The opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FOR PUBLICATION
Filed: July 6, 1998
IN RE: GUY S. DAVIS ) No. 01S01-9801-BP-00006
)
) Board of Professional Responsibility
FILED
July 6, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
For Guy S. Davis For Board of Professional
Guy S. Davis, Pro Se Responsibility
P. O. Box 742 Sandy Garrett
Dyersburg, Tennessee 38025 Disciplinary Counsel
Nashville, Tennessee
OPINION
HELD IN CONTEMPT ANDERSON, C.J.
This matter is before the Court to determine whether the respondent, Guy S.
Davis, should be held in contempt for practicing law after the entry of a thirty-day
temporary suspension.
After consideration of the record and the arguments of the parties, we
conclude that Davis willfully and knowingly violated the order of temporary
suspension on one occasion. We therefore hold Davis in contempt and impose a
sentence of confinement for one day, suspended on the condition that he fully
comply with the rules and orders of this Court.
BACKGROUND
In October of 1996, Guy S. Davis, a practicing attorney, entered a conditional
guilty plea to two acts of disciplinary misconduct1 in exchange for a private
reprimand from the Board of Professional Responsibility. The private reprimand
contained several conditions:
1. That Davis receive an evaluation at Charter Lakeside, comply
with treatment and aftercare programs recommended by
the treatment center, and provide a copy of the treatment
center’s report and treatment plan to the BPR.
2. That Davis enter a contract with Lawyers Concerned for
Lawyers or Lawyers Helping Lawyers for 18 months,
with the contract to provide for reports to the BPR and at
least 12 drug tests.
3. That Davis have a monitor with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
who shall make quarterly reports to the BPR.
The private reprimand stated that a thirty-day temporary suspension would be
sought if Davis violated any of the conditions.
1
The incidents both involved physical altercations, one of which resulted in Davis’s conviction
for sim ple assa ult.
-2-
In April of 1997, the Board of Professional Responsibility, after determining
that Davis had violated these conditions, revoked the private reprimand and
requested this Court to enforce the thirty day suspension. This Court entered an
order on January 16, 1998, which stated that “the respondent’s conditional guilty
plea shall be enforced and the Respondent shall receive a thirty (30) day
suspension.”
Shortly after the entry of the order of temporary suspension, Disciplinary
Counsel learned that Davis represented clients in court in criminal cases on January
16, 20, 23, and 26. When notified of these allegations, Davis responded in writing
that he did not receive a copy of the suspension order until January 23, 1998.
When he was unable to reach disciplinary counsel by telephone that morning to ask
about the effective date of the suspension, he made a court appearance that
afternoon. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Davis again called disciplinary counsel and
this time was informed the effective date of the suspension was January 16, 1998.
Davis’s response to the Board conceded that he made an additional
appearance in the Lake County Circuit Court on January 26, 1998, despite the fact
he had learned from disciplinary counsel that his license had been temporarily
suspended. Davis’s written response explained:
there was no time to advise my clients nor arrange for
either of my two assistants to cover the court as both
were already scheduled to appear in other courts. I took
the chance I felt I needed to take, appeared and
practiced. Lake County Circuit court meets very
infrequently. A continuance and re-assignment of the
cases would have, in my opinion, caused my clients and
the court more problems than the problems I would have
if my appearance was questioned. I did not practice after
the morning of the 26th until the suspension had passed.
Based on the foregoing events and Davis’s admission, the Board filed a petition
asking that Davis be held in contempt for violating the temporary suspension order.
-3-
On May 18, 1998, we entered an order requiring Davis to appear before this
Court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Davis’s response
was essentially the same as contained in his letter to disciplinary counsel: that he
had not received a copy of the suspension order prior to appearing in court on
January 16 and 20, 1998; that he was uncertain as to the effective date of the
suspension prior to appearing in court on January 23, 1998; and that he knowingly
violated the suspension order by appearing in court on January 26, 1998, for the
reasons set forth in his letter.
After reviewing the record and responses of the parties, we conclude that the
court appearances prior to Davis’s receipt of the suspension order and knowledge
as to its effective date, do not establish knowing and willful violations of the
suspension order so as to amount to contemptuous conduct. In contrast, Davis’s
admissions indicate that his court appearance on January 26, 1998, constituted a
knowing and willful violation of the order of temporary suspension and, therefore,
warrant a finding of contempt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3)(1980 & Supp. 1997).
Although not providing a defense for this conduct, we are mindful of and
take into consideration the candor displayed by Mr. Davis both with disciplinary
counsel and this Court in making these admissions and in explaining the reasons for
his violation of the suspension order on January 26, 1998. Having held Guy S.
Davis in contempt of this Court, we therefore sentence him to one day of
imprisonment, suspended upon the condition that he fully complies with the rules
and orders of this Court.
Cost of this proceeding are taxed to Guy S. Davis, for which execution may
issue if necessary.
_____________________________
RILEY ANDERSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
-4-
CONCUR:
Drowota, Birch, Holder and Barker, JJ.
-5-