Tenn. Att. Publicly Censured For Rule 4.2 Violation.pdf

Okay, let's tackle this query. The user wants a detailed but concise summary of a disciplinary case in Tennessee. The original text is about Karl Emmanuel Pulley being publicly censured for violating Rule 4.2 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

First, I need to make sure I understand the key points. The respondent is an attorney in Davidson County. The complaint was filed alleging misconduct. The Board of Professional Responsibility met on December 9, 2016, under Rule 9. The issue is that he met with a co-defendant without informing or getting permission from their other attorney. This is a violation of Rule 4.2, which deals with communication with represented persons. The consequence is public censure.

Now, the user specified that the summary should be in English, concise but detailed, without any titles or markers. I need to start directly with the content. Let me check the original text again for accuracy. The case is IN RE: Karl Emmanuel Pulley, BPR No. 12761, File No. 463400-5-18. The main violation is Rule 4.2, and the action taken is public censure.

I should structure the summary to include the case name, the action taken, the violation, and the reason. Make sure to mention the specific rule and the act of communicating with a co-defendant without permission. Also, note the date of the Board's meeting. Avoid any extra information not in the original. Keep it straightforward. Let me verify that I'm not adding any extra details. The original doesn't mention any other rules or additional context, so stick to that. Ensure that the summary is clear and to the point, as per the user's instructions.

IN RE: KARL EMMANUEL PULLEY, BPR NO. 12761
FILE NO. 463400—5-18

The Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Karl Emmanuel Pulley, a licensed attorney in Davidson County, for violating Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (communication with a person represented by counsel). The violation occurred while representing a defendant in a criminal case, when Pulley met with and obtained a statement from a co-defendant represented by another attorney without first notifying or seeking permission from that attorney. This unauthorized communication with a co-defendant’s counsel constitutes a breach of the rule requiring attorneys to obtain consent before discussing matters involving a client’s representation. The public censure follows the Board’s review of the complaint under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, convened on December 9, 2016.