Carter County lawyer Carl Allen Roberts Jr. received a censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on July 21 for violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2 and 8.4(dg). The court found that Roberts informed a client in writing that he would file a petition for contempt against the opposing party, but failed to respond to eight communications from the client; received a cash retainer from a client but took the cash to his home for 39 days before returning it to the firm’s trust account; and failed to appear at a scheduled mediation without notice to his client, the mediator or opposing counsel.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on July 15 directed Connecticut lawyer Wesley Shelman Spears to respond within 30 days as to why discipline imposed in Connecticut should not also be imposed in Tennessee. If no response is received by the deadline, the court says it will impose identical discipline. The State of Connecticut Superior Court found that Spears sent a “series of inappropriate and offensive text messages” to his client. On April 3, it suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

Davidson County lawyer Carrie Archie Russell was reinstated to the practice of law on July 14 after being on inactive status since March 15, 2012. The Board of Professional Responsibility reported that the petition for reinstatement was satisfactory and the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the order on July 15. Earlier it had directed Russell to complete outstanding requirements with the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education (CLE) prior to reinstatement.

Knox County lawyer Jonathan William Doolan received a public censure on July 15 after the Tennessee Supreme Court found that he violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.16, 3.2, 3.4, 8.1 and 8.4. According to the court, Doolan filed a lawsuit for a client in Knox County Circuit Court. An answer was filed but he took no further action. Three years later, the trial court issued notice of a trial date. Doolan did not appear at the scheduled trial. Neither the court nor opposing counsel were aware that his law license had been suspended.

Shelby County lawyer Mary Kathryn Kent was suspended from the practice law on July 15 after the Tennessee Supreme Court found that she failed to respond to the Board of Professional Responsibility about a misconduct complaint. She immediately is precluded from accepting any new cases and must cease representing existing clients by Aug. 14.

Davidson County lawyer Mitchell Ray Miller received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on July 14. The court found that Miller violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 when he failed to respond to four communications from a client over the course of a month. The client had paid a fee of $2,996.50 to hire Miller to probate an estate. The client met with Miller, but Miller never filed the petition to probate the estate. The client ultimately hired new counsel. In addition to imposing the censure, the court directed Miller to make restitution to the client in the amount of $2,996.50.

California lawyer Dale Gerard Nowicki was reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee on July 14. He had been suspended by the Tennessee Supreme Court for two years with 90 days to be served on active suspension — retroactive to Jan. 6, the date of suspension in California — and the remainder on probation. Nowicki filed a petition for reinstatement on June 6. The Board of Professional Responsibility reported that the petition for reinstatement was satisfactory. The reinstatement is conditioned on Nowicki’s continuing compliance with, and timely satisfaction of, conditions set forth by the Supreme Court of California.

Florida lawyer Jessica Rose Sievert was reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee on July 7 after being on inactive status since May 20, 2015. The Board of Professional Responsibility reported that the petition for reinstatement was satisfactory and the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the order on July 10.

The Tennessee Supreme Court permanently disbarred Sumner County lawyer Andy Lamar Allman from the practice of law on July 11 and ordered him to pay restitution to certain complainants and all costs incurred by the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR). The court found that Allman failed to provide competent and diligent representation to complainants; failed to keep them informed about their respective cases; charged certain clients an unreasonable fee; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended; failed to respond to the BPR regarding disciplinary complaints; failed to notify clients of his suspension from the practice of law; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation while representing clients. Allman filed a petition for review, which the trial court dismissed with prejudice. The court found that Allman's conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 5.5, 8.1 and 8.4. In 2018, Allman was disbarred in June and again on July 13 and July 30. In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected a motion from the BPR seeking additional information in its disciplinary investigation, directing it only to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed.

DeKalb County lawyer Lena Ann Graves Buck was publicly censured on July 9 by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Buck provided consultation regarding a workers’ compensation case to a client. Despite the client not signing a retainer agreement nor paying an attorney fee, Buck met with the client on three occasions during which she provided legal advice. Buck discussed the workers’ compensation issue with the client at two of the meetings, but did not apprise the client of a statute of limitations deadline. Over the next three years, Buck represented the client on a disability claim, though the client believed Buck also was handling the workers’ compensation matter. The client did not discover the statute of limitations had passed until several years later. In addition to these findings, the court determined that Buck entered into a business transaction with the client without first advising the client in writing of the desirability of seeking, or giving a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of, independent legal counsel. The court found that these actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a)(2) and 8.4(d).