Elliott J. Schuchardt v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

The issues before the Court are as follows:

1. Does Tennessee violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing the prosecutor to choose its own judge in attorney ethics cases?

2. Does Tennessee violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by refusing to hold a hearing on material issues of fact in attorney ethics cases? The issue in this case is whether Tennessee provides a neutral judge in attorney ethics cases. Tennessee investigates and prosecutes ethics cases against lawyers by means of a Board of Professional Responsibility. Cases are heard by a panel of three lawyers. Until 2016, the clerk of the Board selected the hearing panel by means of a rotating system of possible participants. In 2016, Tennessee changed the law. Panel members are now chosen by the party prosecuting the case — the chairman of the Board of Professional Responsibility. The chair does so with the assistance of opposing counsel on this case. Tennessee’s system does not comply with the holdings of this Court. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), this Court said that a party to a lawsuit cannot have a “significant and disproportionate influence” in choosing the judge.