Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302 (2026)
Investigation and action if reason to believe judge is disabled
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The board is authorized, on its own motion, or pursuant to the complaint of a person having reason to believe a judge is disabled, to investigate and take appropriate action, including recommendation of removal from office, in any case in which an active judge is suffering from a temporary or permanent disability, physical or mental, that would substantially interfere with the prompt, orderly, and efficient performance of the judge's duties. As used in this subsection (a), temporary or permanent disability includes, but is not limited to, substance abuse or dependency, the repeated and consistent inability to stay alert during court proceedings, impairment of cognitive abilities that render the judge unable to function effectively, and any other documented or diagnosed physical or mental behavioral condition adversely affecting the administration of justice.
- (b) As part of an investigation or at another point in the disciplinary process, the board or an investigative panel of the board may refer the matter to the Tennessee lawyers assistance program. If the referral is made and the Tennessee lawyers assistance program notifies the board in writing that the judge in the matter is uncooperative or has failed to comply with the recommendations issued under the program, the board may order the judge to submit to a physical or mental evaluation by an appropriately licensed healthcare provider chosen by the board. An investigative panel of the board may also order such a physical or mental evaluation if the action is taken by unanimous vote of the investigative panel and approved by the board chair. The expense of such evaluation must be borne by the board. Prior to a hearing under § 17-5-307, the examiner chosen by the board must disclose any report or opinion issued by the examiner to the judge, the judge's legal representative, the investigative panel, and the disciplinary counsel for the board.
- (c) All complaints made under this section are confidential and privileged.
- (d) If the board recommends removal from office under this section, the aggrieved judge may appeal to the supreme court as provided in § 17-5-309.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 976, s 2, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 976, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 496, s 1, eff. 7/1/2019.
Acts 1979, ch. 356, § 12 T.C.A., § 17-812; Acts 2003 , ch. 112, § 1; 2012 , ch. 819, § 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987).
In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987). “By amendment he was charged with violating T.C.A. § 17-5-302(2), the willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office.”
In Re Bell, 344 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. 2011). “Judge Bell points to Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-5-302(7) (2009), which states that the Court of the Judiciary may take cognizance of “[a] persistent pattern of delay in disposing of pending litigation.”
In Re Billy Wayne Williams, 987 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn. 1998). “1 BACKGROUND After an investigation by a three judge investigative panel of the Court of the Judiciary, Billy Wayne Williams, General Sessions Court Judge for Lauderdale County, Tennessee, was formally charged with committing judicial offenses in violation of the Code of…”
In re Brown, 879 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1994). “, Judge of the Criminal Court of Shelby County, violated Canons 2A and 3A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, T.C.A. § 17-5-302(3), (8). The Court of the Judiciary, with five of the eleven participating judges dissenting, found that certain statements made by the appellant in…”
Richard Madkins v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Madkins contends that the State negligently deprived him of rights under the following statutes: section 8-6-109 of the Tennessee Code, sections 39-11-101 and 102 of the Tennessee Code, section 39-13-302 of the Tennessee Code, and section 17-5-302 of the Tennessee Code. Mr.”
Mahon (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “4 Plaintiff further cites to the following state laws: “TCA 17-5-302, TCA 8-18-101, TCA 8- 47-101 .”
State Of Tennessee, Dep't Of Child.'s Servs. v. Ruth Sails - Dissenting (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “(b) A failure to comply with an interchange order of the supreme court is a judicial offense under § 17-5-302(2). The chief justice shall report such failure to comply immediately to the presiding judge of the court of the judiciary.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(2) — 2 cases
In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987). “By amendment he was charged with violating T.C.A. § 17-5-302(2), the willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office.”
State Of Tennessee, Dep't Of Child.'s Servs. v. Ruth Sails - Dissenting (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “(b) A failure to comply with an interchange order of the supreme court is a judicial offense under § 17-5-302(2). The chief justice shall report such failure to comply immediately to the presiding judge of the court of the judiciary.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(3) — 2 cases
In Re Billy Wayne Williams, 987 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn. 1998). “1 BACKGROUND After an investigation by a three judge investigative panel of the Court of the Judiciary, Billy Wayne Williams, General Sessions Court Judge for Lauderdale County, Tennessee, was formally charged with committing judicial offenses in violation of the Code of…”
In re Brown, 879 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1994). “, Judge of the Criminal Court of Shelby County, violated Canons 2A and 3A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, T.C.A. § 17-5-302(3), (8). The Court of the Judiciary, with five of the eleven participating judges dissenting, found that certain statements made by the appellant in…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(3)(1994) — 1 case
In Re Billy Wayne Williams, 987 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn. 1998). “1 BACKGROUND After an investigation by a three judge investigative panel of the Court of the Judiciary, Billy Wayne Williams, General Sessions Court Judge for Lauderdale County, Tennessee, was formally charged with committing judicial offenses in violation of the Code of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(4) — 1 case
In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987). “By amendment he was charged with violating T.C.A. § 17-5-302(2), the willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(7) — 1 case
In Re Bell, 344 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. 2011). “Judge Bell points to Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-5-302(7) (2009), which states that the Court of the Judiciary may take cognizance of “[a] persistent pattern of delay in disposing of pending litigation.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-302(a)(1) — 1 case
Richard Madkins v. State (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Madkins contends that the State negligently deprived him of rights under the following statutes: section 8-6-109 of the Tennessee Code, sections 39-11-101 and 102 of the Tennessee Code, section 39-13-302 of the Tennessee Code, and section 17-5-302 of the Tennessee Code. Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.