Tennessee Senate Bill SB1107

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 23, Chapter 3; Title 27 and Title 39, relative to attorneys at law.

Summary

SB1107 would create a new Tennessee law stating that an attorney is not immune from prosecution for certain criminal acts committed while acting as counsel for a client or prospective client. The bill specifically lists perjury, aggravated perjury, subornation of perjury, tampering with or fabricating evidence, destruction of or tampering with governmental records, and coercion or persuasion of a witness. In effect, it is aimed at ensuring that lawyers cannot rely on litigation-related protections to avoid criminal liability when they knowingly engage in these offenses. The bill is framed as a response to concerns that the litigation privilege and related common-law doctrines may shield attorneys from accountability for deliberate falsehoods or evidence-related misconduct. Its stated purpose is to reinforce attorneys’ duties of candor and honesty to the court and to align criminal exposure with the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The act would take effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

This bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 23, Chapter 3 by adding a new section limiting immunity for attorneys in specified criminal conduct. It would not create new crimes, but it would clarify that existing criminal statutes in Title 39 can be enforced against attorneys even when the conduct occurs in the course of representation. The practical effect would be to narrow any argument that the litigation privilege or attorney status bars prosecution for perjury-related offenses, evidence tampering, record tampering, or witness coercion.

Sentiment

The bill text reflects a strongly supportive and reform-oriented sentiment toward attorney accountability, emphasizing honesty, candor, and the integrity of the justice system. No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the bill’s findings, the measure is presented as a corrective to perceived abuses rather than a controversial expansion of liability.

Contention

The main point of contention is the relationship between the litigation privilege and criminal accountability for lawyers. The bill cites a Tennessee Court of Appeals decision suggesting that false pleadings, affidavits, and subornation of perjury may fall within the privilege, and it seeks to override that result for the listed offenses. Supporters would likely argue that attorneys should not be insulated when they knowingly engage in criminal deception, while critics might worry about chilling zealous advocacy, expanding criminal exposure in litigation settings, or creating uncertainty about the boundary between aggressive representation and prosecutable conduct.