Tennessee Supremes Will Hear Argument On Website Claims

An oral argument scheduled before the Tennessee Supreme Court on October 1

BPR v. Connie Reguli – This is a case between a Brentwood attorney and the Board of Professional Responsibility, which is the organization that investigates complaints against attorneys and initiates disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Reguli was disciplined for two separate incidents, one in which she did not return unused funds from a retainer fee paid for a divorce case and another in which her website published claims about her certification that were untrue. The Court will consider the appropriate disciplinary action for Ms. Reguli.

The Nashville Post had a story about the attorney’s efforts to obtain internal e-mails of the BPR in an earlier case.

Reguli, who in 2008 ran for the state House of Representatives and last year applied to be the BPR’s chief disciplinary counsel, had been granted access to the documents by Chancellor Ellen Lyle. But the BPR appealed that ruling after producing some of the records and heavily redacting others.

Writing for the appellate court, Judge Richard Dinkins — who was joined by Judge Frank Clement — said the documents are out of reach of a public records request because they were prepared after the disciplinary proceeding against Reguli had been launched. The intent and structure of state rules governing attorney discipline, the appeals court judges wrote, place such communications beyond disclosure requirements.

Dinkins also wrote that Lyle had mistakenly ruled that the documents Reguli sought were “work product” because they involved communication between different agencies. The different entities working on attorney discipline cases should be viewed as part of a whole, they made clear.

“The fact that the offices are separate has no significance in this regard,” Dinkins wrote

(Mike Frisch)