Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Board of Professional Responsibility

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1996No. 02S01-9503-CH-00031PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

The issue raised by this appeal is whether the petitioner, a disbarred attorney, has satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of his license to practice law contained in Rule 9, § 19.3, Rules of the Supreme Court, by clear and convincing proof. A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility concluded that the petitioner had failed to carry the burden of proof for reinstatement. The Chancery Court, however, reviewed the Hearing Panel decision and held the petitioner was entitled to “conditional reinstatement” of his license to practice law.

After…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re MurphyTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Henry v. Board of Professional ResponsibilityTennessee Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Dennis J. Hughes v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. SlavinTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re the Reinstatement of WiederholtAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Welch v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Board of Professional Responsibility of The Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Loring Edwin JusticeTennessee Supreme Court · 2019

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API