ÿWPC«0 Å# ÖUNá %/ 0D5U:yb³w@»4û 0Db 0Jj 0T´ 0^ 0hf 0dÎ 0r2 0|¤ 0†  B¦ 0à 1uSU,È 0dôU,X U>„ U * U*ì D3!B)I!DCr! 0@µ! AMõ!CB"ä…#‰i%v~ò&vÓp( AOC.Æ’. 0DX/ D/œ/ BË/ 0Ãè/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(r+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒ„°Ò,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- Œ E Ž D E U‘ ee’ D• – Ó€¢ íb¸ 3|x¢ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ3,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ÔBecause€we€have€concluded€that€reinstatement€is€not€warranted€by€the€proof,€it€is€notÏnecessary€for€us€to€consider€whether€Murphy€should€have€been€required€to€take€the€barÏexamination€as€a€condition€to€reinstatement.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ÔSupreme€Court€Rule€8,€DR€6„101(A)(3)€provides€that€ð ðA€lawyer€shall€not€neglect€a€legalÏmatter€entrusted€to€the€lawyer.ððÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(s(2'$¤¤Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÒ44ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ôÙ…ôXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆxXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€))XÐd&ÓÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€+ u` Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€ò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€ò òòòFiled:€€ÏJune€3,€1996ó óóóÌIN€RE:€€IRA€H.€MURPHY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à à€€€SHELBYÏCHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHNÏHILL€CHISOLM,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€ÏCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBOARD€OF€PROFESSIONALà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|MÕ` à. `€€LßRESPONSIBILITY,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€€02„S„01„9503„CH„00031Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àForÏAppellee:ó óóóÌÌLaura€L.€Chastainà àà àà àà àà àA.€C.ÏWharton,€Jr.ÌDeputy€Chief€Disciplinary€Counselà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€'ÔÔ€'°Ôà@ àÔ€(Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€(XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€REVERSED;€ÌHEARING€PANEL€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÓÓ›Ñ7€]¡XXdæXXdì7Ñà àThe€issue€raised€by€this€appeal€is€whether€the€petitioner,€a€disbarredÏattorney,€has€satisfied€the€requirements€for€reinstatement€of€his€license€toÏpractice€law€contained€in€Rule€9,€ðð€19.3,€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court,€by€clearÏand€convincing€proof.€€€A€Hearing€Panel€of€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€carry€the€burden€ofÏproof€for€reinstatement.€€The€Chancery€Court,€however,€reviewed€the€HearingÏPanel€decision€and€held€the€petitioner€was€entitled€to€"conditionalÏreinstatement"€of€his€license€to€practice€law.ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€Chancellorððs€judgment€granting€conditionalÏreinstatement.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€decision€of€the€Chancellor€andÏaffirm€the€Hearing€Panelððs€decision€denying€reinstatement.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òB€A€C€K€G€R€O€U€N€Dó óóóÌà àOn€July€16,€1986,€Ira€H.€Murphy€was€convicted€in€federal€court€on€elevenÏcounts€of€mail€fraud,€one€count€of€obstruction€of€justice,€and€one€count€ofÏperjury.€€Murphy's€convictions€for€mail€fraud€arose€out€of€his€attempts€to€obtainÏand€renew€a€permit€to€operate€a€bingo€parlor€in€Shelby€County.€€Over€theÏcourse€of€three€years,€Murphy€submitted€documents€to€the€TennesseeÏSecretary€of€Stateððs€office€which€contained€false€and€fraudulent€representationsÏwith€respect€to€the€existence€of€the€H.D.€Whalum€Lodge€#373€(the€purportedÏoperator€of€the€bingo€game);€the€tax€exempt€status€of€the€Lodge;€the€location€ofÏthe€bingo€games;€and€the€membership€of€the€Lodge.€€In€addition€to€the€false€andÏfraudulent€representations,€Murphy€forged€the€name€of€Charles€Brooks€onÏdocuments€he€submitted€to€the€Secretary€of€State€and€wrote€checks€to€himselfÏon€the€bingo€game€bank€account€which€totaled€more€than€$9,000.€€ÌÌà àMurphyððs€conviction€for€obstruction€of€justice€was€based€upon€his€attemptÏto€influence€the€grand€jury€testimony€of€Charles€Brooks€regarding€the€bingoÏoperation.€€Murphyððs€conviction€for€perjury€was€based€upon€his€false€grand€juryÏtestimony€concerning€the€bingo€operations€and€his€involvement€in€theÏoperations.€€ÌÌà àThe€criminal€activities€for€which€Murphy€was€convicted€occurred€over€aÏtwo€and€one„half€to€three€year€period€and€began€approximately€two€monthsÏòòafteróó€Murphy€had€been€elected€€a€judge€of€the€General€Sessions€Court€inÏShelby€County.ÌÌà àMurphy€was€thereafter€sentenced€to€five€years€imprisonment€on€each€ofÏthe€thirteen€convictions,€with€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently;€he€was€alsoÏfined€$5,000.€€He€began€serving€his€sentences€in€October€1986.ÌÌà àIn€December€of€1986,€the€Tennessee€Court€of€the€Judiciary€entered€anÏorder€recommending€that€Murphy€be€removed€from€office.€€Murphy€appealedÏand€this€Court€affirmed€the€Court€of€Judiciaryððs€recommendation€of€removal€andÏremanded€to€the€General€Assembly€for€its€consideration.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€Re€Murphyóó,Ï726€S.W.2d€501€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€a€special€joint€convention,€the€GeneralÏAssembly€voted€to€remove€Murphy€from€office.ÌÌ€à àThe€Federal€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€later€overturned€the€mail€fraudÏconvictions,€but€affirmed€the€convictions€for€obstruction€of€justice€and€perjury.€ÏUltimately,€Murphy€served€a€total€of€twenty€months,€approximately€fourteenÍmonths€in€federal€prison€and€six€months€in€a€halfway€house,€before€beingÏreleased€on€parole€for€the€remainder€of€his€sentence.ÌÌà àBased€on€Murphy's€convictions,€this€Court€entered€an€Order€summarilyÏsuspending€his€law€license€on€July€24,€1986.€€The€matter€was€referred€to€theÏBoard€of€Professional€Responsibility€for€the€initiation€of€a€formal€disciplinaryÏproceeding.€€ÌÌà àMurphy€entered€a€conditional€guilty€plea€on€the€"petition€to€determineÏextent€of€final€discipline"€filed€by€the€Disciplinary€Counsel€of€the€Board€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility.€€In€an€Order€of€Enforcement,€this€Court€suspendedÏMurphy€from€the€practice€of€law€for€a€period€of€five€years€beginning€July€24,Ï1986,€the€date€of€the€original€summary€suspension€of€Murphy's€license€toÏpractice€law.€€ÌÌà àShortly€after€the€five„year€suspension€period€ended,€Murphy€filed€aÏpetition€with€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€seeking€to€have€hisÏlicense€to€practice€law€reinstated.€€The€Disciplinary€Counsel€filed€a€responseÏopposing€reinstatement.ÌÌ€à àThe€cause€was€heard€by€a€Hearing€Panel€of€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€Murphy€had€met€all€continuing€legalÏeducation€requirements€for€reinstatement.€€ÌÌà àMurphy's€proof€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€a€number€of€witnesses,€bothÏattorneys€and€laypersons.€€Each€testifying€witness€had€known€Murphy€for€moreÏthan€fifteen€years,€and€expressed€a€high€opinion€of€Murphyððs€competence€andÏmorality.€€In€addition,€each€testified€that€Murphy€accepts€full€responsibility€for€hisÏprior€misconduct,€that€he€is€remorseful€for€it,€and€that€he€has€"paid€the€price"€forÏhis€misconduct€and€now€deserves€to€have€his€law€license€reinstated.€€None€ofÏthe€witnesses€related€any€specific€facts€or€interactions€with€Murphy€since€hisÏconviction€that€formed€the€basis€of€their€opinions.€Only€one€defense€witness,Ïformer€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€Judge€Otis€Higgs,€expressed€concern€thatÏreinstatement€would€negatively€impact€the€standing€of€the€bar€and€theÏadministration€of€justice.€€Judge€Higgs€recommended€a€conditional,€gradualÏreinstatement,€with€monitoring€and€reporting€conditions.ÌÌà àMurphy€testified€on€his€own€behalf€that€he€has€learned€from€hisÏexperiences€and€now€seeks€reinstatement€so€that€he€can€make€a€valuableÏcontribution€to€the€community.€€He€said€incarceration€has€made€a€deepÍimpression€upon€him,€and€he€believes€his€reinstatement€would€signify€to€theÏpublic€that€a€person€properly€punished€can€be€given€a€second€chance.ÌÌà àDisciplinary€Counsel's€proof€consisted€of€documentary€evidence€toÏestablish€that€in€1973,€Murphy€was€convicted€in€federal€court€for€failure€to€fileÏincome€tax€returns€for€two€years.€€He€received€a€one„year€sentence€that€wasÏserved€on€probation.€€In€June€1983,€Murphy€tendered€a€conditional€guilty€pleaÏto€a€violation€of€DR€6„101(a)(3)× ƒ1 ××  ×€and€received€a€public€censure€for€neglectingÏlegal€matters€entrusted€to€him€regarding€payment€of€an€outstanding€debt€to€aÏdoctor€out€of€a€clientððs€settlement€proceeds.ÌÌà àDisciplinary€counselððs€proof€also€consisted€of€testimony€from€a€prior€chairÏof€the€Professionalism€Committee€of€the€Memphis€Bar€Association€who€statedÏthat€the€committee€had€reviewed€Murphyððs€application€for€reinstatement,€as€wellÏas€the€facts€giving€rise€to€his€suspension,€and€had€voted,€ten€to€five,€to€opposeÏhis€reinstatement.€€Those€committee€members€who€did€not€oppose€MurphyððsÏreinstatement€believed€they€had€insufficient€information€as€to€his€activities€sinceÏbeing€released€from€jail€upon€which€to€base€opposition.€€The€President€of€theÍMemphis€Bar€Association€also€testified€that€the€Executive€Committee€hadÏrecommended€opposition€to€Murphyððs€reinstatement,€but€testified€that€heÏpersonally€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€Bar€should€not€go€on€record€as€opposingÏMurphyððs€reinstatement,€but€should€recommend€that€his€reinstatement€beÏconditioned€upon€an€additional€continuing€legal€education€requirement,€with€aÏparticular€emphasis€on€ethics.€€Finally,€retired€Supreme€Court€Justice€William€D.€ÏFones€testified€that,€in€his€opinion,€Murphyððs€reinstatement€would€have€aÏdetrimental€impact€on€the€integrity€and€standing€of€the€bar,€the€administration€ofÏjustice€in€Tennessee,€and€the€public€interest,€and,€in€addition,€would€damageÏthe€public€perception€of€the€legal€system.€ÌÌà àBased€on€that€proof,€a€majority€of€the€Hearing€Panel€concluded€thatÏMurphy€had€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€on€the€criteria€for€reinstatement.€ÏIn€so€holding,€the€majority€stated,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Panel€majority€cannot€state€that€Petitioner€has€met€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€[the€requirement]€that€theÏreinstatement€of€Petitioner,€a€former€Judge€who€committed€aÏseries€of€felonies€over€a€period€of€three€years,€then€induced€aÏwitness€to€lie€to€the€Federal€Grand€Jury,€who€criticized€the€fairnessÏof€his€jury€trial€and€proceedings€before€the€Court€of€the€Judiciary,Ïand€even€subsequent€to€conviction€maintained€his€innocenceÏbefore€the€Tennessee€State€Legislature€and€further€sought€salaryÍpayments€subsequent€to€removal€from€office€and€duringÏincarceration,€would€not€be€detrimental€to€the€integrity€andÏstanding€of€the€Bar,€or€the€administration€of€justice,€or€subversiveÏto€the€public€interest.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àOne€member€of€the€Hearing€Panel€dissented,€stating€that€"someÏconditional€reinstatement€is€warranted,€and€it€is€error€to€completely€denyÏreadmission."€ÌÌà àOn€August€20,€1992,€Murphy€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€andÏjudicial€review€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€Murphy€relied€upon€theÏrecord€before€the€Hearing€Panel€and€presented€as€witnesses€several€additionalÏattorneys€and€laypersons€who€testified€they€had€known€Murphy€for€many€years,Ïconsidered€him€competent,€and€morally€deserving€of€reinstatement,€and€did€notÏbelieve€that€his€reinstatement€would€negatively€impact€the€standing€of€the€bar,Ïthe€public€interest,€the€administration€of€justice,€or€the€publicððs€perception€of€theÏlegal€profession.€€Former€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€Judge€Otis€Higgs€againÏtestified€for€the€defense€that,€in€his€opinion,€Murphy€should€be€granted€aÏgradual,€conditional€reinstatement.€€Murphy€himself€again€testified€that€he€was€aÏfit€and€proper€person€to€have€his€license€reinstated,€and€that€if€reinstated,€heÏwould€practice€in€an€honorable€and€professional€manner.€Ìò òÌó óà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€Chancellor€found€that€Murphy€was€entitled€to€aÏ"conditional€reinstatement"€of€his€license€to€practice€law.€€€€The€conditionsÏimposed€by€the€Chancellor€consisted€of€additional€continuing€legal€education,Ïincluding€ethics,€volunteer€work€with€a€legal€services€organization,€andÏsupervised€law€practice€for€one€year.€€Upon€satisfactory€completion,€MurphyÏwould€be€allowed€to€resume€an€"unrestricted€and€unconditioned"€practice€ofÏlaw.ÌÌà àThe€Board€appealed€directly€to€this€Court€pursuant€to€Rule€9,€ðð€1.3,€RulesÏof€the€Supreme€Court.€ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òREINSTATEMENTóóó óÌà àWith€regard€to€reinstatement,€the€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court€provide,€inÏpertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€hearing€committee€shall€schedule€a€hearing€at€which€theÏpetitioner€shall€have€the€burden€of€demonstrating€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€that€the€attorney€has€the€moral€qualifications,Ïcompetency€and€learning€in€law€required€for€admission€to€practiceÏlaw€in€this€State€òòò òandó ó€that€the€resumption€of€the€practice€of€lawÏwithin€the€State€will€not€be€detrimental€to€the€integrity€and€standingÍof€the€bar€or€the€administration€of€justice,€or€subversive€to€theÏpublic€interest.óóÌÌÌÓÓSupreme€Court€Rule€9,€ðð€19.3€(emphasis€added).€€Although€the€Board€assertsÏthat€Murphy€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€heÏhas€either€the€moral€qualifications,€or€the€competency€and€learning€in€lawÏrequired€for€admission€to€practice€law€in€this€State,€we€view€the€determinativeÏissue€to€be€whether€his€reinstatement€would€be€detrimental€to€the€integrity€andÏstanding€of€the€bar€or€the€administration€of€justice,€or€subversive€to€the€publicÏinterest.€€Our€review€of€the€record,€including€the€transcript€of€the€evidence€beforeÏthe€Hearing€Panel,€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€contrary€to€the€action€of€the€Chancery€Court.€ÏòòHenry€v.€Board€of€Professional€Responsibilityóó,€749€S.W.2d€466,€467€(Tenn.Ï1988);€Rule€9,€ðð€1.3,€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€€€Ì€à àWe€have€thoroughly€and€carefully€examined€the€record€of€both€theÏHearing€Panel€and€the€Chancery€Court€and€summarize€our€observations€asÏfollows:€ÌÌà àMurphy€was€convicted€in€federal€court€of€perjury€and€obstruction€ofÏjustice.€€Not€only€did€Murphy€lie€to€the€federal€grand€jury,€he€attempted€toÏpersuade€another€person€to€lie€to€the€grand€jury.€€Such€conduct€strikes€at€theÍvery€heart€and€soul€of€the€judicial€system€and€without€question€would€have€aÏdetrimental€impact€on€the€integrity€and€standing€of€the€bar,€the€administration€ofÏjustice€and€the€public€interest.€€In€this€case,€that€detrimental€impact€isÏexacerbated€because€the€illegal€conduct€and€convictions€occurred€whileÏMurphy€was€occupying€a€position€of€public€trust€as€a€sitting€judge€of€the€generalÏsessions€court€of€Shelby€County.€€Because€Murphy€was€a€sitting€judge,€theÏpublicity€and€notoriety€attendant€to€his€conduct€and€convictions€was€muchÏgreater€than€it€otherwise€would€have€been€had€he€been€simply€a€practicingÏattorney.€ÌÌà àA€number€of€individuals€testified€in€favor€of€reinstating€Murphyððs€licenseÏto€practice€law.€€€€When€asked€to€explain€the€reasons€for€their€support€of€hisÏreinstatement,€these€witnesses€said€that€Murphy€has€ð ðpaid€the€price,ðð€and€thatÏhe€has€rehabilitated€himself€and€is€remorseful€for€his€actions.€€Their€testimony,Ïhowever,€is€totally€conclusory€and€completely€devoid€of€specific€facts€andÏcircumstances€which€have€arisen€since€Murphyððs€convictions€that€demonstrateÏeither€rehabilitation€or€remorse.€€Moreover,€while€this€testimony€may€be€relevantÏto€Murphyððs€moral€character,€it€bears€little€relevance€on€the€question€of€whetherÏMurphyððs€reinstatement€would€be€detrimental€to€the€integrity€and€standing€of€theÏbar€or€€the€administration€of€justice€or€subversive€to€the€public€interest.€€There€isÍno€specific€evidence€in€the€record€as€to€the€efforts€Murphy€has€made€to€reformÏand€make€amends,€and€in€the€absence€of€such€proof,€we€conclude€that€he€hasÏfailed€to€prove€the€criteria€for€reinstatement€by€clear€and€convincing€proof.ÌÌà àThe€license€to€practice€law€is€not€a€right€but€a€privilege€in€Tennessee.€ÏòòSeeóó€Rule€9,€ðð3.1,€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€A€personÏsuspended€from€the€practice€of€law€is€not€entitled€to€have€that€privilege€restoredÏsimply€because€that€person€has€served€the€sentence€imposed€for€a€violation€ofÏthe€criminal€laws.€Reinstatement€of€the€license€to€practice€law€is€warranted€onlyÏif€certain€criteria,€contained€within€ðð€19.3€of€Supreme€Court€Rule€9,€are€satisfiedÏby€clear€and€convincing€proof.€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€Chancellorððs€finding€for€conditional€reinstatement.€€Reinstatement€ofÏMurphy's€license€to€practice€law€would€be€detrimental€to€the€integrity€andÏstanding€of€the€bar€or€the€administration€of€justice€or€the€public€interest.ÌÌò òòòà@ àCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Chancellor€granting€conditionalÏreinstatement€is€reversed,€and€the€judgment€of€the€Hearing€Panel€of€the€BoardÏof€Professional€Responsibility,€denying€reinstatement€is€affirmed.€€€As€a€result€ofÏour€conclusion,€it€is€unnecessary€to€address€the€other€issues€raised€by€theÍBoardððs€appeal.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Ira€H.€Murphy,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch€and€White,€JJ.