Supreme Court agency rejects Hooker decision

BPR seeks Chancery intervention, asserts disciplinary panel has 'abused its discretion'

Email | Print By Milt Capps

John Jay Hooker (Photo by Susan Adcock)

Declaring that it is "aggrieved," the Tennessee Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility has petitioned Davidson County Chancery Court to review the decision of a disciplinary panel appointed by – well, the BPR itself.

The 12-person BPR argues that in opting for "public censure" of Hooker, the panel's judgment was "arbitrary, capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

In the complaint filed Jan. 30 by BPR Disciplinary Counsel Sandy Garrett, the BPR asks Chancery Court to review the disciplinary panel's decision to impose on Hooker punishment lighter than the license suspension Garrett had recommended.

Defendant Hooker also has appealed, saying that the panel's vote of censure is uncalled for and that his criticism of the state's appellate judges for serving without contested popular elections, in keeping with the Tennessee Plan for judicial selection, is unconstitutional.

Reached by NashvillePost.com this afternoon, attorney Joe Looney, who chaired the three-lawyer disciplinary panel, said he knew nothing of either the BPR or Hooker appeals.

Looney declined to comment in detail on the panel's deliberations, but said "we did reach a unanimous decision." He added that if the Hooker case goes to higher courts, "I have a lot of confidence in the judiciary, and they'll do the right thing if we didn't do the right thing."

Both the BPR and Hooker appeals are set for a hearing before Chancellor Richard Dinkins, later this month, but both parties have invoked court rules that require Chief Justice William Barker to assign a special judge to hear the matter. At the same time, Hooker has signalled his intent to press for Chief Justice Barker also to recuse himself, thereby potentially forcing Gov. Phil Bredesen to appoint a special judge.