The opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FOR PUBLICATION
Filed: March 16, 1998
IN RE: FRANCIS E. DICHTEL ) BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
) RESPONSIBILITY
)
) NO. 01S01-9506-BP-00101
FILED
March 16, 1998
For Francis E. Dichtel: For Board of Professional
Responsibility: Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
Francis E. Dichtel, Pro Se Sandra Leach Garrett
Memphis, Tennessee Nashville, Tennessee
OPINION
HELD IN CONTEMPT ANDERSON, C.J.
This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed in this
Court by the Board of Professional Responsibility against Francis E. Dichtel.
The petition alleged that Dichtel violated an order of suspension previously
entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, which
requires that suspended attorneys notify clients of the suspension, withdraw from
pending cases, and refrain from accepting new cases.
After consideration of the entire record and oral argument, this
Court found that the petition was well-taken. We therefore held Francis Dichtel
in contempt of this Court and entered a judgment on October 7, 1997,
sentencing him to serve ten days in jail with credit for time served at the time of
his arrest.
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 1996, pursuant to a petition filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility, this Court entered an order temporarily suspending
Francis Dichtel from the practice of law. The suspension was based upon a
finding that Dichtel was “improperly holding or has misappropriated client funds
and pose[d] a substantial threat of harm to the public.” At the time this order was
entered, a complaint against Dichtel alleging fourteen grounds for discipline was
pending before the Board.
On September 11, 1996, following a hearing on the complaint and
Dichtel’s appeal to the chancery court, we entered an “order of enforcement” that
suspended Dichtel’s license for one year and one month. The order was based
on the hearing panel’s findings of Dichtel’s numerous violations of ethical and
disciplinary rules, including failing to act competently and zealously on behalf of
-2-
certain clients, failing to return funds to certain clients, and co-mingling of trust
funds.
On April 30, 1997, the Board filed this petition for order of contempt
alleging that Dichtel violated the orders of temporary suspension by continuing to
represent clients and by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, §18. This
Supreme Court rule requires suspended attorneys to notify clients of the
suspension, withdraw from representation in pending cases, give notice to
adverse attorneys when clients have not found substitute counsel, refrain from
accepting new cases, and file an affidavit with the Court and the Board stating
that the attorney has complied with the Court’s order.
The Board’s petition for order of contempt was supported by court
documents and affidavits demonstrating that Dichtel represented clients and
accepted new cases after the April 29, 1996 order of temporary suspension.
These cases included:
C In June of 1996, Dichtel accepted a fee to file a
bankruptcy petition on behalf of Karl
Shumaker.
C In June and July of 1996, Dichtel continued to
represent the respondent in Dokes v. Dokes,
No. 26695-I, Shelby County Chancery Court.
C In July of 1996, Dichtel filed a bankruptcy
petition on behalf of Verlene Hill.
C In June of 1996, Dichtel accepted a fee to
represent Beneda Smith in a divorce
proceeding.
C In June of 1996, Dichtel accepted a fee to
represent Anita Norman in a divorce
proceeding.
C In June of 1996, Dichtel accepted a fee to
represent Terry Hugh William in a custody
case.
-3-
C In June of 1996, Dichtel wrote to M.C. Jackson
relative to his representation of Jackson in a
divorce proceeding, despite previously
informing Jackson of the order of suspension.
C In June of 1996, Dichtel filed a complaint for
divorce on behalf of Jody Chase in Chase v.
Chase, No. 152465, Shelby County Circuit
Court.
Exhibits and affidavits supporting each of these allegations were attached to the
Board’s petition.
This Court issued an order requiring Francis Dichtel to appear
before the Court on June 10, 1997, and to show cause why a contempt order
should not issue based on the above conduct. W hen Dichtel failed to appear,
this Court issued a capias requiring that Dichtel be taken into custody and post
bond for his appearance. Dichtel was taken into custody on June 26, 1997, and
later posted bond. A show cause hearing was set for October 7, 1997. Dichtel
failed to respond to the Board’s petition in writing, but personally appeared on
October 7, 1997, for the show cause hearing.
After consideration of the petition, Dichtel’s statement under oath,
the supporting documentation to the allegations of misconduct, including
affidavits and court pleadings, and argument of counsel, this Court found that
Dichtel had violated the orders of suspension previously entered by this Court by
failing to notify clients of his suspension, failing to withdraw from pending cases,
and failing to refrain from taking new cases. In short, the record showed that
Dichtel failed to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18. We therefore found
Dichtel in contempt of this Court and entered a judgment on October 7, 1997,
sentencing him to serve ten days imprisonment, with credit for time served at the
time of arrest. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102; see also In re Saperstein, 811
-4-
S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. 1991)(attorney found in contempt for continuing to represent
clients in violation of order of suspension and for non-compliance with Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18).
CONCLUSION
Having considered the petition for order of contempt against
Francis Dichtel filed by the Board of Professional Responsibility, his statement
under oath, supporting pleadings and exhibits, and argument of the parties, we
concluded that Dichtel violated this Court’s order of suspension by failing to
comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, and by continuing to represent clients.
We therefore held Francis Dichtel in contempt of this Court and sentenced him
to serve ten days imprisonment with credit for time served at the time of his
arrest.
Costs of this proceeding are taxed to Francis Dichtel, for which
execution may issue if necessary.
________________________________
RILEY ANDERSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
CONCUR:
Birch, Drowota, Reid, and Holder, JJ.
-5-