Panel prescribes sanction against John Jay Hooker

Appeal likely as perennial candidate and litigious legend plots next move

Email | Print By Milt Capps

John Jay Hooker

NashvillePost.com has learned that a panel of lawyers convened at the request of the Tennessee Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility has decided that lawyer and would-be reformer John Jay Hooker should receive "a public censure."

Both Hooker and the governing board of the BPR, itself, may appeal the ad hoc panel's order of censure against Hooker during the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, the panel's vote to rap Hooker's knuckles may have stoked the fire in Hooker's belly.

Hooker told NashvillePost.com this morning he plans "forthwith" to protest the BPR's censure via Davidson County Chancery Court.

Reached this afternoon by NashvillePost.com, BPR Disciplinary Counsel Sandy Garrett declined comment. She said had not yet thoroughly reviewed the panel's ruling and BPR board members have not yet been canvassed to determine whether they will validate or appeal the result.

On Nov. 30, Garrett recommended to the hearing panel a tougher suspension of Hooker's law license for not less than 30 days and not more than two years.

Given the nature of the dispute, if either side appeals in Chancery Court, the Tennessee Supreme Court will be obliged to appoint a special judge to hear the matter.

Hooker vowed this morning, "I'm sticking to my guns, I'm not backing up, and whatever happens happens."

During an interview, Hooker indicated he was appalled that the panel took no new evidence in the course of sanctioning him, but relied only upon what he termed "naked allegations," and ignoring the fact that the judges he criticized failed to refute the charges he directed their way.

Hooker said he believes the dispute will eventually oblige Gov. Phil Bredesen to select a special Supreme Court to hear his case. He explained that current TSC justices should recuse themselves from hearing the matter, because they are also, by his rationale, party to the ligitation.

Some influential Tennessean clearly share Hooker's views regarding the need to consider judicial and-or constitutional reform.

For example, Attorney Jim Neal of Neal and Harwell recently told NashvillePost.com that while he does not object to yes-or-no uncontested "retention" election of judges, "that's not the way I read the Constitution." Also, as previously reported, attorney Mac Davis and former Gov. Winfield Dunn are also among those who say they want a fresh look at the way Tennesseans elect judges.

The BPR ruling signed by the BPR panelists Friday places no new burdens upon Hooker, who, as a result of earlier court efforts to screen-out "frivolous" lawsuits he might file, is required to submit proposed lawsuits to special review.

The BPR decision came three years after Circuit Court Judge Walter Kurtz called for sanctions against the attorney for alleged unprofessional conduct.

The General Assembly is expected to conduct its own review of the Tennessee Plan. The Plan is due to "sunset" in 2008. Debate of sunsetting the Plan was deferred earlier this year, when lawmakers voted a one-year reauthorization.