## Facts

- Yarboro Sallee, a Tennessee attorney, was retained by Frances Rodgers and Vearl Bible to investigate and potentially pursue a wrongful death claim arising from their daughter Lori Noll’s death.
- At the initial meeting, Sallee did not provide clear fee terms beyond stating she would not charge if the investigation revealed nothing suspicious; no written fee agreement was executed at the outset despite substantial funds being advanced.
- Sallee later billed aggressively, claiming more than $140,000 for roughly three months of work and approximately 493 hours, including time the hearing panel found questionable (e.g., attorney-rate billing for television viewing, administrative tasks, and waiting time) and undisclosed premium billing practices (e.g., time-and-a-half for after-hours work).
- When the clients requested an acceptable written fee agreement, Sallee presented revised versions that changed terms and warned she would withdraw if they did not sign; the clients discharged her.
- After discharge, Sallee refused to provide the complete client file, including materials deemed important to the clients’ interests, asserting a large unpaid fee balance.
- Sallee sent communications to the clients’ new lawyer threatening criminal prosecution of the former clients in connection with the fee dispute.
- The clients filed a disciplinary complaint with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial and material evidence supported the hearing panel’s findings that Sallee violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 4.4, and 8.4.
2. Whether the one-year suspension imposed by the hearing panel was an appropriate sanction under Tennessee disciplinary standards.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment, which had affirmed the hearing panel’s decision.
- The Court held that substantial and material evidence supported findings that Sallee violated:
  - Rule 1.4 (failure to adequately communicate fee basis and keep clients informed),
  - Rule 1.5 (clearly excessive fees and improper billing practices),
  - Rule 1.16 (failure to protect client interests upon termination by withholding the file),
  - Rule 4.4 (using means with no substantial purpose other than to burden or intimidate, including threats of criminal prosecution in a fee dispute), and
  - Rule 8.4 (professional misconduct based on the collective course of conduct).
- The Court upheld the one-year suspension as proportionate and supported by the record, applying disciplinary standards that defer to the hearing panel on factual and credibility determinations while independently reviewing the sanction.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline, reviewing courts defer to the hearing panel’s factual findings and credibility determinations if supported by substantial and material evidence, while independently assessing the appropriateness of the sanction under governing standards.
- Rule 1.4 requires sufficient communication, including explaining fee terms and other matters necessary for clients to make informed decisions about the representation.
- Rule 1.5 prohibits clearly excessive fees; billing practices and charges must bear a reasonable relationship to the value and nature of the services and should not rely on undisclosed rate premiums or questionable time entries.
- Rule 1.16(d) requires a lawyer, upon termination, to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests, including surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled; withholding the file to pressure payment violates that duty.
- Rule 4.4(a) prohibits tactics with no substantial purpose other than to burden or intimidate a third person; threatening criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a fee dispute can violate this rule.
- Rule 8.4 reaches conduct that, taken as a whole, constitutes professional misconduct, including conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court sustained findings that Sallee charged excessive and improperly disclosed fees, failed to communicate adequately, withheld the client file after discharge, and used improper threats in a fee dispute, and it affirmed a one-year suspension as an appropriate disciplinary sanction.


Sallee v. Tenn. Bd. of Pro. Resp., 469 S.W.3d 18 (Tenn. 2015)