Partly yes, partly no. The court was right to make the lawyer pay the client back, but it was wrong to make her other punishments easier. The first group that hears a case, the 'hearing panel,' gets to see the witnesses and is the best judge of what punishment fits the crime. The next court can't just change the punishment because it disagrees. The only reason it could step in here was that the panel unfairly forgot to make the lawyer return money she didn't earn. Also, lawyers are always responsible for making sure their websites are truthful, even if they hire someone else to make them.

Yes, the lawyer broke important rules, and the punishment is fair. Reguli didn't answer her client's questions or explain things well. She kept money she didn't earn and didn't tell the truth on her website about being a specialist. She also didn't cooperate with the people investigating her. These are all big mistakes for a lawyer. The punishment of not being allowed to practice law for almost a year unless she follows special rules is right because she made several mistakes and has been in trouble before. She also has to pay back $7,800 to her client because that's fair. The way we decide if lawyers are following the rules is fair and follows the law.

Yes, in part. The trial court correctly modified the sanction to include restitution but erred in modifying the other terms of the suspension and probation. A trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of a hearing panel as to the weight of evidence or witness credibility. The panel, having heard the testimony directly, was uniquely positioned to determine the appropriate length of suspension and conditions of probation, including the need for a TLAP evaluation. However, the panel's failure to order restitution for the unearned fee was arbitrary given the clear financial harm to the client, and the trial court properly corrected this error. The court also affirmed the underlying violations, holding that an attorney is responsible for the content of their website, even if managed by a third party, and that language making a refund 'at the discretion of the firm' is insufficient to create a nonrefundable fee agreement under RPC 1.5(f).

Yes, the attorney violated multiple rules of professional conduct, and the imposed sanctions were appropriate. I affirm the hearing panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law because they are supported by substantial and material evidence. Reguli violated RPC 1.4(a)(4) and (b) by failing to respond to Castleman's requests for information and inadequately explaining the fee agreement. She violated RPC 1.16(d)(6) by failing to refund unearned fees, as the agreement did not provide for a nonrefundable fee. Reguli also violated RPC 1.5(f) by not clearly explaining in writing that the fee was nonrefundable. Her failure to provide an accounting to the Board violated RPC 8.1(b). The misrepresentation on her website violated RPC 7.4(b). These violations also constitute misconduct under RPC 8.4(a) and (d). I reinstate the panel's original sanction of an 11-month, 29-day suspension to be served on probation, with conditions including a TLAP evaluation and probation monitoring. This is consistent with sanctions in comparable cases. However, I add the requirement that Reguli pay $7,800 in restitution to Castleman for unearned fees. The preponderance of evidence standard and Tennessee's attorney discipline system are constitutional, contrary to Reguli's arguments.

Board of Professional Responsibility v. Reguli

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot