THE ETHICS REPORTER

January 5, 2026

Maury County Attorney James Michael Marshall Suspended for Five Years

Maury County Attorney James Michael Marshall Suspended for Five Years

The professional accountability of an attorney is non-negotiable, particularly when it comes to accuracy in court and communication with clients. For Maury County-based attorney James Michael Marshall (BPR Number 018784), a repeated pattern of professional misconduct has resulted in significant disciplinary action by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Effective November 21, 2025, the Court issued an order suspending Marshall for five years. Under the terms of the order, he must serve two years as in active suspension, with the remaining three years to be served on probation.

 The Core Misconduct: Negligence and Inaccurate Filings

The disciplinary action (Case No. 2025-3532-6-DB) stemmed from findings that Marshall breached fundamental ethical duties while representing his clients. According to the Board of Professional Responsibility, the most recent violations included:

  • Inaccurate Court Pleadings: Marshall submitted a factually inaccurate pleading to the court. When the error was identified, he failed to correct it and failed to inform his client about the inaccuracy.

  • Communication Failures: Marshall systematically failed to communicate with his clients regarding the status of their cases and the errors made in their filings.

  • Failure to Expedite Litigation: His handling of legal matters was found to lack the diligence and promptness required to move cases forward effectively.

  • Violations Acknowledged: In a conditional guilty plea, Marshall admitted to violating multiple Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 1.3 (Diligence), Rule 1.4 (Communication), and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct).

 A History of Disciplinary Challenges

The 2025 suspension is the latest in a series of disciplinary actions that have marked Marshall’s career over the last decade. His record with the Board of Professional Responsibility shows a recurring struggle with professional standards:

  • 2014: Suspended for 60 days for violations of professional conduct.

  • 2015: Issued a Public Censure following a conviction on two counts of assault (involving his former wife and father-in-law) and being held in contempt of court for failing to pay child support.

  • 2023: Suspended for one year due to a conflict of interest (involving an inappropriate relationship with a client) and failing to file court orders, which led to contempt charges against his client.

  • 2024: Temporarily suspended in October for failing to respond to a new complaint of misconduct from the Board.

 The Sanction: Suspension and Probationary Terms

The Tennessee Supreme Court’s 2025 order imposes strict requirements on Marshall’s ability to practice:

  • Active Suspension: Marshall is prohibited from practicing law for a period of two years.

  • Probation and Monitoring: If he returns to practice after his active suspension, he will be on probation for three years and must retain a practice monitor to oversee his office procedures and ethics.

  • Notification of Clients: As with all Recent Disciplinary Actions, Marshall must notify all current clients of his suspension and return any unearned fees or files.

 Conclusion: The High Cost of Professional Neglect

The case of James Michael Marshall illustrates that the State Bar’s tolerance for repeated ethical lapses is not infinite. While attorneys are often given chances to reform their practice through probation, a consistent failure to maintain accuracy in the courtroom and honesty with clients eventually leads to a lengthy removal from the profession. For legal consumers in Middle Tennessee, this five-year suspension serves as a formal safeguard against further professional neglect.

52

Independent Journalism Needs You

You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.

We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.

If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.

Reader Supported

This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.

We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.

Join 47 readers who donated this month

47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters

Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.

The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.

← Back to all articles