Nashville, Tenn. - The Tennessee Supreme Court today affirmed the suspension of a Davidson County attorney for his disclosure of confidential client communications in violation of the ethics rules for lawyers.
The violations stemmed from attorney James B. Johnson’s representation of a client in a divorce proceeding in Shelby County beginning in February of 2021. He and his client began to have disagreements almost immediately regarding his performance and decisions. Mr. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw from representation in March of 2021 alleging that his client was refusing to follow his advice and was berating him through emails. In support of that motion, Mr. Johnson attached a collection of emails between him and his client that discussed the scope of his representation, his legal opinions and advice, his client’s position on matters at issue in the case, threats by Mr. Johnson to withhold his services, and personal insults between the two.
His client filed a complaint with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, which handles attorney disciplinary matters. After Mr. Johnson refused to accept a public censure as punishment, the Board filed a formal disciplinary petition alleging that Mr. Johnson had violated certain Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct when he publicly disclosed the confidential communications between him and his client without her permission.
A three-attorney panel conducted a hearing on the Board’s petition and ruled that Mr. Johnson knowingly disclosed confidential client information. It then suspended him from the practice of law for three months, with thirty days served as an active suspension, and required him to complete six additional continuing legal education hours in addition to those already required of Tennessee attorneys. Mr. Johnson appealed this decision to the Davidson County Circuit Court, which affirmed the sanctions despite finding fault with portions of the hearing panel’s judgment.
Mr. Johnson then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court arguing that his unethical disclosure of confidential client information was merely negligent, rather than knowing, and that his sanctions should be reduced. The Court affirmed the hearing panel and trial court’s judgments, concluding that the hearing panel’s determinations of the appropriate sanctions were supported by substantial and material evidence. The opinion reiterated that attorney-client confidentiality is a foundational principle of the practice of law and that Tennessee attorneys must protect confidential client information when moving to withdraw from representation.
To read the unanimous opinion in Johnson v. BPR, authored by Justice Dwight E. Tarwater, go to the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.