On-And-Off

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ordered a 30-day suspension

In 2012, Candes Vonniest Prewitt was licensed to practice law in Tennessee. In December of that year, she and Demetrius Tucker began an on-and-off romantic relationship that lasted for several years. In July 2014, while Mr. Tucker was working as a security guard for a Nashville night club, a disgruntled patron shot him. Mr. Tucker was seriously injured and incurred over $500,000 in medical expenses. A co-worker, Dionage Harris, was also injured in the incident. Both men retained Ms. Prewitt to represent them in a personal injury lawsuit. Ms. Prewitt agreed to handle the lawsuit under a contingency fee agreement of one-third of any damages recovered.

She filed suit but later withdrew.

Competence

Competent practitioners familiarize themselves with the Rules of Civil Procedure and work diligently to comply with them. Ms. Prewitt did not. The hearing panel’s finding that Ms. Prewitt’s failure to provide expert disclosures in compliance with Rule 26.02(4)(A)(i) violated Rule 1.1 was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial and material evidence.

The court also found lack of diligence.

Mixing romance with business

Regardless of the conflicting accounts of how the representation began, Mr. Tucker’s testimony shows that he put his trust in Ms. Prewitt because of their personal relationship. When that relationship ended, Ms. Prewitt ended the attorney-client relationship as well––without proper notice to Mr. Tucker and without attention to the summary judgment motions pending in the lawsuit. These are the types of concerns expressed in the comments to Rule 1.7 about intimate personal relationships between lawyer and client…

There is ample evidence in the record of the on-and-off nature of Ms. Prewitt’s relationship with Mr. Tucker both before and during the representation and of the disputes they had about the representation from the beginning. Thus, the evidence supports the hearing panel’s finding that Ms. Prewitt had a concurrent conflict of interest that required disclosure to Mr. Tucker and his informed consent regardless of Ms. Prewitt’s subjective belief that there was no conflict.

Sanction

The discipline imposed on Ms. Prewitt by the hearing panel was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial and material evidence.

(Mike Frisch)