arm  if??
Hi!?  
2' 3mm 11? ?int?!

IN THE DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT 2.3

BOARD or PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ?ns-in} er 
or steam

SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 
Witt- are 

 

 

 

RE: STEPHEN P. JONES, BPR #16764 DOCKET NO. 
Respondent, an Attorney Licensed
to Practice Law in Tennessee
(Shelby County)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Respondent Stephen P. Jones (?Mr Jones?) ?les this motion for summary judgment,
pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.02,1 and requests that the Hearing Panel enter judgment as a
matter of law in his favor and dismiss the Amended Petition for Discipline against him in its
entirety. Mr. Jones seeks this relief because as is demonstrated in the accompanying Statement
of Undisputed Material Pacts and the contemporaneously submitted Memorandum of
Law in Supportof the Motion For Summary Judgment, there ?is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that [Mr. Jones] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.? Tenn. R. Civ. P.
56.04.

The undisputed material facts demonstrate that 1) that Mr. ones? inadvertent error with
respect to turning over the third ?statement? of Andrew l-lammack is not a violation of Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.8(d) justifying discipline of any type; (2) that Mr. Jones did not ?knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal? as is required to prove a violation of Tenn.

Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC and (3) that Mr. Jones did not engage in any conduct that was

 

1 Unless otherwise provided to the contrary in a portion of Rule 9 itself, the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure ?apply in disciplinary ease proceedings before a hearing panel.?
Section 34.3(a) of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, 

?prejudicial to the administration of justice? so as to be a disciplinable violation of Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 8, RFC Further, as a matter of law, the Hearing Panel should treat the conclusions
of the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding the unintentional nature of Mr. Jones? conduct,
informed as it was by the conclusions drawn by the jurist best positioned to resolve the question
of intent, the trial court judge, and the fact that no member of the Tennessee Supreme Court took
any action against Mr. Jones under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10, RPC 2.15 as being of preclusive,
binding effect as to the Hearing Panel?s consideration of this matter.

In support of this motion, in addition to the SUMF and the supporting memorandum of
law being filed with the Board, Mr. Jones also relies upon the entire transcript of his June 21,
2016 deposition taken in this matter which is being separately filed as part of the record in this
matter, and the three items attached as Exhibits to this motion, including the Declaration of Chris

Craft Pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 72.

Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS THOMASON

  

 

 

   

Bra? 8. Faughm QBPR #19379)
40 South Main Street, 29? Floor
Memphis, Tennessee 38103-5529
(901) 577?6139

(901) 525-6722 (fax)
bfaughnan@lewisthomason.com

Attorney for Respondent Stephen P. Jones

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certi?es that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary
Judgment has been served upon Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel Krisann Hodges, Esq., by
email and by regular US. Mail postage prepaid, at 10 Cadillac Drive, Suite 220, Brentwood,
Tennessee 37027 on this the?h day of August 2016.