In re William Tracy Carris, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2021-080 JULY TERM, 2021 In re William Tracy Carris, Esq. (Office of Disciplinary Counsel*) } } } } ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PRB Nos. 2021-098, 116 In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: Disciplinary counsel filed a motion asking the Court to find respondent William Tracy Carris in contempt on the basis that he violated the Court’s order of May 3, 2021, suspending him from the practice of law and appointing a trustee to inventory respondent’s files and take actions as indicated to protect the interests of respondent and his clients. Disciplinary counsel also sought greater specificity in the appointment order to enable the trustee to fulfill his responsibilities. The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 14, 2021. Disciplinary counsel was present and respondent’s counsel, Matthew G. Hart, Esq., participated on his behalf. Respondent was not present. Disciplinary counsel offered sworn testimony by Trustee Rendol Barlow in support of the motion. Respondent did not present any evidence. Based on the evidence adduced at trial and in light of counsel’s representations, the Court orders disciplinary counsel, Trustee Barlow, and attorney Hart on respondent’s behalf to confer immediately in an effort to negotiate a stipulated order describing the authority of the trustee and the specific expectations and responsibilities of respondent, including timelines. If the parties do not submit a stipulated order by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 16, the Court will issue an order. The Court stays its ruling on the motion for contempt at this time. In the event that the trustee, disciplinary counsel, and respondent are unable to agree to a stipulated order, or in the event that disciplinary counsel concludes that respondent has not complied with the requirements of such order, disciplinary counsel may request that the Court proceed to make findings on the pending motion for contempt. No further hearing will be necessary in that ev ent. BY THE COURT: Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice Beth Robinson, Associate Justice Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice William D. Cohen, Associate Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
