THE ETHICS REPORTER

January 7, 2026

Nashville Attorney Michael Lloyd Freeman Suspended for Three Years

Nashville Attorney Michael Lloyd Freeman Suspended for Three Years

In the legal profession, a probationary period is often a “last chance” for an attorney to demonstrate they can practice ethically and effectively. For Nashville criminal defense and divorce attorney Michael Lloyd Freeman (BPR Number 028698), a failure to adhere to the strict terms of his probation has led to a major professional setback.

Effective October 9, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court revoked Freeman’s probation and ordered a three-year suspension from the practice of law (with credit given for 112 days previously served).

 The Core Violation: A Pattern of Continued Misconduct

The 2025 disciplinary action (Case No. M2025-01493-SC-BAR-BP) is the culmination of a multi-year effort by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility to address Freeman’s professional conduct.

1. The 2021 Original Suspension

The roots of the current case date back to June 21, 2021, when Freeman was originally suspended for three years. At that time, the court allowed for a “split” sentence:

  • Active Suspension: Three months of actual time away from the practice of law.

  • Probation: The remaining period was to be served on probation, contingent on Freeman incurring no new complaints of misconduct.

2. Violating the Terms of Probation

The Tennessee Supreme Court found that Freeman failed to meet the “no new complaints” requirement. While on probation, he was issued two separate disciplinary sanctions:

  • Public Censure (January 10, 2022)

  • Public Censure (July 31, 2022)

Because a Public Censure is a formal finding of misconduct, the Board filed a Petition to Revoke Probation. Despite Freeman’s attempts to appeal and a motion for reconsideration—which the Court denied on October 17, 2025—the revocation stood.

Professional Background

Prior to his suspension, Michael Lloyd Freeman was a well-known figure in the Nashville legal scene:

  • Firm: The Freeman Law Firm, PLLC, located on Deaderick Street in Nashville.

  • Practice Focus: He specialized in high-stakes Criminal Defense, DUI, and Divorce cases.

  • Experience: Licensed since 2010, he often marketed himself as a “go-to” lawyer for difficult matters who “doesn’t back down from a fight.”

However, public reviews on sites like Avvo highlighted a growing disconnect, with some clients praising his results while others complained of a total lack of communication and errors in legal documentation.

 The Impact of the Suspension

As a result of the October 2025 order, Freeman must now navigate a rigorous path if he hopes to return to the bar:

  • Cessation of Practice: He is prohibited from representing clients or appearing in court during his suspension.

  • Compliance with Rule 9: He must notify all current clients of his suspension and return their files and any unearned fees.

  • Reinstatement Requirements: Before seeking to practice again, he must meet all CLE requirements, pay outstanding registration fees, and remit over $1,600 in court and Board costs.

 Conclusion: The Fragility of Legal Probation

The case of Michael Lloyd Freeman serves as a stark reminder that the Tennessee Supreme Court views probation not as a mere formality, but as a rigorous test of an attorney’s commitment to ethics. By incurring public censures during his probationary window, Freeman triggered a “callback” of his original three-year suspension. For his clients in Davidson County, this development marks a definitive end to his current ability to provide legal counsel.

54

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