DOUGLAS RALPH BEIER v. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE E2019-00463-SC-R3-BP

Attorneys: Jerry D. Morgan Sandra Jane Leach Garrett William C. Moody Pro Se: Douglas Ralph Beier Trial Court: Hamblen County Chancery Court Trial Judge: Robert E. Lee Davies Argument Type: Oral Argument This attorney-discipline matter arose from two separate cases for which Mr. Beier represented one of the parties. In the first case, the Board of Professional Responsibility alleged that Mr. Beier forged the signature on an affidavit and filed the document with the court. In the second case, regarding a probate matter, the Board alleged that Mr. Beier not only misrepresented who the heirs of the estate were, but he also misrepresented the value of the probate estate to pad his contingency fee. A hearing panel determined that Mr. Beier violated six separate Rules of Professional Conduct and that a two-year suspension, ninety days active suspension with the remainder on probation, was the appropriate sanction. Both Mr. Beier and the Board filed petitions for review of the hearing panel’s judgment in the Hamblen County Chancery Court. The chancery court determined that the hearing panel’s finding that Mr. Beier violated the rules was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial and material evidence. Additionally, the chancery court held that Mr. Beier’s two-year suspension was appropriate but that the entirety of the sanction should be served as an active suspension. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Beier argues that the findings and conclusions of both the hearing panel and the chancery court were arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, Mr. Beier argues that the hearing panel did not adequately weigh similar attorney discipline matters in determining the appropriate sanction and that the chancery court inappropriately modified the service of the suspension. The Board argues that the hearing panel’s determinations as to ethical violations were supported by substantial and material evidence and that the chancery court appropriately modified the sanction.