WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* , v~ Bv D3} 0@ AO? 0D D/I Bx~| 3|x($ DDDDDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial " !  #d#  ""   YYY FILED"X April3,1996CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@ dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#        \RA'\7_XXdd7L!# ;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION SANDRAK.LEWISandhusband, )C/ANO.03A019510CV00369CARLTONLEWIS,    )      )BLEDSOELAW PlaintiffsAppellees, )      )HON.J.CURTISSMITH,v.      )JUDGE      )JASONM.PENDERGRASSand  )R.EUGENEPENDERGRASS,  )REVERSED      )AND DefendantsAppellants. )REMANDEDHOWARDL.UPCHURCH,Pikeville,forPlaintiffsAppellees.LYNNED.SWAFFORD,SWAFFORD&SWAFFORD,Pikeville,forDefendantsAppellants.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Thedeterminativeissueonappealasframedbytheappellantsis:0 0 [Whether]thedefendantsweredeprivedofafairandimpartialjurybecauseofJurorRankinsfailuretorespondtruthfullyonvoirdirandfurther,becauseJurorRankinandplaintiffscounselbothfailedtorevealarecentattorney/clientrelationshipandanupcomingtrialwhereinplaintiffscounselwouldbeacrucialwitnessonbehalfofJurorRankin.  Inthisactionwhichresultedinajuryverdictfortheplaintiffs,defendantscounsel,whenconductingthevoirϜdire,askedoftheprospectivejurors:0 0 Haveanyofyou,ladiesandgentlemen,everbeenrepresentedbyMr.Upchurchorhisassociate,oremployee,EddieBoring?HarryLeeRankin,amemberofthepanel,remainedsilent,andservedasamemberofthetrialjury.  Thisissuewasraisedinamotionforanewtrial,andtheTrialJudgesubpoenaedRankinwhotestifiedthathedidnotremembertheattorneyaskingwhetherplaintiffsattorneyhadeverrepresentedhim.TheTrialJudgeoverruledthemotionanddefendantsappealed.  AswenotedinTennesseeFarmersMutualInsuranceCompanyv.Greer,682S.W.2d920(Tenn.App.1984),therearetwobroadclassesofcausesforthechallengeofajuror:Propterdefectumandpropteraffectum.Thelatterclassisgroundsforchallengebasedonsomebiasorpartialityeitheractuallyshowntoexistorpresumedtoexistfromcircumstances,andastheGreercourtobserved,thewithholdingofinformationamountstofalseswearingandraisesthepresumptionofbiasandpartiality.Id.924.  However,theappelleescounterthatamerepresumptioniscreatedandthattherecordrebutsthepresumption.Itisfurtherarguedthattherelationshipbetweenthejurorandplaintiffsattorney wasapastrelationshipandnothingmore.ϜItdidnotrisetothelevelofbeinginherentlyorpresumptiveprejudicial. Wecannotagree.  ThisactionwastriedonOctober6,1994.OnDecember3,1993,plaintiffscounselfiledananswerandcrosscomplaintonbehalfofJurorRankininanactionbroughtagainstRankininBledsoeCounty.AmongtheissuesinthatcasewaswhetherRankinsattorney,Upchurch,hadimproperlynotarizedthegrantorssignaturestoadeedwhereinRankinwasgrantee.InMayof1994,plaintiffscounseltestifiedbydepositioninJurorRankinslawsuit,andwhilenoorderwasentered,theattorneysaffidavitstatesthatonApril13,1994,duringdiscoverydepositionsintheChancerylitigation, itbecameapparentthatIcouldnotfurtherrepresentMr.Rankininthatcase.SoonthereafterIwithdrewfromthecase....   OfficersoftheCourtarerequiredto revealpromptlytotheCourtimproperconductbyavenirepersonorjuror... TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,DR7108(g).Inthisaction,neithertheprospectivejurornorplaintiffsattorneyrevealedtheirattorney/clientrelationshiptotheCourt.TheMississippiSupremeCourtinthecaseofMarshallDurbin,Inc.,v.Tew,381S.2d152(MS.1980),indealingwithalikeissuesaid:0 0 Alawyersdutiesarenotconfinedalonetoservinghisclients.Heisanofficerofthecourtandassuchiscalledontodoandsaywhateverisnecessarytopromotethefairadministrationofjustice.Mr.Lewisshouldhavecalledtothecourtsandopposingcounselsattention,hisrelationshipwiththejuror....Inordertoavoidanysuggestionofimpropriety,counselshouldalwaysdiscloseandbringtotheattentionofthecourtandopposingcounsel,thistypeofrelationshipwithprospectivejurors.Id.at1545.InordertoresolvethisissuethetotalityoftheϜcircumstances,notthejurorsselfservingclaimoflackofpartialityalone,istobeconsidered.  Wedonotbelievethepresumptioncreatedbythefalseswearingofthejurorwasovercome.Thisjurorhadbeenrepresentedbyplaintiffscounseluntiljustafewmonthsbeforethistrial,andhadanongoingrelationshipwithplaintiffscounselinthatplaintiffscounselwouldbeawitnessonJurorRankinsbehalfintheChanceryCourtproceeding.However,thereisamorecompellinggroundtograntdefendantsanewtrial.Plaintiffscounsel,aswellastheprospectivejuror,hadadutytorevealtotheCourtandadversarycounselthisrelationship.PlaintiffscounselcouldhaveavoidedallofthisbydischarginghisdutytotheCourt.Moreover,theappearancealoneisprejudicialtothejudicialprocess.SeeRule36,T.R.A.P.FortheforegoingreasonswereversetheTrialCourtandremandforanewtrial.  Wepretermittheremainingissuesandassessthecostoftheappealtoappellees.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sp.J.