The decision to disbar a Davidson County attorney for three criminal convictions has been upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The attorney’s actions were related to their representation of a client in post-divorce proceedings. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel made the initial decision to disbar the attorney, which was then upheld by the state’s highest court.
In Tennessee, Robert Allen Doll III was a family law attorney who had a client in 2013 that expressed concerns about her children’s safety during visitations with her ex-husband. To address this issue, an emergency petition was filed in the Williamson County domestic relations court. The petition included an oath that contained what appeared to be his client’s notarized signature, swearing to the facts in the petition. Mr. Doll, the client’s attorney, signed the petition, and it was notarized by a Davidson County notary. The judge granted the petition, which temporarily prevented the ex-husband from exercising his parenting time, and scheduled a hearing for the case.
During the first hearing, Mr. Doll was not present, but the client testified that she had not signed the petition. As a result, the judge terminated the restraining order and scheduled another hearing where Mr. Doll was requested to explain the signature. During the second hearing, Mr. Doll stated that his client was with him and reviewed the petition on the day it was signed. However, the judge informed Mr. Doll that he could potentially face criminal allegations due to the inconsistent testimony. In a subsequent hearing, the client testified that she went to Mr. Doll’s office and signed the petition.
Mr. Doll and his client were both indicted by the District Attorney General’s office. During Mr. Doll’s criminal trial, the client testified that the signature on the petition was not hers and that she had never visited Mr. Doll’s office to sign it. She further explained that Mr. Doll had instructed her to lie under oath before one of the hearings. The client admitted to perjury but claimed that Mr. Doll had never informed her of the consequences. As a result, the client faced two counts of aggravated perjury.
Mr. Doll faced conviction on two counts of subornation of aggravated perjury and one count of criminal simulation, all of which are Class E felony offenses and considered grave crimes under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. The reason behind his conviction was his act of making his client lie under oath and forging the client’s signature. In light of these charges, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Mr. Doll’s law license. Furthermore, the matter was referred to a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel, which will conduct a hearing to determine the level of final discipline that will be imposed.
During the hearing, Mr. Doll openly acknowledged his convictions and admitted that they were all connected to his conduct as a practicing attorney while representing his client in court. As a result of his serious criminal behavior, which included intentional obstruction of justice and failure to fulfill his duties as an attorney, the panel deemed disbarment as the appropriate disciplinary action. Mr. Doll appealed this decision to the Davidson County chancery court, which upheld the panel’s ruling.
When faced with a sanction, Mr. Doll chose to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. He believed that the hearing panel should have taken into account similar cases of attorney misconduct where a suspension was given, and that he deserved the same punishment. He also presented an alternative argument, suggesting that he should be suspended instead of being disbarred, under the Supreme Court’s review.
Mr. Doll’s arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court, which stated that the rules governing the attorney discipline process do not allow the Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panels or trial courts to consider similar cases of attorney misconduct when determining the appropriate disciplinary action. The Court also affirmed its authority to evaluate comparable attorney disciplinary cases, but found that no such case had convinced the Court that suspension was the suitable sanction for Mr. Doll.
Mr. Doll’s three felony convictions were taken into account by the Court, which recognized that the jury in the criminal case believed that Mr. Doll abused the trust his client had placed in him. The jury found that he pressured her into giving false testimony in court to protect himself from the consequences of his actions. The Court agreed with the panel that Mr. Doll’s behavior strikes at the core of the judicial system and cannot be downplayed. As a result, the Court ordered that Mr. Doll be disbarred from practicing law in Tennessee.
