Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes formal proceedings in multiple discipline matters and recommends revocation in theft-related case
Summary
At the Aug. 3 meeting the board approved consent-agenda closures, authorized proposed discipline for several tax and CPE-related matters, and moved to commence formal proceedings — including recommending revocation authority in a felony-related theft matter where a summary suspension and guilty plea/diversion were on the record.
The Tennessee State Board of Accountancy reviewed the legal report and acted on multiple enforcement matters at its Aug. 3 meeting.
Legal staff summarized consent-agenda items (cases 1–9) and recommended closures or letters of warning for matters involving peer-review enrollment and tax-preparation questions; the board approved the consent agenda by voice vote. Counsel then presented proposed-discipline matters (cases 10–13) that included admitted violations, missed filings and failure to provide client documents; settlement recommendations ranged from hundreds to low-thousands of dollars depending on the case. The board authorized formal proceedings and settlement authority as recommended by counsel.
Counsel devoted extended discussion to a high-severity matter (case 15). Lee Lott reported that an agreed order of summary suspension had already been entered, that the respondent pleaded guilty (entered a diversion agreement) to charges including theft and official misconduct, and that court-related actions include a lengthy probation term and a requirement to pay restitution. Lott said the respondent also represented to staff that he had paid $18,800 to compensate his employer and that the court ordered $15,000 restitution; Lott recommended the board commence formal proceedings and authorized settlement up to revocation. The board voted to approve the recommendation for case 15 and separately approved the related representation matter.
Board members repeatedly emphasized the board’s public-protection role in pursuing swift action in cases where investigators documented likely harm; investigator Duke Speed reviewed a prior large case that prompted rapid revocation steps and described client loss in those matters.
