ÿWPCÍ \výW…rÁg“Æa­k¸œÓœ²„1Ì,)¨m]žÔÒg–ÆŒÅb¹pÆÅ#ð¦S“}Þw(…£tBü N#iN¹GñC’›2uT„ê˜SîðÑÍzM ööiã`›ºRr€äØühúPöÃÿBE¤jýcŽ?÷hTµ7¯Þ'«G:Q*0*JR¹`{@{=0?æ_VUšI!Ai£^ÿ™FœÄ’MÔãËe*ô=iö¤^‡¹yw»y”]Á~GÑZœýü±UVÉOQ5R°xîÎ÷Ú|‚ÕI=;ç±HO-ºÉ,ãJÜäøô.K4”=§^fã#—¥vAjÅï«an `mCÊ/tÈÉ.A¨Uåuíò¡£1ØÃ¹ÍäŽÞ"ƒÓÆ·BR„X¥UÃúf‡“uÊW{‚˜6úÝI¦ô0'¾~GjrF*qIÌˆÄ©Äæä¸‹ô`,„ïW:i3Á4Í{Rè軀]T®“dq½šg/8úÅùÆU+Pq¹á:­7"ÿÐy’}‰íñäŽÔ%0BŽâ¯ªí bQ ^ Y we 4i } Œ mŽ  ¥ 0~° 0D. Šr üüüE 0Ò 0æææ 0pêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêê BZZZZZZZZZ 0Vw˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular $‹Verdanaô\  `‹&Times New Roman- ù-¶j[1Ï 6hö0ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô U òXXÔFinnell€contends€that,€in€light€of€section€27.1,€ò òòòLackeyó óóó€is€no€longer€good€law.Ô#†X|†X òô Ue#Ô(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó SEILLERHANDMAKERL.L.P.Robilio COAHighersVorderBruegge LLP T]heD.R.E.violative InvsDistribBucknerpromote[sBuckmanarguendoFinnellIn Incv Ñ ° Ñ8JP ÿÿ6Block TextÓ ¼ ÓÓ L ÓÓ2(l ll` ¸ hÀpÈ x2ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó<\lÿÿ:documentbodyÔ‡ÛÛÛÔÔC‡ $‹VerdanaCÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ< ÿÿ:Body Text InÓ X ÓÓÓÓÓÓ X Ó d(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÞoXXXÔÔ‡¼ˆá»XXÞoÔÑ€ÑÑ8€|†XXdédÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ#†XÞoX»¼ˆá\#ÔÔ‡îwNîXXÞoÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†XÞoXîîwN#ÔÔ‡¼ˆá»XXÞoԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓJune€22,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ#†XÞoX»¼ˆá¨#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼ˆá»XXÞoÔSEILLER€&€HANDMAKER,€L.L.P.€€and€GLEN€COHEN€v.€KELLYÐ ï? ÐFINNELLòòóóÔ#†XÞoX»¼ˆá:#Ôó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuità0 @ à€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€306486TD€€€Kay€S.€Robilioà0 @ à,€JudgeÐ ä 4 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<·` AßÐ ¸  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„02593„COA„R3„CV€Ô_Ô„€Filed€October€27,€2004Ô_ÔÐ ±  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<„` AßÐ …Õ  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÔ#†X|†XXXÞo=#ÔÔ‡X|†XXX|†ÔÌThis€is€an€action€to€enroll€a€foreign€judgment.€€A€Tennessee€resident€was€represented€by€a€KentuckyÐ f¶ Ðlawyer€in€a€Kentucky€lawsuit.€€When€the€Kentucky€lawyer€pursued€collection€of€his€fees,€theÐ OŸ ÐTennessee€client€filed€a€bar€complaint€against€him€in€Kentucky.€€The€bar€complaint€was€dismissed,Ð 8ˆ Ðand€the€Kentucky€lawyer€filed€a€malicious€prosecution€lawsuit€in€Kentucky€against€the€client,€andÐ !q Ðobtained€a€judgment.€€In€this€action,€the€Kentucky€lawyer€seeks€to€enroll€the€Kentucky€judgmentÐ  Z Ðagainst€the€Tennessee€client.€€The€client€asserts€that€the€judgment€should€not€be€enrolled€inÐ óC ÐTennessee€because€it€falls€under€the€public€policy€exception€to€the€full€faith€and€credit€clause€ofÐ Ü, ÐUnited€States€Constitution.€The€client€bases€this€argument€on€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€9,Ð Å Ðsection€27.1,€which€prohibits€any€lawsuit€based€on€a€bar€complaint,€asserting€that€the€enrollment€ofÐ ®þ Ða€foreign€judgment€based€on€this€cause€of€action€would€violate€Tennessee€public€policy.€€The€trialÐ —ç Ðcourt€held€that€the€Kentucky€judgment€was€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€and€domesticated€theÐ €Ð Ðjudgment.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court,€finding€that€the€enrollment€of€the€foreignÐ i¹ Ðjudgment€does€not€violate€Tennessee€public€policy.Ð R¢ ÐÌÓäÓò òÑ€OaÑTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ $ t ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€Court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó€and€òòDavidÐ ÷!G! ÐR.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð à"0" ÐÌMark€Vorder€Bruegge,€Jr.€and€Scott€B.€Ô_ÔOstrowÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€KellyÐ ²$ $ ÐFinnell.Ð ›%ë % ÐÌÒ’°ÒÝ ƒ_½ÞÿÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ_½ÞÿÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÑ€ÑWendell€L.€Jones,€Louisville,€Kentucky,€for€the€appellees,€Seiller€&€Handmaker,€L.L.P.€and€GlenÐ m'½"' ÐCohen.Ð V(¦#( ÐÓ¶ ÓÓ  Óà ê àà B àà š àà ò àà J àà ¢ àÌò òà@&&'ÝàOPINIONó óˆÐ (*x%* ÐÌòòóóà ê àPlaintiff/Appellee€Glen€Cohen€(ð ðCohenðð)€is€a€Kentucky€attorney€associated€with€theÐ û+K', ÐKentucky€law€firm€Seiller€&€Handmaker€LLP.€€Cohen€and€his€law€firm€representedÐ ä,4(- ÐDefendant/Appellant€Kelly€Finnell€(ð ðFinnellðð),€a€Tennessee€resident€and€a€licensed€TennesseeÐ Í-). Ðattorney,€in€a€1993€Kentucky€lawsuit.€€After€a€successful€outcome,€a€dispute€arose€regarding€CohenððsÐ ° Ðlegal€fees,€totaling€$3,800,€and€Finnell€refused€to€pay.Ð ™é ÐÌà ê àIn€late€November€1997,€Cohen€filed€a€lawsuit€in€Kentucky€against€Finnell€for€collection€ofÐ k» Ðhis€attorneyððs€fees.€€In€early€December€1997,€Finnell€sent€Cohen€a€letter€demanding€that€CohenÐ T¤ Ðvoluntarily€dismiss€the€collection€lawsuit€and€enclosing€a€proposed€bar€complaint€against€Cohen,Ð =  Ðalleging€unethical€conduct.€€In€the€letter,€Finnell€told€Cohen€that€he€would€refrain€from€filing€the€barÐ & v Ðcomplaint€and€save€Cohen€the€ð ðembarrassmentðð€of€responding€to€it€if€Cohen€would€dismiss€theÐ  _ Ðcollection€lawsuit.€€Cohen€did€not€dismiss€the€collection€lawsuit,€and€Finnell€filed€the€bar€complaintÐ ø H Ðagainst€Cohen€with€the€Kentucky€authorities.Ð á 1  ÐÌà ê àFinnellððs€bar€complaint€against€Cohen€was€dismissed.€€Cohen€then€amended€his€KentuckyÐ ³  Ðcollection€lawsuit€against€Finnell€by€adding€a€claim€of€malicious€prosecution,€asserting€that€theÐ œì  Ðpurpose€of€Finnellððs€bar€complaint€was€to€intimidate€and€harass€Cohen€into€dropping€his€claim€forÐ …Õ  Ðfees€against€Finnell.€€Finnell€then€filed€a€second€bar€complaint€against€Cohen€in€Kentucky.€€TheÐ n¾  Ðsecond€complaint€was€likewise€dismissed.Ð W§  ÐÌà ê àAlthough€Finnell€filed€an€answer€in€Kentucky€to€Cohenððs€original€collection€lawsuit,€noÐ )y Ðanswer€was€filed€to€the€amended€complaint€alleging€malicious€prosecution.€€Cohen€filed€a€motionÐ b Ðfor€default€judgment,€and€Finnell€failed€to€appear€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion.€€Consequently,€inÐ ûK ÐMay€1998,€a€default€judgment€was€entered€against€Finnell,€with€a€hearing€on€damages€set€for€laterÐ ä4 Ðthat€month.Ð Í ÐÌà ê àPrior€to€the€hearing€on€damages,€Finnell€paid€Cohenððs€original€$3,800€claim€for€attorneyððsÐ Ÿï Ðfees,€plus€interest.€€After€the€hearing€on€damages,€in€August€1998,€the€Kentucky€trial€court€enteredÐ ˆØ Ðan€order€making€the€following€findings:Ð qÁ ÐÌà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ à4.€€Cohen€sent€a€bill€for€$3800.00€in€attorney€fees€and€$400.00€inÐ C“ Ðmediation€expenses.€.€.€.€[T]he€court€finds€such€fees€and€expensesÐ ,| Ðreasonable.€.€.€.ÐeB xB x Ðà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ à5.€€Finnell€never€paid€the€fee.€€On€November€21,€1997,€the€law€firmÐ þN Ðfiled€this€lawsuit€seeking€compensation.€€On€December€2,€1997,Ð ç 7 ÐFinnell€sent€a€proposed€bar€complaint€against€Cohen€with€a€letterÐ Ð!   Ðdemanding€Cohen€voluntarily€dismiss€the€action€against€him.€€TheÐ ¹" ! Ðcourt€finds€the€sole€purpose€of€this€letter€and€proposed€bar€complaintÐ ¢#ò" Ðwas€to€intimidate€and€harass€Cohen€and€the€law€firm.€€FinnellÐ ‹$Û# Ðfollowed€the€letter€with€a€telephone€call€on€December€15,€1997,€againÐ t%Ä $ Ðseeking€to€persuade€Cohen€to€dismiss€the€lawsuit.€€Finnell€testifiedÐ ]&­!% Ðthat€he€anticipated€Cohen€would€be€embarrassed€by€the€bar€action.ÐF'–"&B xB x Ðà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ à6.€€Cohen€testified€that€as€a€result€of€the€initial€complaint,€as€well€asÐ /(#' Ðan€amended€complaint€filed€on€February€6,€1998€after€the€first€oneÐ )h$( Ðwas€dismissed,€he€was€upset€and€embarrassed.Ð*Q%)B xB x Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* Ðà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ à7.€€Again€Finnell€testified€that€the€purpose€of€the€second€barÐ ° Ðâ âcomplaint,€and€the€court€so€finds,€was€to€cause€Cohen€to€change€hisÐ ™é Ðintentions€of€pursuing€the€fee€litigation.€€The€second€complaint€isÐ ‚Ò Ðmore€egregious€than€the€first.€€While€it€is€not€uncommon€for€clientsÐ k» Ðto€complain€about€fees,€to€question€the€ethics€of€an€attorney€goes€toÐ T¤ Ðthe€very€heart€of€our€profession.€€As€a€licensed€attorney€whoÐ =  Ðcompletes€the€necessary€ethics€courses€to€keep€his€license,€FinnellÐ & v Ðknew,€or€should€have€known,€of€the€impact€on€an€attorneyððsÐ  _ Ðreputation€when€such€allegations€are€made.Ðø HB xB x Ðà@(Ýà*€*€*ˆÐ á 1  Ðà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ à9.€€One€of€the€primary€purposes€of€punitive€damages€is€to€deterÐ Ê   Ðfurther€harmful€conduct€by€a€party.€€It€is€clear€from€Finnellððs€conduct,Ð ³  Ðtoward€Cohen€and€before€the€Kentucky€Bar€Association€and€thisÐ œì  Ðcourt,€that€he€has€little€regard€for€the€practice€of€law,€reputation€ofÐ …Õ  Ðlawyers€and€orders€of€the€courts€of€Kentucky.€€Finnell€was€willing€toÐ n¾  Ðdestroy€an€attorneyððs€reputation€for€a€mere€$3800.00€fee.ÐW§ B xB x ÐÌBased€on€these€findings,€in€addition€to€the€$3800€in€attorneyððs€fees€already€paid€by€Finnell,€theÐ )y ÐKentucky€trial€court€awarded€Cohen€$20,000€for€economic€loss€for€the€time€spent€defending€againstÐ b ÐFinnellððs€bar€complaints,€$25,000€for€emotional€distress,€humiliation€and€embarrassment,€andÐ ûK Ð$25,000€in€punitive€damages.Ð ä4 ÐÌà ê àFinnell€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€which€was€denied.€€Finnell€then€appealed€theÐ ¶ Ðjudgment€to€the€Kentucky€Court€of€Appeals.€€In€February€2001,€the€Kentucky€Court€of€AppealsÐ Ÿï Ðaffirmed€the€trial€courtððs€order.ò òó ó€€Finnell€appealed€to€the€Kentucky€Supreme€Court,€and€permissionÐ ˆØ Ðfor€his€appeal€was€denied€in€August€2001.ò òó óÐ qÁ ÐÌà ê àCohen€filed€a€petition€in€the€Shelby€County€Circuit€Court€in€Tennessee€to€enroll€theÐ C“ ÐKentucky€judgment€against€Finnell.€€Finnell€sought€to€prevent€the€enrollment€of€the€judgment€underÐ ,| Ðthe€public€policy€exception€to€the€Full€Faith€and€Credit€Clause€of€the€U.S.€Constitution.€€Finnell€citedÐ e ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€9,€section€27.1,€which€enforces€the€Code€of€ProfessionalÐ þN ÐResponsibility,€which€states:Ð ç 7 ÐÌà8 ê àà8B êÐ êÐ àCommunications€to€the€board,€hearing€committee€members€orÐ ¹" ! Ðdisciplinary€counsel€relating€to€lawyer€misconduct€or€disability€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðtestimony€given€in€the€proceeding€shall€be€absolutely€privileged,€andÐ ‹$Û# Ðno€civil€lawsuit€predicated€thereon€may€be€instituted€against€anyÐ t%Ä $ Ðcomplainant€or€witnessÐ]&­!%B xB x ÐÌTenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€9,€ðð€27.1.€€Finnell€argued€that€this€rule€expresses€a€Tennessee€public€policy€againstÐ /(#' Ðpermitting€a€lawyer€to€file€a€lawsuit€against€one€who€files€an€ethics€complaint€against€the€lawyer.€Ð )h$( ÐTo€permit€the€enrollment€in€Tennessee€of€a€foreign€judgment€predicated€on€such€a€lawsuit,€FinnellÐ *Q%) Ðâ âcontended,€would€violate€the€public€policy€of€Tennessee.€€The€Tennessee€trial€court€rejected€thisÐ ê*:&* Ðargument€and€enrolled€Cohenððs€Kentucky€judgment€against€Finnell.€€From€this€order,€Ô#†X|†XXX|†C#ÔÔ‡X|†XXX|†ÔFinnell€nowÐ ° Ðappeals.Ð ™é Ðâ â€Ìà ê àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€undisputed.€€The€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions€are€reviewed€òòdeÐ k» Ðnovo€óówith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35Ð T¤ Ð(Tenn.€1996).Ð > Ž ÐÌÓ XÓFinnell€argues€that€the€Kentucky€judgment€should€not€be€enforced€because€the€underlyingÐ  ` Ðcause€of€action,€malicious€prosecution€for€filing€a€bar€complaint,€violates€Tennessee€public€policy.€Ð ù I ÐFinnell€argues€that€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€9,€section€27.1€grants€absolute€immunity€fromÐ â 2  Ðsuit€for€one€who€files€a€bar€complaint€in€Tennessee€against€a€lawyer.€€Finnell€maintains€that€this€RuleÐ Ë   Ðwas€adopted€to€ensure€that€those€utilizing€the€services€of€Tennessee€lawyers€will€not€hesitate€toÐ ´  Ðreport€unethical€conduct€or€fear€reprisal€for€doing€so.€€Permitting€enrollment€of€the€KentuckyÐ í  Ðjudgment,€Finnell€contends,€would€allow€a€Tennessee€court€to€be€used€to€punish€a€Tennessee€residentÐ †Ö  Ðfor€filing€a€bar€complaint€with€the€Kentucky€Bar€Association,€in€violation€of€the€public€policyÐ o¿  Ðembodied€in€section€27.1.Ð X¨  ÐÐ A‘ ÐÓ XÓà ê àIn€response,€Cohen€argues€that€Tennessee€permits€a€malicious€prosecution€action€arising€outÐ *z Ðof€a€false€and€malicious€bar€complaint€against€an€attorney,€citing€ò òòòLackey€v.€Metropolitan€Life€Ins.Ð c ÐCo.ó óóó,€206€S.W.2d€806€(Tenn.€App.€1946),€and€maintains€that€Cohenððs€claim€against€Finnell€wouldÐ ýM Ðbe€permitted€in€Tennessee.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€alternative,€Cohen€contends,€even€if€section€27.1€is€an€absoluteÐ ç7 Ðgrant€of€immunity€to€one€who€files€a€bar€complaint€against€a€Tennessee€lawyer,€it€does€not€rise€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€level€of€a€public€policy€which€would€prohibit€giving€full€faith€and€credit€to€the€KentuckyÐ ¹  Ðjudgment.Ð ¢ò ÐÌÓ XÓ€€Finnell€correctly€states€the€rule€of€law€that€ð ðTennessee€courts€are€not€obligated€to€give€fullÐ tÄ Ðfaith€and€credit€to€any€judgment€of€a€state€which€we€hold€to€be€violative€of€Tennesseeððs€public€policyÐ ]­ Ðor€the€Federal€Constitution.ðð€ò òòòAqua€Sun€Invs.,€Inc.€v.€Hensonó óóó,€1993€WL€382230€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€€App.Ð F– ÐSept.€30,€1993).€€Finnell€acknowledges,€however,€that€a€party€who€invokes€the€public€policyÐ 0€ Ðexception€must€identify€the€public€policy€that€is€offended€by€the€foreign€judgment€and€has€a€ð ðððsternÐ i Ðand€heavyðð€burden.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€(quoting€ò òòòBiogen€Distrib.,€Inc.€v.€Tanneró óóó,€842€S.W.2d€253,€256€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  R ÐApp.€1992)).€€Ð ì < ÐÐ Õ!%  ÐTennessee€public€policy€is€found€in€its€ð ðconstitution,€statutes,€judicial€decisions,€and€commonÐ ¾"! Ðlaw.ðð€€ò òòòAlcazar€v.€Hayesó óóó,€982€S.W.2d€845,€851€(Tenn.€1998).€€ð ðÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÔ€ÛÕ²ÚXX|†ÔÔ€ÛÕ²ÚÚÛÕ²ÔÔ€Û|—ÚÚÛÕ²ÔÔ€Û|—ÚÚÛ|—ÔÔ€Û|—ÚÚÛ|—ÔÔ€ÛÝRÚÚÛ|—ÔÝ  ÝÔ‡XÖiXÚÛÝRÔÔ#†X|†XXXÖiŸ-#ÔÔ‡X|†XXX|†ÔAlthough€the€determination€of€publicÐ §#÷" Ðpolicy€is€primarily€a€function€of€the€legislature,€the€judiciary€may€determine€public€policy€in€theÐ ‘$á# Ðabsence€of€any€constitutional€or€statutory€declaration.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(quoting€ò òòòCrawford€v.€Buckneró ó,óó€839Ð z%Ê $ ÐS.W.2d€754,€759€(Tenn.1992)).€€Ð d&´!% ÐÐ M'"& ÐFinnell€cites€ò òòòIn€re€Riggsó óóó€as€an€example€of€a€foreign€judgment€denied€full€faith€and€credit€byÐ 6(†#' ÐTennessee€courts€based€on€the€public€policy€exception.€€ò òòòIn€re€Riggsóó,ó ó€612€S.W.2d€461€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  )p$( ÐApp.€1980).€€In€ò òòòRiggsóó,€ó óa€child€was€born€out€of€wedlock.€€The€mother€released€her€parental€rights€soÐ ° Ðthat€the€child€could€be€adopted,€and€falsely€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€fatherððs€name€or€hisÐ œì Ðwhereabouts.€€Consequently,€the€biological€father€did€not€receive€notice€of€the€childððs€adoption€byÐ …Õ Ða€couple€in€Georgia.€€The€adoptive€couple€moved€to€Tennessee,€and€in€Tennessee€proceedings€theÐ n¾ Ðbiological€father€sought€custody€of€the€child,€arguing€that€the€Georgia€adoption€decree€should€notÐ W§ Ðbe€given€full€faith€and€credit€in€Tennessee€because€the€father€had€no€notice€and€no€right€to€a€hearingÐ @  Ðbefore€his€parental€rights€were€terminated.€€The€Tennessee€Court€of€Appeals€refused€to€honor€theÐ ) y ÐGeorgia€judgment€€terminating€the€fatherððs€parental€rights€because€it€was€repugnant€to€ð ðTennesseeððsÐ  b Ðinterest€in€sustaining€the€father„child€relationship€and€protecting€the€family€unit.ðð€€ò òòòAqua€Sunó ó€ò òInv.,Ð û K ÐInc.ó óóó,€1993€WL€382230€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€€(citing€ò òòòIn€re€Riggsóó,ó ó€612€S.W.2d€461€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð å 5  Ð1980)).€€Finnell€asserts€that€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€9,€section€27.1€ò òó óevidences€the€publicÐ Ñ !  Ðpolicy€of€protecting€the€integrity€of€the€legal€system,€and€that€Tennesseeððs€interest€in€protecting€itsÐ º  Ðlegal€system€is€as€important€as€the€interests€underlying€the€public€policy€found€in€ò òòòRiggóósó ó.Ð £ó  ÐÔ#†X|†XXX|†ž;#ÔÔ‡X|†XXX|†ÔÔ#†ÛÕ²ÚXX|†\;#ÔÔ‡X|†XÚÛÕ²ÔÐ ß  ÐIndeed,€Ý‚ ÿÿÿ‡:ƒ%ÝÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÔ€X|†XXX|†ÔÝ  Ýin€ò òòòIn€re€Estate€of€Davisó óóó,€No.€M2003„02614„COA„R3„CV,€2004€WL€1950729€(Tenn.Ð xÈ  ÐCt.€App.€August€3,€2004),€this€Court€refused€to€honor€an€antenuptial€agreement€executed€in€FloridaÐ b²  Ðbecause€the€agreement€violated€Tennessee€public€policy.€€In€Tennessee,€an€antenuptial€agreementÐ K› Ðis€enforceable€only€if€it€was€entered€into€ð ðfreely,€knowledgeably€and€in€good€faith€without€exertionÐ 4„ Ðof€duress€or€undue€influence€upon€either€spouse.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*3€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„501Ð m Ð(2001)).€€Thus,€the€parties€to€an€antenuptial€agreement€must€fully€and€fairly€disclose€their€financialÐ W Ðcondition€prior€to€execution€of€the€agreement€if€the€agreement€is€later€to€be€enforced,€regardless€ofÐ ð@ Ðwhether€the€marriage€ends€by€divorce€or€by€the€death€of€one€of€the€spouses.€€In€contrast,€underÐ Ù) ÐFlorida€law,€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€both€partiesðð€financial€circumstances€is€required€only€if€theÐ Â Ðmarriage€ends€in€divorce.€€If€the€marriage€ends€by€the€death€of€one€of€the€spouses,€under€Florida€law,Ð «û Ðthe€parties€to€the€antenuptial€agreement€are€not€required€to€give€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€theirÐ ”ä Ðfinancial€condition€prior€to€execution€of€the€agreement€in€order€for€the€agreement€to€be€enforceableÐ }Í Ðin€the€probate€court.€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*4€(citing€Fla.€Stat.€Ann€ðð€732.702€(2002)).ò òòòó óóó€€In€ò òòòDavisó óóó,€the€survivingÐ f¶ Ðspouse€signed€an€antenuptial€agreement€that€waived€the€elective€share€of€her€husbandððs€estate€evenÐ P  Ðthough,€at€the€time€the€agreement€was€executed,€she€was€not€aware€of€his€financial€condition.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ 9‰ Ðat€*7.€€After€he€died,€the€Tennessee€probate€court€held€that€the€antenuptial€agreement€wasÐ #s Ðenforceable.€€This€Court€reversed,€and€held€that€the€requirement€of€full€and€fair€disclosure€forÐ  \ Ðantenuptial€agreements€rises€to€the€level€of€public€policy€due€to€the€ð ðunique€and€confidential€natureÐ õ E Ðof€the€marital€relationshipðð€and€that€this€policy€ð ðpromote[s]€the€highest€degree€of€fiduciary€dutyÐ Þ!.  Ðbetween€spouses.ðð€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóÐ Ç"! ÐÐ ±#" ÐThus€in€ò òòòDavisó óóó,€the€husbandððs€heirs€sought€to€enforce€an€antenuptial€agreement€in€derogationÐ š$ê# Ðof€the€wifeððs€historic€statutory€elective€share.€€The€Tennessee€legislature€enacted€a€statute€providingÐ „%Ô $ Ðthat,€in€order€to€enforce€such€an€agreement,€the€parties€to€the€agreement€must€have€fulfilled€theirÐ m&½!% Ðfiduciary€duty€to€one€another€to€fully€disclose€their€circumstances.€€Thus,€this€Court€found€that,€givenÐ V'¦"& Ðthe€unique€nature€of€the€marital€relationship,€the€statute€enacted€by€the€Tennessee€legislature€roseÐ ?(#' Ðto€the€level€of€a€statement€of€public€policy.€€Likewise,€in€ò òòòRiggsó óóó,€given€the€fundamental€nature€of€theÐ ()x$( Ðparental€relationship,€enforcing€a€judgment€that€terminated€the€fatherððs€parental€rights€with€no€noticeÐ *b%) Ðand€no€right€to€a€hearing€was€repugnant€to€the€Stateððs€strong€interest€in€protecting€the€father„childÐ û*K&* Ðrelationship.Ð ä+4'+ ÐFinnell€argues€that€the€Supreme€Court€Rule€represents€public€policy€because€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐLegislature€empowered€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€to€make€rules€governing€the€practice€of€lawÐ ™é Ðin€Tennessee.€€In€response,€the€Supreme€Court€promulgated€the€Rules€of€Disciplinary€EnforcementÐ ‚Ò Ðto€enforce€the€code€of€professional€responsibility.€€However,€in€ò òòòCrews€v.€Buckman€Labs.ó óóó,€theÐ k» ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€specifically€declined€to€rule€ð ðthat€every€provision€of€the€Code€ofÐ U¥ ÐProfessional€Responsibility€reflects€an€important€public€policy.ðð€€ò òòòCrews€v.€Buckman€Labs.,€ó óóó78Ð > Ž ÐS.W.3d€852,€865€(Tenn.€2002).€€As€such,€Finnell€must€meet€the€burden€of€showing€why€section€27.1Ð ( x Ðreflects€public€policy.Ô#†ÛÕ²ÚXX|†úD#ÔÔ‡X|†XÚÛÕ²ÔÔ#†X|†XXX|†¸D#ÔÔ‡X|†XXX|†ÔÐ  a ÐÐ ú J ÐCertainly,€both€Tennessee€and€Kentucky€have€a€strong€interest€in€protecting€the€integrity€ofÐ ã 3  Ðtheir€respective€legal€systems.€€Both€states€have€regulations€that€govern€immunity€from€prosecutionÐ Ì   Ðrelated€to€bar€complaints.€€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€9€ðð€27.1;€Ky.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€òò3óó.160.€€However,€the€relevantÐ µ  ÐTennessee€rule€is€much€broader€in€scope€than€the€corresponding€Kentucky€rule,€which€obviouslyÐ žî  Ðpermits€the€filing€of€a€malicious€prosecution€lawsuit€against€one€who€files€a€bar€complaint€againstÐ ‡×  Ðan€attorney.€€The€mere€recognition€of€a€Kentucky€judgment,€which€is€based€on€a€law€more€narrowÐ pÀ  Ðin€scope€than€the€Tennessee€counterpart,€does€not€in€and€of€itself€violate€Tennessee€public€policy.€Ð Y©  ÐIndeed,€the€facts€of€this€case€illustrate€the€competing€interests€sought€to€be€balanced€by€bothÐ B’ ÐTennessee€and€Kentucky.€€As€noted€by€Finnell,€permitting€an€attorney€to€respond€to€a€bar€complaintÐ +{ Ðagainst€him€by€filing€a€malicious€prosecution€lawsuit€may€deter€one€with€a€legitimate€complaint€fromÐ d Ðfiling€it,€for€fear€of€reprisal.€€As€demonstrated€by€Finnellððs€conduct,€however,€such€immunity€couldÐ ýM Ðbe€utilized€by€one€with€impure€motives€to€file€a€false€and€malicious€bar€complaint€against€a€lawyer,Ð æ6 Ðleaving€the€lawyer€with€no€recourse.€€Thus,€in€balancing€the€competing€interests,€Tennessee€andÐ Ï ÐKentucky€have€found€the€balance€in€differing€disciplinary€rules.€€Moreover,€the€interests€involved,Ð ¸ Ðwhile€important€indeed,€do€not,€as€in€ò òòòDavisó óóó,€involve€an€interest€such€as€the€fiduciary€duty€betweenÐ ¡ñ Ðspouses€at€the€heart€of€the€marital€relationship,€or€the€parental€rights€of€a€biological€father.€Ð ‹Û ÐTherefore,€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€section€27.1€would€prohibit€in€Tennessee€the€maliciousÐ tÄ Ðprosecution€claim€filed€by€Cohen€against€Finnell,€we€must€nevertheless€conclude€that€enrollment€ofÐ ]­ Ðthe€Kentucky€judgment€does€not€violate€Tennessee€public€policy.Ð F– ÐÐ / ÐÓ XÓà ê àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€ð ða€state€court€must€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€a€monetaryÐ h Ðjudgment€rendered€in€a€court€of€another€state,€even€though€the€enforcing€forum€might€not€recognizeÐ  Q Ðthe€underlying€cause€of€action.ðð€ò òòòMirage€Casino„Hotel€v.€Pearsallóó,ó ó€No.€02A01„9608„CV„00198,Ð ê : Ð1997€WL€275589,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€27,€1997).€€The€facts€of€this€case€fall€squarely€underÐ Ö!&  Ðthis€holding.Ð ¿"! ÐÌÓ XÓThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Costs€are€taxed€against€Defendant/Appellant€KellyÐ ‘$á# ÐFinnell,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð z%Ê $ ÐÐ c&³!% ÐÐ L'œ"& ÐÓ  ÓÐ 5(…#' ÐÒè°ÒÓ hXÓÓ¼cÓ___________________________________€Ð )n$( ÐHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEÐ *W%) ÐÔ#†X|†XXX|†ŒW#Ô