Hearing Panel properly found the proof to demonstrate that: (1) Mr. Bailey is an attorney with many years of courtroom experience; (2) he engaged in a pattern of misconduct during the course of the Watkins trial; (3) he violated several rules of professional conduct in doing so; and 4) he showed a lack of remorse for his behavior. We agree that these factors weighed in favor of imposing a suspension. Like the Hearing Panel, we find Mr. Bailey’s lack of remorse and his persistence in exhibiting disrespect to the trial court and the Hearing Panel especially troubling, and we cannot agree with his perspective that there are effectively few limits on an attorney’s conduct, as long as his motives are pure. -15- C. The Imposition of a Sixty-Day Suspension The Board argues that the Hearing Panel’s imposition of a sixty-day suspension is appropriate and supported by existing Tennessee case law. Mr. Bailey argues that the Chancery Court properly found that the Hearing Panel’s imposition of a sixty-day suspension resulted in prejudice to Mr. Bailey and was arbitrary and capricious when compared with other decisions in which this Court determined suspension to be appropriate. This Court “evaluate[s] each instance of attorney discipline in light of its particular facts and circumstances,” even as it “consider[s] the sanctions that have been imposed in prior cases that present similar circumstances so as to maintain consistency and uniformity in disciplinary proceedings.” Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Maddux, 148 S.W.3d 37, 40 (Tenn. 2004). Other Tennessee cases involving attorneys who engaged in disrespectful and abusive behavior in the courtroom or in pleadings addressed to the Court prove instructive. In Ramsey, 771 S.W.2d at 122-123, a district attorney failed to obey court orders, refused to answer a judge’s questions, and engaged in inappropriate conduct in the courtroom, slamming a door noisily on his way out. This Court determined that the attorney’s misconduct warranted a 180-day suspension—with 135 days probated and the remaining forty-five days served on active suspension, with the proviso that he would be required to serve the entire suspension should he again violate any Rules of Professional Conduct or be found in contempt of court. Id. at 123. In Farmer v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 660 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Tenn. 1983), an attorney was suspended for sixty days for using “scurrilous and improper” language in briefs to the court and for accusing fellow attorneys and the court of telling lies. He was suspended despite his claims that he felt that he “had to resort to—or [he] was justified in resorting to stronger tactics, more positive language to get the attention of the [c]ourt.” Id. at 492. Another attorney who filed frivolous pleadings, described a judge in pleadings as “[p]etty, barbarous and cruel” and a “retaliator” who “disgraces his judicial office,” and engaged in other inappropriate behavior that resulted in one federal judge barring him from her courtroom had his license suspended by this Court for two years. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Slavin, 145 S.W.3d 538, 543, 551 (Tenn. 2004). Like the attorney in Farmer, Mr. Bailey was abusive to the court, speaking disrespectfully, disobeying an instruction to avoid speaking objections, inappropriately implying that Judge Williams tolerated lying in her courtroom, and accusing defense counsel of telling lies. Again, like Mr. Farmer, Mr. Bailey felt that he had to “push and push” to get the rulings he wanted from Judge Williams, stating that he and co-counsel had “found that the more forceful that we were with her the more effective it was.” Additionally, like Mr. -16- Slavin, Mr. Bailey accused a judge of incompetence, although his conduct lacked the intensity or personal vitriol, as well as the cumulative instances of unprofessional behavior, present in Mr. Slavin’s case. In finding the imposition of the sixty-day suspension to be an abuse of the Hearing Panel’s discretion, the Chancery Court cited Maddux, 148 S.W.3d at 38, in which an attorney received a thirty-day suspension for converting over $90,000 in funds from his partnership. In Maddux, however, the attorney was remorseful, admitted his wrongdoing, and cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 39. Most significantly, however, Maddux involved an unusual set of circumstances, including the attorney living with the threat of discipline for ten years because Disciplinary Counsel waited for four and a half years after the initial complaint was filed to file his petition for discipline. Id. at 40. In contrast to Maddux, Mr. Bailey appeared unremorseful and disdainful in his testimony before the Hearing Panel, still convinced that his behavior was justified by his need to represent his client and persisting in characterizing the trial court’s rulings as “crazy” and inconsistent. Given these precedents, we conclude that Mr. Bailey’s sixty-day suspension is consistent with comparable Tennessee cases involving similar violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and that the length of the suspension is appropriately tailored to the facts of Mr. Bailey’s circumstances. Indeed, the Hearing Panel imposed only a sixty-day suspension, although the ABA Standards state that a suspension generally should be for no less than six months. We wholeheartedly agree with the Hearing Panel’s conclusion that “simply abusing or insulting the [c]ourt to get rulings in [favor of a client] cannot ever be endorsed or justified by our rules and our system of professional conduct.” Indeed, it is especially important that attorneys, who play an integral role in the judicial system, “respect the line separating, in the judicial context, tolerable criticism from unacceptable speech.” Slavin, 145 S.W.3d at 551. Attorneys who cross this line may not avoid punishment by claiming that their misconduct served the greater good or the interests of their clients, as such exceptions would overwhelm the rules.