Cunningham is using Bush's playbook.

Robert is still on the Blount GOP speed dial, eh?

For those who might be interested:

I called Bob Wilson on the phone following reading the account in the KNS. He had called me earlier but said he would call me back but I never was able to communicate with him concerning my side of the story until after Bob has submitted the web article.

I explained to Bob that the ethical distinction of Monceret v. TN Board of Professional Responsibility lies in the fact that Cunningham was served in Wright v. Wright, not Wright v. Cunningham. Mr. Cope had apparently not advised Bob of that crucial distinction. If I were to issue a subpoena to Cunningham in Wright v. Cunningham without Mr. Cope's knowledge, I would be concerned. Of course, that would never intentionally occur in my law practice.

And, Jon Cope had not entered an appearance on behalf of Jerry Cunningham in Wright v. Wright when Cunningham was served and I only understood that Cope was representing Cunningham in Wright v. Wright after Cunningham was served on June 19.

Both reporters with whom this matter has been discussed have be advised of the disciplinary rule that was cited in Monceret. The Disciplinary Rule cited in Monceret reads as follows:

"DR 7-104. Communicating with One of Adverse Interest. - (A) During the course of a lawyer's representation of a client a lawyer shall not:

(1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized to do so."

The key words that I communicated were "in that matter." Wright v. Cunningham and Wright vs. Wright are separate matters and serving a subpoena in different litigation is not an ethical violation. Wright v. Wright and Wright v. Cunningham-for the most part-have different legal and factual issues.

All my best. Seems as if the news report by Bob Wilson generated considerable interest and, indeed, the comments taken from Kathy Wright's response to Jon Cope's motion as cited by Bob were taken out of context.

TFM

Thomas F. Mabry
P. O. Box 52385
Knoxville, TN 37950

Fax 1-888-215-3119
Phone 1-865-671-0598

I wasn't aware of a rule that said plaintiff's attorneys are supposed to be mind readers or look up in some non-existent directory who is representing who.

Thanks for the heads up. Next time I get a subpoena, I'll tell them to talk to my lawyer, and wish them good luck finding out who he/she is.

Of course, it would probably help if the Blount County courts were "MY" courts, and the judges were "MY" judges.

Although at this point, I'm not sure I'd want to claim them as "mine."

(link...)

This new article is far more detailed. I still have to wonder if Wilson gets paid twice for this kind of confusing reporting.