The Tennessee Supreme Court today upheld a decision of a Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility to suspend for six months the law license of Gerald S. Green, a Memphis attorney with a long history of disciplinary sanctions. The suspension incudes 30 days of active suspension with the remainder to be served on probation with conditions, including a practice monitor and continuing legal education requirements.
The suspension stems from two client complaints against Mr. Green and an additional complaint that he practiced law in Mississippi without complying with that state’s rule governing pro hac vice admission. The Hearing Panel found that Mr. Green violated four separate provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.3 (Diligence), RPC 1.4 (Communication), RPC 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct), and RPC 5.5 (a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law).
One of the client complaints involved Green’s representation of a man sued by a finance company for failure to pay a loan. The client obtained the loan to pay for plumbing work and adamantly believed he should not have to pay it because the plumbing work was subpar. The Hearing Panel found that Green led the client and opposing counsel to believe that the quality of the plumbing work would be the main focus of the defense in the debt collection lawsuit. At trial, however, Green offered no proof and made no argument on that issue, and his client lost. The Hearing Panel found Green violated Rules of Professional Responsibility 1.3 and 1.4
The second client complaint involved Green’s representation of a man who purchased a vehicle and then learned that a mechanic would not relinquish possession of it because the seller owed the mechanic for work he had done on the vehicle. The case was continued several times, and at one point, Green’s client appeared alone in court and obtained a default judgment for possession of the vehicle. Green did not know of the default judgment until opposing counsel called advising that he intended to make a motion to set it aside, either later that same day or the next day. Without contacting his client, Green agreed to attend the court proceeding with opposing counsel. Green failed to advise his client of the court proceeding. Green did not object to opposing counsel’s request to set aside the default judgment, and the court granted the motion. Even then, Green did not advise his client that the judgment had been set aside. When the client learned the judgment had been set aside from clerk’s office personnel, he fired Green. The Hearing Panel found that Green’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Responsibility 1.4 and 8.4(a).
The third complaint involved Green’s representation of a criminal defendant in Mississippi. Green’s client was convicted, and the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed those convictions and remanded for a new trial because Green had failed to comply fully with the Mississippi rule for pro hac vice admission. The Hearing Panel found that Green’s handling of the Mississippi matter violated Rules of Professional Responsibility 5.5(a) and 8.4(d).
Based on these violations, and after considering the American Bar Association Standards for Lawyer Sanctions, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors, the Hearing Panel suspended Green’s license to practice law for 6 months, with 30 days to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation with conditions. The Hearing Panel gave considerable weight to Green’s 17 prior disciplinary violations.
The Court held that the Hearing Panel’s findings and sanctions were well-founded and supported by the evidence. The Court also upheld the conditions of probation, including the practice monitor, noting its relation to Green’s long history of failing to communicate adequately with his clients and failing to manage his law practice well.
To read the unanimous opinion in Gerald Stanley Green v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark, go to the opinions section of tncourts.gov.