Today, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Sevier County attorney James Ralph Hickman, Jr. from the practice of law in the State but increased the length of his active suspension. A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility originally imposed a one-year suspension with at least ninety days to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation. The Hearing Panel also imposed several conditions of probation and indicated that a violation of those conditions would result in reversion to active suspension. The Court affirmed Mr. Hickman’s one-year suspension but increased the length of Mr. Hickman’s active suspension to a fixed period of six months. The Court clarified that the period of active suspension imposed should be fixed rather than indefinite and that a violation of a condition of probation does not automatically result in reversion of the probationary period to active suspension.
Mr. Hickman’s discipline arises from his representation of an estate in probate proceedings in 2016 and 2017. His father, an accountant, was serving as personal representative of the estate at the time. Despite never reaching an agreement with the sole heir to the estate regarding the fees for their services, Mr. Hickman and his father each collected a fee equal to six percent of the gross estate. They included in the value of the gross estate real property that did not pass through probate and therefore was not under Mr. Hickman’s administration.
The heir repeatedly requested an accounting and inventory, but Mr. Hickman failed to provide one, even after persuading the heir to sign a release by assuring her that he would do so. Mr. Hickman filed a motion to close the estate based on the release. The motion stated that certain disbursements from the estate were made as directed by the heir, but Mr. Hickman did not file an inventory and accounting with the probate court either or otherwise disclose to the probate court how much the estate had paid Mr. Hickman or his father. Relying on these representations, the probate court closed the estate.
The heir reopened the estate, and the probate judge ordered Mr. Hickman and his father to file fee applications for any fees received from the estate. Mr. Hickman’s fee application falsely stated that the heir had previously agreed to the fee arrangement. The probate judge disallowed all of the fees paid to Mr. Hickman and his father, and both the heir and the probate judge probate judge filed complaints against Mr. Hickman with the Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board brought a formal petition for discipline against Mr. Hickman on the basis of those complaints.
A Hearing Panel of the Board concluded that Mr. Hickman violated several Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Mr. Hickman violated RPC 1.5(a) by failing to make an appropriate fee arrangement and collecting an unreasonably excessive fee; RPC 3.3(a)(1) by making false statements of fact to the probate court in documents he signed; and RPC 8.4(c) by filing documents containing false statements of material fact, failing to disclose the fee arrangement for legal services before pressing the heir to sign the release, failing to fulfill his duties to an heir as counsel for the estate, and failing to provide the heir with an inventory or accounting in a timely and meaningful manner. The Hearing Panel determined that three aggravating factors and only one mitigating factor applied.
The Board asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to enter an order of enforcement incorporating the Hearing Panel’s decision. Exercising its authority under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 15.4, the Court instead issued an order proposing to increase Mr. Hickman’s punishment. Based on its review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the Court concluded that the punishment imposed by the Hearing Panel was inconsistent with the serious nature of Mr. Hickman’s conduct and the discipline imposed in similar cases. The Court therefore increased the length of Mr. Hickman’s active suspension.
To read the Court’s unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sarah K. Campbell, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.