In re: William M. Tackett, Respondent

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion

Case Style: In re: William M. Tackett, Respondent Case Number: SC86522 Handdown Date: 04/14/2005 Appeal From: Original Disciplinary Proceeding Counsel for Appellant: Maridee F. Edwards and Carl E. Schaeperkoetter Counsel for Respondent: Edward D. Robertson, Jr. Opinion Summary: The chief disciplinary counsel seeks discipline for attorney William M. Tackett for his conduct relating to two judges. REPRIMAND ORDERED. Court en banc holds: The evidence shows that Tackett violated Rule 4-3.5, prohibiting improper ex parte communications, and Rule 4-8.2(a), prohibiting statements concerning the integrity of a judge the lawyer knows to be false or has reckless disregard as to the statements' truth or falsity. The evidence does not support, however, a finding of intentional misrepresentation or falsehood by Tackett. A reprimand is proper in light of all the aggravating and mitigating factors. Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: REPRIMAND ORDERED. White, C.J., Wolff, Stith and Teitelman, JJ., and Draper, Shaw and Quigless, Sp.JJ., concur. Price, Limbaugh and Russell, JJ., not participating. Opinion:

The chief disciplinary counsel seeks discipline for William M. Tackett's conduct relating to an ex parte communication with one judge and, in an unrelated matter, his questioning of the integrity of a different judge. The parties have submitted the case based principally on a stipulation of facts as supplemented by additional testimony taken before a disciplinary hearing panel. Upon de novo review of the stipulated facts and other record evidence, and after hearing argument from the parties, this Court finds that the stipulated facts and other record evidence do not support a finding of intentional misrepresentation or falsehood by William M. Tackett. The stipulated facts and other record evidence do show that Mr. Tackett violated: (1) Rule 4-3.5 (prohibiting improper ex parte communications) and (2) Rule 4-8.2(a) (prohibiting statements concerning the integrity of a judge the lawyer knows to be false or has reckless disregard as to the statements' truth or falsity). Considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors with respect to the proper discipline, including the absence of any prior violations by Mr. Tackett, his cooperation with disciplinary authorities, his admission that the conduct was improper, and his willingness to accept sanctions, this Court determines that Mr. Tackett should be, and he is hereby, reprimanded. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.