February 25, 2004

Law - Tennessee Supreme Court Holds its Own Rule Unconstitutional

The eye-catching lead to this story Saturday in the Nashville paper, The Tennessean, reads:

The state Supreme Court has declared one of its own rules unconstitutional, opening complaints against lawyers to greater public scrutiny.

In a case involving two unidentified lawyers, the court said its rule restricting public discussion of an official complaint against an attorney infringed on the free-speech rights guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and of Tennessee.

In the case of the two lawyers identified only as John Doe v. Jane Doe, Jane accused John of unethical conduct and sent the letter to two other attorneys, a judge and a trial court clerk.

That was a violation of the state Supreme Court's rule regarding disciplinary proceedings for lawyers, which said none of the participants could discuss a complaint until it had reached a certain stage. This case was not there yet.

The case is titled John Doe v. Jane Doe (pdf). The Court's conclusion:
The State has failed to meet its burden of proving that the confidentiality requirement of section 25 is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Consequently, we conclude that section 25 violates free speech rights under Article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because we further conclude that contempt sanctions are not appropriate under the circumstances of this case, the petition for contempt is denied. Filed contemporaneously with this opinion is an order publishing for public comment a proposed amendment to Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of
the Tennessee Supreme Court. The proposed amendment addresses the constitutional concerns discussed in this opinion. The Court solicits comments from all interested parties. The proposed amendment shall serve as the interim rule until formal adoption of an amended rule.
Here is a link to the proposed amendment to Rule 9.

[See also this entry from ethicalEsq]

Posted by Marcia Oddi at February 25, 2004 09:02 AM