Thread by @BoozyBadger, Hey, an interesting disciplinary opinion! I wonder what.....oh......oh no. Mr. Sitton was [...]

Hey, an interesting disciplinary opinion! I wonder what...

..oh...

...oh no.

Mr. Sitton was a social media savvy attorney, a crusader for truth and justice and a friend to the downtrodden and afraid.

Then he decided "Fuck this whole lawyer thing, I'M GONNA BE THE PUNISHER WITH A JD."

You know those "This is not legal advice" disclaimers every lawyer gives online?

This guy thought about it, and then said "Fuck that. I'm going to make sure this person knows I am advising her -as an attorney - to kill someone."

And this is when the sole person who had a lick of social media sense entered the chat, hit someone with a chair, and left while the announcer was still yelling "OH MY GOD!"

Surprisingly, the person whose death was being advised by an attorney on Facebook felt the need to involve the authorities when he fount out an attorney was advising his ex (who, to be fair, he allegedly abused) to just flat out lure him into her home so she could shoot him.

HOWEVER Sitton defended himself by alleging that he wasn't actually providing serious legal advice! I mean, how could anyone think he was providing SERIOUS LEGAL ADVICE ADVOCATING HOMICIDE?

Oh. Yeah.

The "As an attorney" thing.

Of course, the quality of legal advice is telling based on the fact he tried to exclude the Facebook posts, was told "Well, raise your objection to them in the hearing" and then...didn't raise the objection in the hearing - allowing the evidence he wanted out in without a fight.

Also, I am a little concerned about the legal strategy of "Accept my guilty plea with the conditions I want, please? No? THEN RECUSE THEYSELF, DISCIPLINARY PANEL!"

...OKAY SO THIS WAS A "FACEBOOK ONLY FRIEND"? Not, like, a REAL LIFE friend?

1. Who advises a Facebook only friend "Murder your partner"?

2. W...why can he testify about this internet person's life in such detail?

Ah, yes, the fabled "It's only a joke, bro, relax" argument.

First recognized in "Edgy Dick v. Good Taste," 122 U.S. 528 (1995).

Let's take a moment and recognize that Mr. Sitton:

1. Advised someone to kill a person
2. Testified about this person's life in detail despite never meeting them
3. Did so out of a desire to "help them" because of their obvious "connection."

...Gaze upon the field of red flags.

Imagine that.

"Kill A Person" McGee's testimony was "erratic and contradictory.

Shocked. This is my shocked face.

...Maybe don't tell the ethics panel that you think you were in the right for the conduct that got you called in front of the ethics panel in the first place.

"SURE I ADVOCATED LURING SOMEONE TO THEIR DEATH! But you got to give it to me, the legal content of my advice was SPOT ON!"

Verdict: Advising someone on HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 60 day suspension.

BUT BY GOD, WHAT'S THIS? IT'S THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT WITH A FOLDING CHAIR FROM THE TOP ROPE!

Sitton: "Why would any lawyer ever seriously advise someone on how to kill somebody on Facebook!"

Tennessee Supreme Court: "YEAH. WHY WOULD SOMEONE DO THAT?"

Tip: When neither you nor the disciplinary board appeal a punishment, and the Supreme Court looks at the Order and says "What? No, we need to talk about this," this is NOT a heading you want to see in their opinion.

NEITHER IS THIS ONE.

However, the Court found that the appropriate presumptive sanction was suspension. Not disbarment. Specifically because NOBODY DIED.

...BUT WAIT, MORE HEADINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE FOLLOW THAT!

Prior history of bad behavior? That's an increase in paddlins'

Advising people to destroy evidence? That's an increase in paddlins'

Failure to express remorse and responsibility for ADVISING HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER ON FACEBOOK? OH YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT'S AN INCREASE IN PADDLINS'!

Now on to the mitigating factors considered by the Court.

That was quick.

You know that scene in Mulan? Dishonor on you, Dishonor on your family, Dishonor on your cow?

Here's the legal version of that.

BUT Sitton had a MINIMAL history of past discipline and, well, this was the ONLY TIME he'd PUBLICLY advised someone how to get away with LURING A PERSON TO THEIR DEATH.

FINAL VERDICT: 4 year suspension from the practice of law. 1 year active suspension, remainder on probation.

Here's the opinion:
https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/in_rewinstonbranshawsitton.opn_.pdf

WAIT WE’RE NOT DONE YET.

SOMEONE POINTED ME TO THIS RESPONSE A COUPLE DAYS AGO FROM MR. SITTON.

AH SEE, IT WAS ALL A CONSPIRACY MEANT TO PUNISH MR. SITTON FOR PROTESTING TAXES.

ALSO, THE PANEL WERE HANDSELECTED LIBERALS WITH AN INTENT TO IMPUGN HIM.

I’M SURE THIS WILL NOT COME BACK TO HAUNT HIM.

Latest Threads Unrolled: