Legal Opinion

Doe v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 2003No. M2002-02076-SC-R23-CQPublishedCited by 85 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, we accepted certification of questions of law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. We are asked by the federal district court to construe Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether Richard Roe, a layperson (i.e., a non-attorney), may be charged with contempt for disclosing that he filed a complaint with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility against an attorney in violation of the confidentiality provision embodied in…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Owens v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. SimsTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. FlemmingTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Houghton v. Aramark Educational Resources, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Black v. BlountTennessee Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Sneed v. Board of Professional ResponsibilityTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital AuthorityTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Frazier v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of MemphisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2008
  5. State v. CroweTennessee Supreme Court · 2005

80 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