appearance of impropriety standard in Tennessee

2018See Larkin, 443 S.W.3d at 801-804 (stating that due process mandated a presumption in favor of disqualification of an forensic pathologist, who had been employed as an expert by the defense, to testify as an expert for the State on the same or substantially similar matter in a later criminal prosecution of the defendant and concluding that the forensic scientist was, in fact, disqualified); Clinard v. Blackwood, 46 S.W.3d 177, 186 (Tenn. 2001) (confirming that “Tennessee courts have and will continue to apply the appearance of impropriety standard as a basis for [the] disqualification” of atto

2003The supreme court also addressed disqualification under the appearance of impropriety standard set forth in DR 9-101 in Clinard.3 The supreme court quoted Ethical Consideration 9-6 of the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility: “Every lawyer owes a solemn duty . . . to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.” Id. at 186 .

2018See Larkin, 443 S.W.3d at 801-804 (stating that due process mandated a presumption in favor of disqualification of an forensic pathologist, who had been employed as an expert by the defense, to testify as an expert for the State on the same or substantially similar matter in a later criminal prosecution of the defendant and concluding that the forensic scientist was, in fact, disqualified); Clinard v. Blackwood, 46 S.W.3d 177, 186 (Tenn. 2001) (confirming that “Tennessee courts have and will continue to apply the appearance of impropriety standard as a basis for [the] disqualification” of atto

2009Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511, 528 (1973) (holding that it was “prejudicial to one party for a judge to testify as an expert witness ... with respect to matters that took place before him in his judicial capacity” because “the judge appears to be throwing the weight of his position and authority behind one of two opposing litigants”); Hatcher v. McBride, 221 W.Va. 5 , 650 S.E.2d 104, 108-09 (2006) (concluding that a judge may not voluntarily testify as a character witness but may testify pursuant to a summons because a judge has a duty to “respect and comply with the law” under Ca

2009Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511, 528 (1973) (holding that it was “prejudicial to one party for a judge to testify as an expert witness ... with respect to matters that took place before him in his judicial capacity” because “the judge appears to be throwing the weight of his position and authority behind one of two opposing litigants”); Hatcher v. McBride, 221 W.Va. 5 , 650 S.E.2d 104, 108-09 (2006) (concluding that a judge may not voluntarily testify as a character witness but may testify pursuant to a summons because a judge has a duty to “respect and comply with the law” under Ca

2009See, e.g., Phillips v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415 , 733 P.2d 300, 302, 305-06 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986) (declining to consider an affidavit from an administrative law judge in part because such evidence would create an appearance of impropriety in violation of the applicable state code of judicial conduct); Merritt v. Reserve Ins.

2009See, e.g., Phillips v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415 , 733 P.2d 300, 302, 305-06 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986) (declining to consider an affidavit from an administrative law judge in part because such evidence would create an appearance of impropriety in violation of the applicable state code of judicial conduct); Merritt v. Reserve Ins.

2009Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511, 528 (1973) (holding that it was “prejudicial to one party for a judge to testify as an expert witness ... with respect to matters that took place before him in his judicial capacity” because “the judge appears to be throwing the weight of his position and authority behind one of two opposing litigants”); Hatcher v. McBride, 221 W.Va. 5 , 650 S.E.2d 104, 108-09 (2006) (concluding that a judge may not voluntarily testify as a character witness but may testify pursuant to a summons because a judge has a duty to “respect and comply with the law” under Ca

2009Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511, 528 (1973) (holding that it was “prejudicial to one party for a judge to testify as an expert witness ... with respect to matters that took place before him in his judicial capacity” because “the judge appears to be throwing the weight of his position and authority behind one of two opposing litigants”); Hatcher v. McBride, 221 W.Va. 5 , 650 S.E.2d 104, 108-09 (2006) (concluding that a judge may not voluntarily testify as a character witness but may testify pursuant to a summons because a judge has a duty to “respect and comply with the law” under Ca

2001See id. at ___, 2001 WL 530834, at *6 (observing that ethical rules must be broad, and the appearance of impropriety standard is appropriate when more specific rules may be ineffective).