A Nashville attorney received one year active suspension and three years’ probation for offering advice on how to get away with murder. Judge Holly Kirby of the Tennessee Supreme Court issued the ruling against attorney Winston Bradshaw Sitton last Friday, calling it a “cautionary tale on the ethical problems that can befall lawyers on social media.”
Sitton had posted the comment in question on a 2017 Facebook post from a woman, Lauren Houston, who was trying to leave an allegedly abusive relationship. At the time, the two had been friends on the site for about a year. The contested comments appeared on a post in which Houston asked whether it was legal to carry a firearm in her car without paying for a permit.
“I have a carry permit Lauren. The problem is that if you pull your gun, you must use it. I am afraid that, with your volatile relationship with your baby’s daddy, you will kill your ex[,] your son’s father,” wrote Sitton. “Better to get a taser or a canister of tear gas. Effective but not deadly. If you get a shotgun, fill the first couple rounds with rock salt, the second couple with bird shot, then load for bear. If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in with intent to do you bodily harm and that you feared for your life. Even with the new stand your ground law, the castle doctrine is a far safer basis for use of deadly force.”
After Houston responded that she’d wish her ex-boyfriend would try to attack her again, Sutton advised her to “keep mum” about her intentions if she were “remotely serious.”
“Delete this thread and keep quiet,” wrote Sitton. “Your defense is that you are afraid for your life[. R]evenge or premeditation of any sort will be used against you at trial.”
Houston’s ex-boyfriend reported the exchange to Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich, who reported it to Tennessee’s Board of Professional Responsibility. The board determined the next year that Sitton had violated a professional conduct rule by offering counsel on how to commit a crime in a way to limit an arrest or conviction. Sitton contested that his intent was to convince Houston to not carry a gun in her car, and that the escalated comments discussing murder were sarcasm and dark humor intent on shocking Houston out of any desire to kill her abuser.
The board disagreed. They ruled to suspend Sitton’s law license for sixty days. Once submitted to the courts, however, the judge determined that the board’s suggested suspension was “inadequate.”
“Lawyers may of course offer advice on the legal consequences of a proposed course of conduct and may offer counsel on the meaning or application of the law,” opined Kirby. “That is not what Mr. Sitton did here. In his capacity as a lawyer, Mr. Sitton offered specific legal advice on how to orchestrate a killing in a way calculated to provide the perpetrator a fabricated defense to criminal charges. Then, in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to conceal the conversation, he directed Ms. Houston to delete the comment thread. Our rules do not permit lawyers to offer advice on how to commit crime with impunity.”
On that basis, Kirby imposed a four-year suspension on Sitton’s legal license – one year of active suspension and three years of probation – and 9 continuing legal education (CLE) hours addressing the ethical use of social media by attorneys.
In a statement to The Tennessee Star, Sitton reiterated remarks similar to the defense he presented in court.
“I adamantly contest the finding that my gratuitous commentary offered in 2017 to a battered woman, who was being threatened and abused and harassed by her son’s father, was legal advice as to how to commit a crime or in any way violated my duties as either a citizen or as a lawyer,” wrote Sitton. “Any such finding is both irrational, as the offensive communication was published in plain view and with no attempt at concealment and no possible movie for the offense alleged; as well as inconsistent with the undisputed facts presented into evidence, as the comment was given in the context of the very same paragraph in which I strongly advised the lady NOT to carry a gun in her car for fear that she might harm herself or others, but instead encouraged her to resort to less lethal forms of protection such as mace or a taser.”
The attorney added that his true intent was to “use sarcasm in order to emphasize the peril inherent in carrying a firearm without adequate training” and to dissuade Houston from continuing to openly discuss self-defense in such a manner.
“No malice or improper intent [by me] was found by the Board or the Court, nor was any motive suggested as to why a seasoned attorney with nearly 30 years experience would have risked his career in such a way as they suggest, especially in plain view and for the benefit of someone he had never met, never spoken with, or never emailed or even privately messaged outside of public banter on Facebook’s open pages,” wrote Sitton.
Sitton alleged to The Star that the court violated Rule 106 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence by taking his statements out of context. He also alleged that the board had filed charges twice against him on a nonexistent rule concerning unbecoming conduct.
Following the ruling last Friday, Sitton posted several remarks challenging the ruling and the board’s true intentions. He noted that while he is suspended from practicing in Tennessee, he will continue to consult businesses and is licensed in New York and Maryland.
– – –
Corinne Murdock is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and the Star News Network. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to [email protected].
