The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed disciplinary sanctions imposed on an attorney for ethical lapses in three appeals.

The court rejected the attorney’s challenge to the bar disciplinary system itself

Mr. Walwyn…raises a number of constitutional challenges to Tennessee‟s attorney discipline system. Although this portion of Mr. Walwyn‟s brief is rambling and borders on incomprehensible, these challenges may be broken down into two broad categories. First, Mr. Walwyn challenges the constitutionality of using the preponderance-of-evidence standard of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings, instead of the heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence standard used by the majority of states. Second, Mr. Walwyn raises a number of due process challenges to the disciplinary system. Having reviewed Mr. Walwyn‟s contentions, we find them to be without merit but will briefly address each issue in turn…

We are mindful that attorneys are entitled to procedural due process and have an interest in avoiding suspension of their law licenses by which they earn their livelihood. Moncier v. Bd. of Prof‟l Responsibility, 406 S.W.3d 139, 156 (Tenn. 2013). However, we are equally mindful of the rights of Mr. Walwyn‟s clients and the public at large to ethical and diligent representation from lawyers licensed to practice in this state. This, too, is a weighty interest that must be protected. Weighing these interests, we conclude, as other courts addressing the appropriate standard of proof have concluded, that use of the preponderance-of-evidence standard satisfies Mr. Walwyn‟s right to procedural due process.