Tennessee Opens Bar Discipline Hearings To Public

Disciplinary hearings against attorneys are now open to the public per a recent amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court rules. 

On March 13, 2017, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”) filed a petition asking the Court to amend Rule 9, section 32 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The petition proposed to amend the rule section in order to clarify that hearings are open to the public, unless subject to a protective order.

On April 18, 2017, the Court entered an order soliciting public comments on the proposed amendments. The deadline for submitting written comments was June 19, 2017. The Court received written comments during the comment period from Daniel C. Todd and the Knoxville Bar Association (“KBA”). Both Mr. Todd and the KBA opposed the proposed amendments, expressing concern for issues that would arise from open hearings. The Court thanks Mr. Todd and the KBA for their input.

After due consideration, the Court hereby adopts the amendments to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 32, as set out in the attached Appendix. The amendments shall take effect immediately upon the filing of this Order.

The bracketed language was deleted

32.1  All matters, investigations, or proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by or the disability of an attorney, including [all hearings and] all information, records, minutes, correspondence, files or other documents of the Board, district committee members and Disciplinary Counsel shall be confidential and privileged, and shall not be public records or open for public inspection, except as otherwise provided in this Section.

And this new provision was adopted. 

All hearings held before a duly appointed hearing panel or Court, except those pursuant to Section 27, shall be public, subject to the provisions of Section 32.6 and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 30.

The District of Columbia opened bar proceedings to the public in the early 1990s (if memory serves).

One of the first public cases involved side-switching allegations against former State Department Legal Advisor Abraham Sofaer. Sofaer had agreed to represent Libya in connection with the Lockerbie act of terror after participating in the litigation against Pan Am in reviewing the government’s response to a third-party subpoena.

The court ordered an informal admonition.

The fact that the aggrieved family members of the victims could sit and listen to the proceedings convinced me that open proceedings are necessary to maintain the credibility of self-regulation. 

Any move toward greater transparency is to be applauded and encouraged. (Mike Frisch)