The Tennessee Supreme Court has suspended attorney Fred C. Dance from practicing law for five years due to serious misconduct involving client funds. The court's decision, issued on September 4, 2026, affects Dance's ability to practice law and serves as a warning to other attorneys about the consequences of mishandling client money.
This case arose from Dance's representation of a client in a wrongful death action. After a settlement was reached, Dance failed to disburse the funds to his client and instead used the money for personal expenses. The court's ruling highlights the importance of ethical practices in the legal profession and the severe penalties for violations.
Fred C. Dance, who has been licensed to practice law in Tennessee since 1980, represented Christopher Pernishek and his siblings in a wrongful death case concerning their mother’s death. The case settled in May 2017 for $20,000, but Dance deposited the settlement check into his Interest on Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA) and withdrew the funds for personal use instead of disbursing them to his clients. This led to a complaint filed against him in March 2021, after Pernishek struggled to contact Dance regarding the settlement.
The Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee held a hearing in November 2023, where it found that Dance had violated several rules of professional conduct, including knowingly converting client property. The hearing panel recommended disbarment, citing the severity of Dance's actions and the harm caused to his clients.
Justice Sarah K. Campbell delivered the opinion of the court, which affirmed the hearing panel's findings regarding Dance's misconduct. However, the court ultimately decided that disbarment was too severe and instead imposed a five-year suspension, with three years to be served actively. The court noted, "We conclude that Dance should be suspended rather than disbarred." This decision reflects a shift in how the court views sanctions for attorney misconduct, emphasizing a more measured approach.
The ruling carries significant implications for Dance and the legal community. It serves as a reminder that attorneys must prioritize their clients' interests and adhere strictly to ethical standards. The court's decision to suspend rather than disbar Dance suggests a potential for rehabilitation, but it also underscores the need for accountability in the legal profession.
Moving forward, the ruling will affect Dance's ability to practice law for the next five years. He will be required to meet certain conditions before being allowed to return to practice, including demonstrating compliance with ethical standards. This case may also influence future disciplinary actions against attorneys who mishandle client funds, as the court's decision sets a precedent for how similar cases may be treated.
As for Dance, he has the option to appeal the decision, but it is unclear if he will pursue that route. The court's ruling is final unless challenged in a higher court. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling, but the legal community will be watching closely to see how this case shapes future disciplinary measures.