Opinion ID: 2347897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Added Restrictions and Expanded Conditions of Reinstatement

Text: Having determined the applicable standard of review at the time of the trial court's hearing in this matter and our standard of review on appeal, we now consider whether the trial court properly added restrictions and expanded conditions of reinstatement. As previously discussed, under the new standard, the basis for the trial court's modifications of the Panel's decision must be found in the enumerated circumstances listed in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3 (2007). The Panel's first reinstatement condition was that Love practice either in a group setting or under the supervision of a practice monitor for one year. Although neither party asked the trial judge to modify this condition, the trial court altered this condition in two respects: by requiring Love to practice in a group setting and be under the supervision of a practice monitor; and to do so for a period of five years. The trial court, however, cited no authority indicating that the Panel's original recommendation on this point violated constitutional or statutory provisions; was in excess of the Panel's authority; was based on unlawful procedure; was arbitrary and capricious; or was an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Moreover, the trial court did not conclude that the Panel's recommendations on this issue were unsupported by the evidence, and nothing in our review of the record indicates as such. Given the limitations placed on the trial court under the new standard of review, we find that the trial court's modification of the group practice/practice monitor recommendation was erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and reinstate the Panel's recommendation with regard to this modification. The Panel's second reinstatement condition was that Love enter into a five-year contract with TLAP, consisting of standard protocols established by TLAP to monitor [Love's] sobriety. The trial court extended this contract to ten years. Again, there is nothing in the trial court's order that indicates why it made this modification to the Panel's decision or on what basis it was justified. To the contrary, the testimony of Robert Albury, Jr., made it clear that no prior TLAP contracts had ever extended beyond five years. Additionally, Love had been alcohol-free nearly four years at the time of the trial court's hearing. Again, given the limitations under the new standard of review and the trial court's statements with regard to this modification, we find that the trial court's action was unwarranted. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court on this issue and reinstate the Panel's recommendation of a five-year TLAP contract. The Panel's third reinstatement condition was that Love reimburse the Board for his prior disciplinary fees in the amount of $9,044.07 and that such amount can be repaid by a payment plan agreeable to Disciplinary Counsel. Agreeing with the Board's argument on this point, the trial court modified this recommendation by requiring Love to repay his total disciplinary proceeding costs as a condition precedent to reinstatement. For the reasons stated below, the trial court correctly modified the Panel's recommendation on this issue. In its Writ of Certiorari, the Board alleged that the Panel erred in allowing Love to pay the total costs of his disciplinary hearings after his reinstatement, as compared to making it a condition precedent to reinstatement. Specifically, the Board argued that this finding was in violation of the plain language of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 24.3, which states in pertinent part: In the event that a judgment of disbarment[ ][or] suspension . . . results from formal proceedings, the Board shall assess against the respondent the costs of the proceedings. . . . . . . Payment of the costs assessed by the Board pursuant to this rule shall be required as a condition precedent to reinstatement of the respondent attorney. (Emphasis added). Under the new standard of review, the trial court can modify the decision of the Panel if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the panel's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 1.3 (2007). In this instance, the Panel, in allowing Love to repay his court costs by a payment plan agreeable to Disciplinary Counsel, which included paying the costs subsequent to his reinstatement, incorrectly applied Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 24.3. [14] Therefore, the trial court did not err in modifying this portion of the Panel's recommendations for reinstatement. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order that Love's disciplinary fees be paid in full prior to the reinstatement of his law license. [15] Finally, the trial court added a fourth reinstatement condition that Love limit his practice to criminal law. In its Writ of Certiorari, the Board alleged that the Panel incorrectly determined that Love had been out of practice for only seven years, instead of nine, and as such, argued that the Panel erred in not requiring Love to retake and pass the Tennessee bar examination. The trial court did not grant the request, but substituted this condition for reinstatement instead. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19.3, states that the petitioner shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that [he or she] has . . . competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this state. Moreover, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19.7, provides that reinstatement may be conditioned upon the furnishing of such proof of competency . . ., which proof may include . . . successful completion of [the bar] examination. This Court has previously held that there is a presumption that the successful completion of the essay portion of the bar examination is generally necessary if the petitioner has not practiced law for over ten years. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis, 696 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn.1985). However, taking the bar examination is not a mandatory reinstatement condition in every instance, even where the petitioner has not practiced law in over ten years. Burnett v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 100 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tenn. 2003). Instead, this Court has clearly recognized that there will be exceptions and indicated that the presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing proof of `extenuating circumstances.' Id. Accordingly, when the length of suspension is for a period ten years or less, the hearing panel has the discretion, on a case by case basis, to require the retaking of the bar examination. In this instance, Love was in compliance with all CLE requirements as of the date of the Panel hearing. Love successfully passed an ethics course at the Nashville School of Law. He testified that he continues to read and review court decisions, receives and reads legal journals, and reviews changes in volumes 7 and 7a of the Tennessee Code Annotated (volumes addressing criminal offenses and criminal procedure). Through this testimony, the Panel determined that Love demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it was not necessary for him to retake and pass the bar examination. Therefore, even if Love had been suspended from the practice of law for nine years, this alone would not necessitate a finding that Love retake the bar examination. Instead, the determinative issue is whether the petitioner carries his or her burden by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is competent and learned in the law. In this instance, the Panel determined that Love did not need to retake the bar examination. The Panel expressly stated that Love plainly demonstrated his competence and learning of the law required to practice law in this State. Therefore, under the new standard, the trial court may modify or reverse a hearing panel's decision only if one or more of the five enumerated circumstances listed in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3 is present. We find that none of the five enumerated circumstances were applicable on this issue, and therefore, the trial court erroneously modified the Panel's determination that Love was competent in the law. We therefore, reverse the trial court's modification that Love limit his legal practice to criminal law. [16]