Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed an appeal concerning attorney F. Chris Cawood and the Board of Professional Responsibility. Initially, the Board had filed a petition for discipline against Cawood, which was dismissed by the Hearing Panel. This dismissal was upheld by the Roane County Chancery Court upon appeal by the Board. Seeking further review, the Board appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. However, the Board failed to meet the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106, which necessitates that a petition for certiorari be sworn and affirm as the first application. This procedural lapse resulted in the chancery court's lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, leading the Supreme Court to affirm the dismissal of the Board's appeal. Legal references crucial to the case included Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 and Tennessee Code Annotated sections 27-9-101 and 27-9-102, which outline the review process for disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Board's appeal was dismissed, with costs imposed on the Board of Professional Responsibility.
Legal Issues Addressed
Filing Location for Petitions under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 section 1.4subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The rule shifts the filing location to the county where the respondent's office was situated when the charges were initiated, differing from T.C.A. 27-9-102's original requirements.
Reasoning: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 section 1.4 permits filing the petition in either circuit or chancery court, shifting the filing location to the county where the respondent's office was situated when the charges were initiated, contrasting with T.C.A. 27-9-102's original requirements.
Jurisdictional Requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 27-8-106subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the petition for certiorari must be sworn before a qualified official and declare it as the first application, as failure to comply leads to lack of jurisdiction.
Reasoning: A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if the petition is not supported by an oath or affirmation, as established in DePew v. Kings, Inc.
Review Process for Disciplinary Proceedings under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The rule allows for reviewing judgments from hearing panels but does not exempt the procedural requirements outlined in T.C.A. section 27-8-106.
Reasoning: The Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 section 1.3 allows for reviewing judgments from hearing panels per T.C.A. 27-9-101 et seq., but does not exempt the oath requirement or the declaration of the petition being the first application.