Connie Reguli v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

07/20/2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 29, 2025 CONNIE REGULI v. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 2022-541 Thomas J. Wright, Senior Judge ___________________________________ No. M2024-00153-SC-R3-BP ___________________________________ In this disciplinary appeal, the lawyer must be disbarred. The lawyer engaged in a years- long orchestrated effort on social media to publicly intimidate judges and justice system officials, and to inspire community fear and loathing against the justice system itself. She posted hyperbolic commentary on social media loaded with false allegations about judges and justice system officials, doxed judges and justice system officials, urged her social media followers to send them harassing messages, intimidated judges and justice system officials, spread disinformation and conspiracy theories, and flagrantly defied court orders. Her public comments to social media followers indicated she wished physical harm to judges and justice system officials, prompting them to fear for their safety and that of their families. And in defiance of a protective custody order and an Amber Alert for a child in danger, the lawyer enabled her client to evade law enforcement by supplying her client with a burner phone and hiding the client and her child inside the lawyer’s own home. All of these acts were connected to judicial proceedings in which the lawyer was participating. After lengthy disciplinary proceedings, a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel recommended disbarment, and on appeal the trial court agreed. The lawyer appeals to this Court. Here, the lawyer’s comprehensive efforts sought to intimidate judges and justice system officials, and to directly poison the well of justice. Her conduct is a grave dishonor as a lawyer and demands the most severe sanction. No judicial response short of disbarment would be acceptable.  Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 9, § 33.1(d); Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed HOLLY KIRBY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JEFFREY S. BIVINS, C.J., and SARAH K. CAMPBELL, DWIGHT E. TARWATER, and MARY L. WAGNER, JJ., joined. Connie Lynn Reguli, Brentwood, Tennessee, appellant, Pro Se. James W. Milam, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. OPINION FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The appellant attorney in this case, Connie Lynn Reguli, has been licensed to practice law in Tennessee since 1994. The disciplinary complaint that is the subject of this appeal cites numerous incidents of misconduct between 2014 and 2018, outlined below.1 As will be evident, the pattern of Ms. Reguli’s misconduct escalated in severity over time. While all the complaints call for discipline, the incidents concerning CASA volunteer Ann Best, Juvenile Court Judge Sharon Guffee, and client Wendy Hancock form the core of the need for disbarment. We set out the facts in each of the attorney disciplinary complaints, roughly in chronological order,2 and summarize the proceedings before the hearing panel and Ms. Reguli’s appeal to the trial court, before analyzing the issues on appeal to this 1 Each incident of misconduct was connected to at least one underlying lawsuit. We take judicial notice of these cases and reference them throughout this opinion. See State v. Lawson, 291 S.W.3d 864, 869 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Delbridge v. State, 742 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Tenn. 1987) (“[M]atters occurring within the immediate trial or appeal, or developments in a prior trial or prior proceedings all have been subject to judicial notice.”); Mosley v. Brandon, No. M2006-02398-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 1774309, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 2007) (“Judicial notice of other cases advancing a similar claim of relief and involving the same parties or in collateral cases presenting similar or related issues is permissible, especially when the relevance of the prior litigation is expressly made an issue in the case on appeal.”) These matters are discussed to provide context for the conduct that is the subject of the disciplinary complaints at issue in this appeal. 2 Some of the episodes overlap in time. -2- Court and the propriety of the sanction.3 I. Volunteer Best Contempt Petitions The facts in the earliest matter in this series of disciplinary complaints against Ms. Reguli show that, by the time of this first incident, she had already established a pattern of conduct aimed at intimidating court system personnel. The Board of Professional Responsibility filed this disciplinary complaint against Ms. Reguli based on contempt petitions she filed in In re Carolina M. In early 2014, in In re Carolina M., the Williamson County Juvenile Court declared a child dependent and neglected in a proceeding initiated by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). Ms. Reguli represented the mother and father in an appeal to the trial court. Ms. Reguli subpoenaed investigative records from Anne Best, a volunteer with the Williamson County Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”). CASA filed a motion to quash the subpoena and limit discovery, to protect sensitive information about the child. In response to CASA’s motion, the trial court allowed CASA to redact certain information from documents it produced and seek in camera review, in the event CASA felt that responsive information would be harmful to the child if disclosed to the parents. CASA then produced various records and handwritten notes with redactions. Ms. Reguli demanded the unredacted documents. CASA asked Ms. Reguli to identify specific redactions for in camera review by the trial court. Instead of doing so, Ms. Reguli filed a motion for civil contempt and sanctions against the volunteer, Ms. Best. In response, CASA filed its own motion for in camera review of the documents identified in Ms. Reguli’s civil contempt petition. After a hearing, the trial court found the documents properly redacted and took no action on Ms. Reguli’s civil contempt petition. Unsatisfied, Ms. Reguli filed a petition for criminal contempt against Ms. Best, based on two emails and attachments CASA produced. Ms. Reguli alleged that Ms. Best had violated a criminal statute by forwarding the CASA emails and attachments to the child’s teacher. After another hearing, the trial court ruled against Ms. Reguli and invited CASA and Ms. Best to apply for attorney fees incurred in defending against both contempt petitions. 3 The facts as to each complaint are based primarily on the testimony and evidence credited by the hearing panel in Ms. Reguli’s disciplinary proceedings. -3-  CASA filed two separate motions for sanctions against Ms. Reguli, one for the civil contempt petition and another for the criminal contempt petition. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11. After hearing both motions, the trial court ruled that Ms. Reguli violated Rule 11 by filing the civil contempt petition for an improper purpose and to cause needless expense and delay. The trial court called the civil contempt petition “a litigation tactic calculated to [] coerce CASA[]” and ordered Ms. Reguli to complete additional continuing legal education in ethics. The trial court further found that Ms. Reguli’s criminal contempt petition had no evidentiary support, was not warranted by existing law, and was filed for an improper purpose. The trial court characterized the criminal contempt petition as a “litigation tactic calculated to coerce and/or intimidate Ms. Best from providing truthful testimony as a witness, from assisting DCS in its trial preparation and from otherwise acting in [the child’s] best interests.” Citing two other contempt petitions Ms. Reguli filed in the same case, the trial court pointed out her “pattern and practice” of charging parties and witnesses with contempt “as a coercive litigation tool.” It ordered Ms. Reguli to pay CASA’s attorney fees to deter her from “her demonstrated habit and practice of using threats of contempt petitions as a routine litigation tool.” Ms. Reguli appealed the sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See In re Carolina M., No. M2014-02133-COA-R3-JV, 2016 WL 6427853 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2016), perm. app. denied, No. M2014-02133-SC-R11-JV (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2017). Years later, Ms. Reguli claimed under oath that she had paid CASA as required by the sanctions, but a subsequent review of CASA’s records showed no record of payment. Reguli v. Woodruff, No. 3:24-CV-00694, 2025 WL 949992, at *5, 7–8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2025). CASA’s executive director at the time of the contempt proceedings, Marianne Schroer, later said that Ms. Reguli’s contempt petitions caused Ms. Best to be fearful, emotional, and upset, and they made other CASA volunteers afraid to take on similar cases. As a result, Ms. Schroer began assigning cases involving Ms. Reguli to CASA’s paid staff members instead of to volunteers, even though doing so took the staff away from their normal duties. II. Judge Tatum Complaint The next in this series of complaints against Ms. Reguli shows her willingness to look past ethical rules on conflicts in representation. Judge Barry Tatum filed a disciplinary -4- complaint against Ms. Reguli based on her conduct in a 2015 dependency and neglect proceeding. In September 2014, DCS filed a dependency and neglect petition against the parents of a group of siblings in Wilson County Juvenile Court. Judge Tatum appointed attorney Karen Chaffin to represent the mother, Ashley S., and appointed attorney Michael Kilgore to represent the father, Michael G.4 Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Kilgore represented the parents at a hearing on December 1, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Judge Tatum entered an order indicating the parents had stipulated the children were dependent and neglected. The order awarded temporary custody to the maternal grandparents, Tammy and Jody S. At a review hearing in March 2015, the grandparents told Judge Tatum they could no longer keep the children, so on April 1 he entered an order placing them in a “trial home visit” with the parents. The April 1 order noted that Ms. Chaffin represented the mother and Mr. Kilgore represented the father at the hearing. Not long after that, problems in the parents’ home were reported. As a result, DCS filed an ex parte petition. On April 30, 2015, Judge Tatum entered a protective order granting DCS temporary protective custody of the children. The grandparents were not named in that order. Judge Tatum held a preliminary hearing on May 4. On May 28, he entered an order upholding removal of the children from the parents’ home. The May 28 order showed the parents, attorneys Chaffin and Kilgore, and the maternal grandparents were all present at the May 4 hearing. It recited that the parents were represented by attorneys Chaffin and Kilgore. The May 28 order also noted the parents’ request for court-appointed counsel and separate orders appointing their attorneys. Those separate orders reappointing Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Kilgore as counsel were filed on May 18, 2015, nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2015. Ms. Reguli later said she became involved in the case on May 13, 2015, when the maternal grandparents, the mother, and the mother’s sister all visited Ms. Reguli’s office. She said they discussed placing the children with the grandparents again. The family gave Ms. Reguli several court documents, including the April 1 order listing Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Kilgore as the parents’ attorneys. Ms. Reguli later claimed she called the Wilson County Juvenile Court Clerk’s office and was told that there were no orders appointing 4 We use the first names of the parties to protect the children’s identity and privacy. -5- counsel for the parents,5 so she relayed that information to the parents and the grandparents. Ms. Reguli did not try to contact either Ms. Chaffin or Mr. Kilgore. During the meeting in her office, Ms. Reguli told the family that the easiest way to get the children placed with the grandparents was for the grandparents to file a custody petition that included the parents’ consent. The children’s mother, Ashley S., later said she believed at the time that Ms. Reguli was representing the entire family and not just the grandparents. On June 8, 2015, Ms. Reguli filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the grandparents and a petition asking the trial court to grant custody to them. Acting on Ms. Reguli’s advice, the parents joined the petition and filed oaths verifying facts adverse to their custodial interests.6 Again, Ms. Reguli did not try to contact either Ms. Chaffin or Mr. Kilgore.7 But the certificate of service for the grandparents’ custody petition listed Ms. Chaffin as “Attorney for Mother” and Mr. Kilgore as “Attorney for Father.” When he saw the grandparents’ petition, along with the parents’ signatures and the certificate of service, Judge Tatum became concerned that Ms. Reguli had communicated with the parents despite knowing they were represented by counsel. Summoned to a hearing on June 10, 2015, Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Kilgore told Judge Tatum they had neither spoken with Ms. Reguli nor given her permission to speak with their clients, the parents. Judge Tatum then filed this disciplinary complaint against Ms. Reguli, alleging she may have communicated directly with the parents while representing the children’s grandparents. 5 As of that date, the information Ms. Reguli claimed to receive from the clerk’s office would have been correct because, while Ms. Chaffin and Mr. Kilgore were orally appointed at the May 4th hearing, the orders appointing them were not entered until May 18, 2015. 6 Ms. Chaffin later said that she would not have consented to Ms. Reguli speaking with the mother at the May 13 meeting without Ms. Chaffin present, and that she would have opposed the petition on the mother’s behalf. 7 Ms. Reguli later said she viewed the April 30, 2015, DCS filing as a new petition that required new orders of appointment. -6-  III. In re Hailey S. Motions The next in the series of complaints against Ms. Reguli demonstrates not only a continued pattern of overlooking ethical rules on conflicts in representation, but also a pattern of ignoring court orders with which she disagreed. Attorney Lisa Cothron filed a disciplinary complaint against Ms. Reguli stemming from motions Ms. Reguli filed during 2015 and 2016 in a matter in which Ms. Cothron was the guardian ad litem, In re Hailey S. In 2015, in In re Hailey S., the Macon County Circuit Court granted DCS’s petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. See In re Hailey S., No. M2015-00842-COA-R3- PT, 2016 WL 3209444, at *2–7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016). The father appealed and the trial court appointed attorney Tyler Whitaker to represent the father on appeal. Mr. Whitaker filed a notice of appearance in the Court of Appeals in July 2015. Ms. Reguli represented the father’s aunt and uncle. She contacted Mr. Whitaker and offered assistance, which Mr. Whitaker accepted. In September 2015, Ms. Reguli filed a motion in the Court of Appeals on behalf of the father, as well as the father’s aunt and uncle, asking the appellate court to suspend the briefing schedule. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, explaining that Ms. Reguli’s clients, the aunt and uncle, were not parties to the appeal and had no standing to request suspension of the briefing schedule. The order of the appellate court noted that, although the father had standing, the father’s appointed counsel was Mr. Whitaker. It cautioned Ms. Reguli that she was not authorized to file motions on behalf of the father. The following January, a motion was filed on behalf of the father to stay or suspend the proceedings. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. In March 2016, Ms. Reguli filed a motion to supplement the previously-denied January motion. This motion was purportedly filed on behalf of the father, as well as the father’s aunt and uncle. The Court of Appeals entered an order denying Ms. Reguli’s motion. The order again bluntly instructed Ms. Reguli that she was not authorized to file motions on behalf of the father.8 The Court of Appeals struck Ms. Reguli’s supplemental motion from the record. 8 The opinion eventually issued by the Court of Appeals listed both Mr. Whitaker and Ms. Reguli as counsel for the father. See In re Hailey S., 2016 WL 3209444. -7-  IV. Judge Davies Recusal Motion The next disciplinary complaint against Ms. Reguli shows an escalating pattern of conduct aimed at intimidating court officials by making scurrilous allegations about them. Senior Judge Lee Davies referred Ms. Reguli to the BPR based on a motion she filed in a case styled Kershaw v. Levy. In October 2016, Ms. Reguli filed a motion seeking Judge Davies’ recusal from Kershaw v. Levy. The motion was not based on anything related to the Kershaw case. Instead, it made assertions about Ms. Reguli’s past dealings with Judge Davies when he was a trial judge in Williamson County, and about other matters unrelated to Ms. Reguli.9 The recusal motion attached exhibits related to Ross v. Ross, a 2007 divorce case in Judge Davies’ court. In that case, Judge Davies found Ms. Reguli guilty of criminal contempt for having “deliberately counsel[ed] her client to disregard the ruling of the Court.” Ross v. Ross, No. M2008-00594-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 5191329, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2008). Though it reversed the finding of contempt, 10 the Court of Appeals found that Ms. Reguli’s use of her appellate brief “as a vehicle to convey her contempt of the trial court is inexcusable.” Id. at *8–9. The Court of Appeals rebuked Ms. Reguli’s “impertinent and unprofessional assertions” and referred her to the Board. Id. at *8–9 & n.9. In 2011, Ms. Reguli was publicly censured for the statements in her appellate brief. In Kershaw, in an order filed in late October 2016, Judge Davies addressed Ms. Reguli’s motion to recuse. He emphasized that his earlier criminal contempt ruling against Ms. Reguli had occurred nearly a decade prior. He noted that most of the grievances in Ms. Reguli’s motion had nothing to do with conflict between him and Ms. Reguli. Instead, he said, the purpose of her motion “appear[ed] to be an effort to impugn and malign the integrity” of Judge Davies and two other judges, Senior Judge Don Ash and Judge Chris Craft. Judge Davies rebutted several of Ms. Reguli’s claims and deemed most of them to be false, misleading, or irrelevant to the Kershaw case. 9 For instance, Ms. Reguli’s motion claimed that “others” had filed complaints “against the behavior of Judge Davies.” One of the claimed complaints purportedly involved Judge Davies’ statement of financial interest in his 2006 run for judgeship. Another purportedly involved his failure to recuse from a case while under subpoena to appear as a witness in another matter. 10 The Court of Appeals reversed the criminal contempt finding because the lawful court order in question was not specific enough to support a criminal contempt finding and the evidence was not sufficient to show that Ms. Reguli “instructed” the client to disobey the order. Ross, 2008 WL 5191329, at *5–8. -8-  Ultimately, Judge Davies also found it necessary to recuse himself from Kershaw. He reasoned: “As a result of the Motion filed by Attorney Reguli in this case containing impertinent and unprofessional assertions against this Court, the Court has found it necessary to refer Attorney Reguli to the Board of Professional Responsibility, which might cause a reasonable person to question this Court’s impartiality.” V. Judge Guffee Conduct The three successive attorney disciplinary complaints filed by Williamson County Juvenile Court Judge Sharon Guffee are among the most serious. They allege extreme misconduct combining tendencies demonstrated in earlier complaints—namely, disregard for truth, intimidation of court system officials, and willingness to undermine the justice system. But they add a new theme—misconduct intended to inspire fear in court system officials. The complaints were based on statements and actions by Ms. Reguli in 2017 and 2018 about Judge Guffee, the juvenile justice system, and DCS. Because this misconduct occurred against a backdrop of other state and federal litigation involving Judge Guffee and Ms. Reguli, for context, we first summarize the background litigation. Then we outline the misconduct in this appeal. A. Background Litigation First, in 2009, Ms. Reguli, personally and as next friend of her daughter, brought a federal section 1983 action against Judge Guffee and several other defendants. Reguli v. Guffee, 371 F. App’x 590 (6th Cir. 2010). Representing herself and her daughter, Ms. Reguli’s lawsuit asserted violations of their constitutional rights when Ms. Reguli’s minor daughter was in Judge Guffee’s court in a criminal matter. Id. at 592. The district court either dismissed or granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. Id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Id. Second, in May 2014, Ms. Reguli filed another lawsuit against Judge Guffee and another defendant. Reguli v. Guffee, No. M2015-00188-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 6427860, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2016), perm. app. denied, No. M2015-00188-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017). In this second action, Ms. Reguli represented herself, another plaintiff named Elizabeth Harris, and three other plaintiffs. Id. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had “wrongfully withheld video recordings of juvenile court proceedings” in Judge Guffee’s courtroom. Id. The trial court dismissed the case because two of the -9- plaintiffs did not have standing and the others were not entitled to the recordings. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. In February 2017, this Court denied permission to appeal. Order, Reguli v. Guffee, No. M2015-00188-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017). Third, beginning in late 2014, Ms. Reguli represented Elizabeth Harris and her son, J.H., in a federal section 1983 lawsuit against Judge Guffee and other defendants, based on J.H.’s detention in November and December 2013. J.H. v. Williamson Cnty., 951 F.3d 709, 713–15 (6th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 849 (2020). Among other claims, this action alleged that Judge Guffee’s decision to keep J.H. in segregated detention “amounted to unconstitutional punishment through the means of solitary confinement.” Id. at 713–14. The lawsuit also asserted that a sexual assault occurred during the son’s solitary confinement. Id. at 714. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Guffee in 2017, and in 2018 it granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims. Id. at 715. Appeals in the J.H. case were not resolved until 2020, when the Sixth Circuit affirmed and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.11 Id. at 724; J.H. v. Williamson Cnty., 141 S. Ct. 849 (2020) (denying petition for writ of certiorari). Against that backdrop, we review the misconduct alleged in Judge Guffee’s disciplinary complaints against Ms. Reguli. B. 2017 Flyer In August 2017, Ms. Reguli created a flyer in connection with her work with an advocacy group called the Family Forward Project. The Flyer was emblazoned with the heading, “OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT FOR SALE.” The Flyer had several pages of text, including a section describing Ms. Reguli’s career as an attorney: Her law career started as a prosecutor of domestic violence and child abuse. . . . For over twenty years she has had a private practice defending the rights of parenting, families, and children against the intrusive 11 The claims against Judge Guffee individually were dismissed in 2017 and were not appealed. J.H., 951 F.3d at 715–16. The appeal to the Sixth Circuit was based in part on the grant of summary judgment in favor of Williamson County, regarding the County’s implementation of Judge Guffee’s orders. Id. at 721–22. - 10 -  interference of government entities. Her published case of Andrews v. Hickman County has been quoted many times as the Sixth Circuit’s clarification that the Fourth Amendment DOES apply to social workers. She had the first case in Tennessee representing children against parents in a suit for damages after years of abuse. She is currently involved in suing Williamson County for the constitutional violations of the treatment of a juvenile while held in detention.12 The Flyer invited readers to find the Family Forward Project on Facebook. The Flyer made a host of assertions about DCS and the juvenile justice system. Among others, it called for an end to the “wholesaling” of children by DCS, accused DCS of receiving bonuses for rehousing children with foster parents, claimed DCS unnecessarily removes newborn babies from their mothers, and characterized DCS practices as “generational genocide” and “child trafficking.” Ms. Reguli mailed the Flyer to every member of Tennessee’s General Assembly and to every juvenile court judge in the state. C. 2017 Legislative Meeting Also in August 2017, Ms. Reguli arranged for another person affiliated with the Family Forward Project, Natasha Pavlovich, to speak at a Tennessee General Assembly subcommittee meeting (“Legislative Meeting”).13 Ms. Reguli described Ms. Pavlovich as her “surrogate” at the meeting, and Ms. Reguli prepared statements Ms. Pavlovich made to the legislators.14 On two occasions during the Legislative meeting, Ms. Pavlovich said she was speaking “on behalf of attorney Connie Reguli.” 12 This appears to be a reference to J.H. v. Williamson County, discussed above. 951 F.3d at 713– 15. 13 The record refers to the subcommittee meeting by various names: the “Judiciary Sub-Comm Meeting,” the “Joint House Senate Judiciary Committee” meeting, the “Government Operation Subcommittee,” and the “Government OPS” meeting 14 Ms. Pavlovich later said she appeared on behalf of herself and Ms. Reguli, after Ms. Reguli arranged for her to appear. She said Ms. Reguli “dictated” her statements at the Legislative Meeting. Ms. Pavlovich said she did not understand some of the statements Ms. Reguli prepared for her, but she believed the truth of the assertions that were based on her own experience with Judge Guffee. - 11 -  In the Legislative Meeting, Ms. Pavlovich made many assertions about Judge Guffee. She claimed that Judge Guffee made unconstitutional rulings against her, violated her due process rights, and had a pattern of making unconstitutional rulings.15 Ms. Pavlovich claimed that multiple other people had filed complaints against Judge Guffee with the Board of Judicial Conduct.16 She asked the legislature to dissolve the Board of Judicial Conduct and to remove Judge Guffee from office as a judge. Several weeks later, in September 2017, Judge Guffee filed a disciplinary complaint with the Board against Ms. Reguli. The complaint said that, in sending Ms. Pavlovich to the Legislative Meeting as her agent, Ms. Reguli “solicit[ed] others to disparage a judge in a public forum knowing full well this is unacceptable unethical conduct on the part of an attorney.” The disciplinary complaint also described the 2017 Flyer as a “very disturbing correspondence regarding ‘wholesaling of children through the Department of Children's Services.’” The filing of Judge Guffee’s disciplinary complaint triggered the next incident. D. Facebook After she received Judge Guffee’s attorney disciplinary complaint, Ms. Reguli posted a photocopy of the entire complaint on the Family Forward Project’s Facebook page. The photocopied attorney disciplinary complaint contained Judge Guffee’s cell phone number and email address. Her post read: “Complaint filed by Judge Guffee because I spoke out against CPS wholesaling children.” Ms. Reguli then encouraged Family Forward Project’s Facebook followers to contact Judge Guffee. Ms. Reguli’s next post to the Family Forward Project’s Facebook page again drew attention to the photocopy of Judge Guffee’s attorney disciplinary complaint. It said, “Judge Guffee continues to stalk Family Forward Project.” For emphasis, it added: “[S]ince we know she will be watching for this post why don’t y’all say hello to Sharon Guffee – Williamson County Juvenile court judge.” And in yet a third post, Ms. Reguli explicitly drew the attention of Facebook followers to Judge Guffee’s cell phone number and email address on the posted attorney disciplinary complaint. 15 Ms. Pavlovich initially appealed the ruling by Judge Guffee that she believed was unconstitutional, but she later voluntarily dismissed her appeal. Ms. Reguli represented Ms. Pavlovich in the appeal. 16 Ms. Pavlovich did not file a complaint against Judge Guffee with the Board of Judicial Conduct. - 12 -  Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ms. Reguli’s Facebook suggestion found fertile ground. Facebook followers who had viewed Ms. Reguli’s post sent Judge Guffee a plethora of negative texts, voicemails, and emails disparaging Judge Guffee and her integrity as a judge.17 Judge Guffee later described them as “harassing,” “angry,” “inciteful,” and even “threatening.” One text read: CPS needs to stop using kids as monetary gain!!!!! Period. Parents are fed up with the corruption and the judges that allow and profit from it!!!! If you need more income get another job like the rest of the people do!!!! You shouldn’t be scared of the truth if you are doing your job correctly!!! Judge Guffee viewed the text as insinuating she earned income from corrupt sources by participating in “wholesaling children.” Judge Guffee received an email that said, “I am surprised that a judge is not interested in protecting civil rights,” which Judge Guffee saw as an attack on her integrity. Judge Guffee also received voicemails on her cell phone, some from as far away as Santa Monica, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Clearwater, Florida.18 Judge Guffee later said the voicemails accused her of “outrageous things” like “sexual trafficking,” and cited several examples: Stop being a cowardice judge that’s allowing parents to lose their children without any judicial due process, no constitutional, no actual evidence. . . . .... You are . . . filing complaints against [Ms. Reguli] because your ego, because you’re butt-hurt basically. .... You don’t care anymore [about children]. You’ve lost sense of any kind of ethics or emotional that you did have and you are letting a bunch of illegal activity happen, including probably sexual trafficking. .... 17 Many of the messages contain informal or incorrect spelling and grammar. We generally reprint them here as they appear in the record without commenting on such errors. 18 One caller identified as a reporter from The Guardian and asked for an interview. - 13 -  Connie Reguli . . . is just seeking to expose the truth . . . and how you’re trafficking our children for money. Judge Guffee later described the voicemails, texts, and other messages as “hurtful,” “demeaning,” “hateful,” especially because they were “caused by a licensed attorney in our state.” Some of the hostile communications prompted by Ms. Reguli’s Facebook posts left Judge Guffee feeling personally threatened. One with the subject line “Judge Sharon Guffee” was sent through an online portal to her office by Donald C., who described himself as a retired United States Army Officer. It made a host of accusations of abuse and misconduct under judicial immunity, adding that, while he was in the military, “if one abused troops, they would be made to disappear never to return.”19 Judge Guffee interpreted the use of the word “disappear” as indicating she should be “eliminated” or “executed, assassinated.” Numerous comments were posted directly on the Facebook thread, and they were no better. Reguli client Elizabeth Harris posted: “Judge Guffee you are a cowardly criminal who has ruined the lives of so many when you could have helped. Shame on you for your power hungry, controlling, abusive ways.” Judge Guffee interpreted another comment as suggesting she was corrupt: “Can you ask [Judge Guffee] if she is will to release her tax 19 The message from Donald C. said in full: Your Honor, Contrary to popular belief judges are neither “gods” or the “lords of the manor”. You appear inclined to retaliate when someone exercised their God-given Right expressed in the First Amendment, Constitution of the United States to criticize anyone in their Government, even to the point of openly expressing that they hate your guts. If I were you, I would rather listen to unvarnished criticism, prayerfully consider the points made, absorb information and forget everything else that is noise. As in other professions, you are in a position to inflict grave injuries upon others, whether necessary or not, whether just at all or not. Unless you are Christ, you likely screw up a good portion of the time whether you admit it or not. While I as an officer and commander enjoyed about as much “official immunity” as you do, if one in my profession ignored criticism in feedback, we would not survive in an operation environment or in garrison. Further, if one abused troops, they would be made to disappear never to return. You’re given all that immunity so that when you do inevitably screw up in good faith, it won’t cause you injury to be candid about it, apologize or express some regret, or to set things more right if you can. Immunity isn’t a tool for just covering your ass unless you are a despot. - 14 - records. And if she isn’t will to does she have something to hide. That’s what cps always said is a red flag because you don’t want to give up your personal freedoms.” Facebook commenter Elizabeth F. said: “Judge Guffee is a scared rat trying to find land.” Michelle C. commented, “These judges should be imprisoned.” Judge Guffee cited several posts that falsely tied her to child trafficking, such as one from Evelyn C., “I guess you hurt the child traffickers feelings.” and from Todd F., “[T]he judge is just another pawn in the billions of dollars industry. . . . As such, I am appalled that judges, like her, would knowingly subject children to such dangers and consider it in the best interest of the child.” Judge Guffee felt particularly threatened by two Facebook posts responding to Ms. Reguli’s Facebook invitation to “say hello to Sharon Guffee.” The first was a GIF of a man dancing around with a gun in each hand, waving them over his head.20 Ms. Reguli “liked” the GIF by giving it a thumbs up on Facebook. The second referenced a Bible verse at Exodus 21:16, which reads, “And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” Later in September 2017, Judge Guffee filed a second disciplinary complaint against Ms. Reguli, based on Ms. Reguli’s decision to post the first attorney disciplinary complaint on Facebook, including Judge Guffee’s personal information, “in an effort to personally defame [Judge Guffee] and recruit others to harass [her].” This action prompted another Facebook post by Ms. Reguli: “And finally stalker judge filed another complaint on me. More on that later.” This Facebook post by Ms. Reguli also generated a flood of responses.21 Judge Guffee later described a thread that she perceived as including explicit threats. It began 20 The poster of the GIF added a dubious caption, “Disclaimer, not a threat, just the mental image with out the gun.” 21 Judge Guffee identified several that attacked her integrity as a judge or otherwise implied she was corrupt. Daniel S. commented: “I hope this judge is paying her own court fees. Sounds like misuse of government funding on the part of the judge.” Jor-el S. commented: “Judges use desperate measures of Judicial Corruption when challenged on the law. You’re right it will only backfire.” Brandy C. commented: “Wow. Corrupt officials everywhere.” Kathy L. commented: “Judge, you are supposed to follow the law you are supposed to be neutral remember in the end GOD knows all and sees all “WE THE PEOPLE” are TIRED of the RICO And Racketeering you are not immune!!!!” Dayton C. commented: “To hell with that corrupt judge.” June D. commented: “That judge seriously needs a psyc[h] eval done immediately!” - 15 - with Lalanea L. commenting “oh lord….when will her dumbass give up already….shes just digging herself a deeper hole…bc the more she does this shit…the more she proves to the world shes corrupt as hell…Come On Now Judge Sharron….u seriously cant be this stupid….” Ms. Reguli tut-tutted, “You’re a mess Lala.” Lalanea L. then commented: “Its true though Connie Reguli … you would think after being caught red handed twice….she wouldnt be stupid enough to come after u a 3rd time….well apparently shes not the sharpest tool in the shed….” Ms. Reguli’s response to the post from “Lala” disparaging Judge Guffee was to post a cartoonish GIF of a woman pushing another woman into a grave. Judge Guffee later said Ms. Reguli’s GIF was far from humorous; she perceived it as a death threat. And the reply from Lalanea L. was in a similar vein: “Connie I guess shes a masochist too,” and then graphically described an imagined sexual assault on Judge Guffee with a cactus. These events had a lasting personal impact on Judge Guffee. Before them, Judge Guffee later said, she had no safety concerns. After, she “feared for [her] safety.” When Jud