Walker v. The Board Of Professional Responsibility Of The Supreme Court Of Tennessee

38 S.W. 3d 540 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D placed an advertisement for divorce services in the Chattanooga News Free Press TV Magazine. The ad states in its entirety: 'DIVORCE, BOTH PARTIES SIGN, $ 125 + COST, NO EXTRA CHARGES, Ted Walker, [address & telephone number].' P filed a complaint against D alleging that this advertisement listed divorce as a specific area of practice but did not include the disclaimer required by DR 2-101(C) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. DR 2-101(C) provides: A lawyer who publishes or broadcasts a communication with regard to any area of law in which the lawyer practices shall: . . . (3) if the lawyer has not been certified as a specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization in an advertised area in which certification is available, state with respect to each such area, 'Not certified as a (area of practice) specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.' D argued that his advertisement fully complied with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. D agreed to change his advertisement to add the required disclaimer. P issued an Informal Admonition and D sent a letter to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel asking that the proposed discipline be vacated and that a formal proceeding be initiated. P filed a petition for discipline. P filed a 'Supplemental Petition for Discipline' for D's running of two more ads. The TV guide ad stated: 'DIVORCE, BOTH PARTIES SIGN, $ 90.00 + COURT COSTS $ 89.50, No 'Extra' Charges, TED WALKER, [phone number], Not certified as a specialist by the TN Commission on Certification and Specialization.' The second ad in the Business Directory Section did not contain the 'not certified' statement. D alleged that the ad in the TV Guide did not use 'the precise language required by the Tennessee Supreme Court in quotation marks within Tenn. R. S.Ct. 8, DR 2-101(C), with no variations or abbreviations, an interpretation adopted by the Board in Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 95-F-137.' D entered a 'no contest plea' to both the Petition for Discipline and the Supplemental Petition for Discipline. D was privately reprimanded. D appealed.