Return To Sender

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a chancery court decision and denied reinstatement to a disbarred attorney

Attorney originally was admitted to the practice of law in Tennessee in 1974 and established himself in the practice area of trusts and estates. As of 2007, Attorney had not been disciplined by the BPR. In November 2006, Attorney was arrested on a seven count federal indictment related to the receipt and possession of child pornography, based on images discovered on Attorney’s laptop computer. In June 2007, Attorney pled guilty in federal court to three of these counts. In conjunction with these charges, Attorney executed a Consent to Disbarment Affidavit in August 2007, and an Order of Disbarment was entered in May 2008. After serving a portion of his five-year sentence of imprisonment, on October 4, 2011, Attorney was transferred to a Memphis halfway house. Attorney was discharged on March 16, 2012, after completing his sentence of incarceration.

He sought reinstatement in 2014

The conduct for which Attorney was prosecuted consisted of his downloading onto his computer between thirty and forty photographs of girls, between nine and fourteen years of age, appearing either nude or engaged in sex acts. There was no proof, however, that Attorney ever had engaged in sexual physical contact with a child. Following his incarceration, Attorney was diagnosed with pedophilia.

While the Chancery Court had subject matter jurisdiction, it erred on the merits

We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case, and, contrary to the chancery court’s determinations, we hold that the record contains material and substantial evidence supporting the Panel’s conclusion that Attorney did not carry his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications required to practice law in Tennessee. We agree with the BPR that the chancery court impermissibly engaged in reweighing the evidence in order to overturn the Panel. That is, the chancery court misapplied the applicable standard of review. Because, upon the proper application of the standard of review, the record supports the Panel’s conclusion, we reverse the chancery court and reinstate the Panel’s judgment.

Specifically, the record supports the Panel’s concern that Attorney was less than entirely honest with his probation officer about his inappropriate activities following his release from prison. Additionally, Attorney proffered witnesses to testify about his character without providing them with adverse information that might have had a negative impact on their assessment of his character, both the details of his criminal conduct and a description of his inappropriate conduct following his release from prison. While Attorney disclosed his inappropriate activities to the persons conducting his VCAP Evaluation and to Dr. Abel, we note that both of these evaluations were sought by Attorney not in order to further his treatment but in order to obtain reinstatement. It appears that the level of Attorney’s candor depends upon to whom he is speaking and for what purpose. 

The court chided the BPR

As set forth above, although the BPR filed its application for costs weeks after the deadline for doing so, the Panel nevertheless considered the application and awarded the requested costs to the BPR. The chancery court reversed the Panel’s award of costs solely on the basis that the application was late-filed. The BPR contends in this Court that, because Attorney never voiced any objection to the untimeliness of the BPR’s application, the chancery court’s “intervention on this issue was inappropriate and improper.”

We reject the BPR’s attempt to use its own missed deadline as both weapon and shield. However, we also disagree with Attorney that “[t]he assessment of costs to the [BPR] is only appropriate where the [BPR] is the prevailing party” and that, therefore, the chancery court’s reversal of costs was warranted because the chancery court reversed the Panel on the merits. In support of this proposition, Attorney cites to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 31.3(a). Contrary to Attorney’s assertion, Section 31.3(a) provides that the BPR shall seek costs even when the result of the formal proceeding is reinstatement. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 31.3(a). Moreover, it is the attorney’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the costs sought by the BPR are unnecessary or unreasonable. Id. Clearly, the purpose of Section 31.3(a) is to allow the BPR to recover its reasonable costs in defending the integrity of the Tennessee bar. That the BPR may occasionally lose a quest to prevent a disbarred lawyer from being reinstated should not prevent the BPR from recovering the reasonable costs it incurs by undertaking the quest.

WMCactionnews5 reported that he had represented the Elvis Presley estate.

A Mid-South attorney who pled guilty to child pornography charges was sentenced Friday. Drayton Beecher Smith, once the attorney for the Elvis Presley estate, now knows his fate.

Smith was once a well respected local attorney. After pleading guilty to child pornography charges, Smith lost his license to practice law and a federal judge sentenced him to five years behind bars.

Thirty years ago, Beecher Smith was Elvis Presley’s attorney. He’s been a well respected lawyer ever since.

“Beecher has been a preeminent probate attorney. He has been a writer, he’s been very active in civic matters around the community and he’s just a well respected gentleman,” says Beecher’s attorney, Mark McDaniel.

In June, Smith pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography he viewed on the Internet.

The victims were multiple minors under the age of 12.

Friday morning, Smith was sentenced to five years in federal prison, and 10 years supervised release, the minimum mandatory sentence under federal guidelines.

“I think he’s a good person. I think he’s made some very bad decisions and he had a lot of tragedy in his life that led him down that particular path,” adds McDaniel.

That tragedy includes the conviction of Smith’s identical twin who is serving time in California for molesting a child.

Smith says he was researching his brothers criminal case online when he was lured to pornographic websites. Smith told the judge he was truly sorry.

Oral argument linked here. (Mike Frisch)