From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Skouteris v. Board of Professional Responsibility
Tennessee Supreme Court
2014 WL 686690 (2014)
George Skouteris (defendant), who had previously been disciplined for wrongfully withholding clients’ money, faced numerous disciplinary charges related to representing six clients in separate personal-injury matters. In each matter, Skouteris’s misconduct followed the same general pattern: Skouteris settled the matters and, without telling the clients, deposited the settlement checks; used the clients’ settlement funds for himself; habitually allowed the trust-account balance to fall below the amount owed to his clients and even into overdraft; and had no written contingency-fee agreements with his clients. When the disciplinary board (the board) (plaintiff) heard the complaints about Skouteris’s conduct, Skouteris offered a variety of excuses but did not take responsibility for his misconduct. The board found that Skouteris committed violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to maintain the necessary balance in the trust account to pay his obligations to his clients; providing incompetent representation; failing to disburse the clients’ settlement proceeds with diligence and promptness; failing to keep clients informed about their matters and respond to their requests for information; failing to have written contingency-fee agreements; failing to provide an itemized statement of the disbursal of the settlement funds; failing to keep one client’s funds separate from Skouteris’s own money; failing to cooperate with a former client’s new attorney; and failing to promptly respond to the board’s requests for information. The board applied the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, finding seven aggravating factors: Skouteris (1) acted dishonestly and selfishly, (2) had a pattern of misconduct, (3) committed multiple offenses and had been sanctioned twice already for withholding clients’ money, (4) refused to admit his wrongdoing, (5) victimized his clients, who depended on him, (6) was an experienced lawyer, and (7) was indifferent to repaying his clients. The board decided that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The trial court affirmed the board’s decision, and Skouteris appealed, arguing that the appropriate sanction was five years of suspension with three years served on probation.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.