 |
| Crystal Goan |
A news release issued Oct. 21 by the Court's Board of Professional Responsibility (BOPR) indicated that the Court's censure action resulted from actions of Goan more than five years ago relating to former husband James Roy Klumb.
A public censure is "a rebuke and warning to the attorney," but does not affect the attorney's ability to practice law, according to the news release.
The BOPR is the administrative agency of the Supreme Court that monitors the professional conduct of lawyers in the state.
The board investigates complaints and takes disciplinary action when the board considers it appropriate.
If discipline of some kind is determined to be appropriate in a case, the BOPR has disciplinary options including disbarment, the most severe option, which terminates the individual's status as an attorney; suspension from law practice for a specified minimum period of time; temporary suspension; public censure; private reprimand; and private informal admonition.
STEMS FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT
The public censure of Goan stems from her actions prior to a divorce lawsuit she filed against former husband James Roy Klumb in September 2007. Their divorce was finalized in January 2009. They had married in April 2006.
Subsequent to the couple's divorce, Klumb filed a civil lawsuit against Goan in U.S. District Court.
Klumb, a former Greeneville businessman, claimed in the lawsuit that, during their marriage, Goan installed spyware on his business computers without his knowledge, altered documents and emails and committed other acts of deception calculated by Goan to enable her to receive a favorable divorce settlement.
A December 2011 bench trial in U.S. District Court in Greeneville concluded with a ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, of Chattanooga, in favor of Klumb.
JUDGE'S RULING
Carter ultimately decided that Klumb's allegations were accurate. He explained his reasoning in a detailed, 46-page ruling issued in July 2012.
In the ruling, Carter noted that the case was not a "garden variety" example of one spouse putting spyware on the other's computer to eavesdrop electronically.
He wrote in the judgment that Goan "engaged in an elaborate, deceptive scheme which involved wiretapping [Klumb's] computer to intercept emails" and "altering those emails to make it appear [Klumb] was having an affair, and altering legal documents in order to provide that if [Klumb] did have an affair, [Goan] would receive more money in a divorce."
Carter concluded that Klumb prevailed in the civil case "on his claims that [Goan] had violated the federal Wiretap Act [and] the Tennessee Wiretap Act" by installing spyware on the computers of Klumb's employers to intercept his incoming email.
Carter awarded Klumb $10,000 in statutory damages plus $10,000 in punitive damages.
Goan was also ordered to pay Klumb's "reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, and his costs of action."
In addition to bringing the civil lawsuit against Goan, Klumb filed a complaint concerning her actions with the Board of Professional Responsibility.
Full Article & Source:
State Supreme Court Censures Attorney Goan
Seems deserved.
ReplyDelete