By Connie Reguli

2026 July BPR opinion.  

On July 20, 2026, the Tenn Sup Ct finally disbarred Connie Reguli  and said that she – “spread false warnings that the government was “coming for your kids” and would target families, neighborhoods, and churches.”  And that she singlehandly “directly poisoned the well of justice”.

Notably Reguli, in her 28 years of practicing law, did not abuse drugs, steal money, or ruin a clients case – but I shared her opinion about the Tennessee government and the Department of Children’s Services. We are living in Nazi Germany 🇩🇪 1939

The Supreme Court opinion was authorized by Justice Holly Kirby who left the bench June 30,2026 and did not filed this opinion until July 20, three weeks later.  

The Supreme Court DENIED Reguli an oral argument sua sponte without explanation. Perhaps the reason is that this would have been captured on their YouTube channel and created a permanent public record of all of the anomalies of this case.

She is here now to tell you how this happened –  

What was this case about – 

It was all about judges and the First Amendment rights of attorneys to speak the truth about the Tennessee judicial system. 

The complaint came from – 

Judge Sharon Guffee Williamson County Juvenile Court who complained that Reguli caused eight families to go to the County commission meeting to describe the courtroom abuse by Guffee.  This meeting was recorded and televised.  It was also reported by the Tennessean.  This publicity outraged Guffee. 

It was about Reguli calling out Guffee for her role in covering up a child sexual assault in her detention center and the conditions children spent behind bars and Reguli taking the child to the news to tell how he was held in solitary confinement. Reguli obtained a positive result from Sixth Circuit in that case establishing the rights of juveniles but Williamson County DA sabotaged the criminal case against Juan Cruz by charging him with the wrong crime and Cruz received a not guilty Not withstanding the DNA evidence. 

Sharon Guffee filed a complaint against Reguli in a letter that included her cell phone stating she could be called at any time.  The BPR had to give Reguli a copy of the letter under the Rules and Reguli had a COMPLETE right to share her letter publicly during the investigation.  Reguli shared the letter provided by Guffee – that is NOT doxing.  Reguli did not stalk her – surveil her – or contact her directly. Others did. 

It was about Wilson County Judge Barry Tatum whom Reguli called out for violating due process rights and exposed Tatum after he dressed her down in court for violating orders he had not signed.  When Reguli cross examined him in the hearing about the procedural aberrations in his courtroom. He caved and admitted the children’s custodians had not been properly served with the DCS petition.

It was about Senior Judge Robert E Lee Davies who was the judge who wrongfully incarcerated Reguli in 2010 for a contempt she did not commit and was reversed by the court of appeals.  Reguli had called him out for months, exposing his ex parte communication and violations of due process. When he ran for judge he failed to disclosure his financial conflict of interest with the law firm he had previously worked with. In doing so, he hid this from public view and permitted those attorneys to practice in his court.  Reguli challenged that conflict. The animosity never abated. The sordid history of Davies’ adulterous affair with Robin Hampton surfaced again when Reguli was hired by Hamptons ex-husband on a child support matter and Davies inserted himself into the case.  Reguli later sought to recuse Davies when he was appointed on another case of hers and outlined the long history of conflict.  The BPR sanctioned her for this. Davies wrenched at the narrative of that history and after recusing himself filed a complaint that Reguli said too much and it was meant only to harass him. He only claimed one item was not true but it was.  Davies never testified at the BPR hearing and was never subject to cross examination. 

It was about another client of Reguli speaking in a public forum about Guffee’s courtroom behavior and ordering the client to vacate her home without authority. The BPR blamed Reguli for inducing the woman to speak against Guffee. The client claimed that Guffee had violated her constitutional rights.  The panel thought it was outrageous for such a claim to be made.  

It was about Judge Joseph A Woodruff who rewrote the law to prosecute Reguli and her client Wendy Hancock on false crimes which would then be overturned by the court of criminal appeals.  State v Hancock and State v Reguli.  The appellate court said there was no criminal conduct but the BPR used it anyway.  

It was about Reguli confronting DCS practice of obtaining ex parte orders using false information to remove kids from their parents and defending her client, a disabled mom and disabled child, against that corruption.  

And then there is the process the Supreme Court uses.  

First the Board of Professional Responsibility is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court created by the Supreme Court WITHOUT legislative approval.

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to create an administrative agency? No. Constitutionally the Supreme Court is judicial branch appellate review only.  

The Supreme Court created a taxation system for attorneys above and beyond the state privilege tax for licensure.  Does the Supreme Court have the power of taxation? No. Only the legislature can do that.  The Supreme Court rules say that this tax is then dedicated to the BPR. Can the Supreme Court do that?  No. Only the legislature can appropriate tax collected revenue. The BPR funds are not even line-itemed in the state budget.  

The BPR has a made up of competitive attorneys in the same geographic area. Is there a financial conflict giving competing attorney the power to strip someone’s career?  Yes. 

The BPR was not required to present expert testimony on standard of care which has been determined by tennessee law in Martin v Sizemore on licensure cases. Therefore the panel used ther own personal judgment and they could not be cross examined. 

The First Amendment right to criticize your government was ignored even though prior Tennessee cases recognized an attorney’s right to criticize even judges.  

In Reguli’s case a host of particularized errors interfered with her rights.  

Of the three panel members (competing attorneys) – two had a conflict of interest having a history with the underlying cases – they refused to recuse themselves.  

Reguli was denied depositions. 

Guffee walked out on her deposition because Reguli questioned AG Klinefleter on her authority as a state agency to represent a county employee.  Reguli was denied the deposition by the panel. 

Reguli was denied depositions on Davies and Tatum. Tatum walked out on his deposition when Reguli was video taping. She was denied the depositions.  Reguli was denied other depositions including CASA executive director Marianne Schroerwho is also married to prior mayor John Schorer. 

Judge Woodruff, Schorer’s neighbor, denied the motion to compel her deposition and would not let Reguli be heard on her motion.

Reguli took a videographer to the BPR hearing, which she had done in the past.  That panel kicked out her videographer.  And then threatened to jail Reguli for audio recording even though a state law provides for recording.  

One panel member yelled at Reguli’s witness until the witness cried and ran out of the courtroom.  

The panel ignored the multiple letters Reguli had on her integrity even though they are required to consider a lawyers reputation. 

No evidence was provided on the Judge Davies complaint but the case panel made findings of fact anyway based on a summary judgement they had never ruled on.

There were NO injuries in this case.  No client testified that Reguli damaged a case or hurt a client. 

The panel claimed that Reguli impugned the administration of justice by being critical of judges. 

The three member panel would take five months to issue their opinion and only two of the three would sign it. The third filed a separate document saying he did not agree with all the facts but agreed to disbarment.  He never said what he disagreed with.  

Reguli then appealed to Circuit on the limited “abuse of discretion” standard and Judge Thomas Wright was designated as senior judge. He basically ignored the arguments that Reguli was handicapped by all of the errors made by the panel.  Reguli would find out that Wright did not have an oath of office filed with the Secretary of State and when Reguli raised that issue Wright came up with an oath and filed it. Claiming it meant nothing that he had not filed it with the SOS.  Wright left his position as senior judge in August  without ruling on Reguli’s case and would file an order five months later in January. 

Importantly during the midst of this debacle which started in 2018 – the United States Supreme Court issued two rulings that restricted the use of administrative courts. In June 2024 the ruling in Jarkesy and Loper defined that citizens have a right to the court system, not administrative tribunals, with full due process when their private rights are affected.  

Reguli filed a brief on this and told the Tennessee Supreme Court they could no longer use the administrative process. 

This has been ignored.  

Reguli’s career expanded three decades dozens of appellate court victories and civil rights victories for citizens.  See Andrews v Hickman county.  JH v Williamson Co.  

Reguli also rewrote the law on judicial estoppel in Tennessee with Kershaw v Levy.  

Reguli is also the only attorney that successfully sued parents for abuse of children and obtained a multi million dollar collectible judgment. 

She was known for showing up in any county in Tennessee to fight DCS. 

Reguli showed up at forum discussing indigent representation and access to records as early as 2016.

Reguli has been active in the state legislative process and spoke against the parental rights bill which she called a “government control” bill giving law makers the power to slice away parental rights with the swipe of a pen.

She even captured the live abduction of a four week old infant by cps workers in Tennessee.

She has fought for transparency seeking public records from Williamson County in a battle that has found itself in the Tennessee Court of Appeals twice.

She has multiple news stories with Fox 17 and Tennessee Tribune. 

Reguli was falsely prosecuted twice. Once for a totally fabricated crime and the second time on fabricated evidence. In 2023 the second crime was finally dismissed and in 2024 the first criminal conviction was vacated.

Reguli publicly shared the results of the culture survey from DCS staff which demonstrated the horrific work environment.

Reguli has posted videos on the perverted financial incentives of the foster care system.

Reguli also heads up Family Forward Project,  a social media group collecting families across the nation affected by DCS which the Tenn Supreme Court characterized as a hate group. She has spoken at multiple forums and sponsored many trips to Washington DC for parents and grandparents of stolen children.  

She may be contacted at

Connie.familyforward@gmail.com

Facebook

Family Forward Project