Attorney Elizebeth Rudnick’s Controversial Conduct: Legal Ethics On Trial – Rudnick’s Behavior Tarnishes Legal Profession While Undermining Her Credibility in Court
By: Public Affairs Staff on March 25, 2025
MEMPHIS, TN — The legal profession prides itself on ethical standards, professionalism, and a commitment to truth; however, Attorney Elizebeth Rudnick has been accused of being a loose cannon. She has been accused of being a brash, highly emotional attorney who will resort to retaliatory tactics if she is offended. Friday, March 21, 2025 the Shelby County Observer was in the courtroom to analyze for ourselves if the questionable legal tactics and behavior Elizebeth Rudnick of Reifers Holmes & Peters, LLC, has been accused of are true. What we witnessed was shocking. Here are some of the details of what we saw Friday in the public records case Kiner Vs. City of Memphis case.
In the aforementioned case attorney Elizebeth Rudnick displayed a series of troubling behaviors that not only undermine the integrity of her own firm but also tarnish the broader legal community. From misquoting statements to asking for sanctions based on unfounded claims, Rudnick’s actions have raised serious questions about her commitment to professional conduct.
Misquoting and Misleading the Court
One of the most glaring issues in Rudnick’s conduct was her misrepresentation of Rev. Kiner’s statements without hesitation, as it were second nature. According to transcripts from the court proceedings, Rudnick misquoted Kiner, attempting to twist his words to suit her narrative.
Rudnick declared to Judge Newsom “In his argument, he states that he made a public records request. That part is correct. He also states that he had previously never made any form of public records requests in the past. That is incorrect.”
Kiner immediately responded, “Objection, Your Honor. I never said that, Your Honor. So, if you’re going to quote me, don’t misquote me, please.”
Regarding ethical standards, this misquotation is a serious concern, as it appears to be an intentional distortion of facts.
In the world of law, accuracy is paramount. To misquote statements is not only a matter of ethical breach but also undermines the trust that clients and courts place in attorneys to present the facts clearly and truthfully.
Frivolous and Reprimanded Motion for Summary Judgment
Rudnick also submitted a “motion for cross summary judgment” without a clear basis, which the judge promptly rejected. As Judge Newsom rebuffed Rudnick’s motion, saying, “The court would not allow you to just off the cuff make a motion for summary judgment at this point,” it was evident that Rudnick’s actions were an attempt to bypass the procedural rigors required for such a motion. Rather than addressing the facts of the case, Rudnick’s filing seemed like a strategic move to confuse the issue and delay progress.
A Series of Inappropriate Tactics: From “Surprise” to Retaliatory Sanctions Requests
Throughout the proceedings, Rudnick repeatedly attempted to undermine Rev. Kiner’s claims with improper motions and requests. In one instance, she claimed to be “caught kinda by surprise by this hearing” —a statement promptly dismissed by Judge Newsom, who made it clear that no surprise should have occurred, declaring “Well, as far as I know, there should be no surprise by this hearing, anyway.”
Rudnick’s failure to prepare adequately not only reflected poorly on her professionalism but also raised doubts about her competency to handle the case.
Perhaps most telling and most damaging to Rudnick’s image was Rudnick’s attempt to weaponize sanctions statutes by requesting sanctions against a pro se litigant—Rev. Kiner—not for any ethical misconduct but because he filed a motion for summary judgment (based on Rule 11).
Judge Newsom, in another instance of public rebuke of Rudnick’s conduct, explained her procedural violation, making it clear that Rudnick had failed to follow the correct procedure for requesting sanctions. Judge Newsom asked “Has Mr. Kiner been offered that 21-day period to walk back any statement” that allegedly violated Rule 11?
In defiance to Rule 11 and Judge Newsom, Attorney Rudnick shockingly responded, “… We have not offered the safe harbor letter, but we also know that on the court’s initiative, the court may issue sanctions for filing a pleading.”
In disbelief of Rudnick’s audacity, Judge Newsom responded, “Not going to happen.”
Rudnick’s choice to pressure the Court for sanctions while disregarding the established rules appeared to be a blatant and vindictive effort to retaliate against Kiner for exercising his right to petition the Court regarding the city of Memphis’s alleged failure to comply with a simple public records request.
Summary of Questionable Tactics and Violations by Attorney Elizebeth Rudnick of Reifers Holmes & Peters, LLC and the Court’s Response
- Misquoting Statements
- Rudnick misquoted Rev. Dr. Kiner’s statements during the proceedings, leading to significant misrepresentations of the facts.
- Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
- Rudnick made a motion for summary judgment without a basis, attempting to present an “off-the-cuff” motion without following proper procedures or providing adequate justification.
- Judge Newsom responded, “The court would not allow you to just off the cuff make a motion for summary judgment at this point.” He further clarified, “You didn’t give me a basis to do it.”
- Misleading and Incomplete Argument for Judgment
- In her brief, Rudnick requested that judgment be entered in favor of the City, but failed to support the motion with a solid legal basis. Judge Newsom pointed out that no legal justification had been given, asserting that she had failed to provide a valid basis for such a request.
- Unprofessional Behavior in Court
- Rudnick claimed that she was “caught by surprise” by the hearing, which was met with swift rebuttal from Judge Newsom, who emphasized that there should have been no surprise regarding the hearing. Judge Newsom responded, “As far as I know, there should be no surprise by this hearing…”
- Retaliatory Request for Sanctions
- Rudnick’s seemingly vindictive, persistent push to request for sanctions against Rev. Kiner, despite not adhering to procedural requirements, was another example of misconduct. Judge Newsom rejected her request, stating that sanctions could only be properly filed separately and not as part of the main motion.
- Judge Newsom specifically asked if Rudnick had offered Rev. Kiner the required 21-day “safe harbor” period before filing sanctions, a procedural step that she had failed to follow. Rudnick’s response to this was a clear admission of non-compliance, as she stated, “Not in this instance, Your Honor.”
- Failure to Follow Legal Procedures for Sanctions
- Rudnick continued to press for sanctions despite acknowledging that she had not followed proper legal procedures. Judge Newsom again rejected her arguments, stating, “Not going to happen.” Rudnick’s refusal to abide by standard legal procedures in requesting sanctions highlights her disregard for Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The Email Address Coverup- Defending Unethical and Faulty Legal Strategy
- Kiner never knew the city of Memphis partly responded to his public records request because they never responded to the email address he used to submit his public records request. The city of Memphis oddly responded to an old email address it had on file for Kiner. Despite knowing that the city of Memphis responded to Rev. Kiner’s public records request by sending their response to the wrong email address, Rudnick somehow seemed to still attempt to mislead the court by stating that Kiner’s filing for summary judgment was an act of “bad faith.” Rev. Kiner responded, stating that a “reasonable person” would respond to the email address from which they received the most recent communication, instead of trying to use an old email address to sidestep accountability.
- Submissions of an Unlawful Affidavit
- Rudnick’s affidavit submitted on behalf of the City was found by Judge Newsom to be in violation of Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, as it was not based on personal knowledge. Judge Newsom specifically stated, “Unfortunately, the underlying affidavit of Ms. Hoof… is stated to be true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. Under Rule 56, responses to summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge.”
- This led to the affidavit being disregarded by the court.
- Dismissal of Summary Judgment Without Prejudice
- Since pro se litigants are not familiar with the rules of civil procedure as trained lawyers are, in Haines v. Kerner, the Supreme Court emphasized the paramount duty of courts to prioritize the substantive merits of pro se litigants’ claims, notwithstanding any procedural imperfections. Instead of ruling the case on its merits, in compliance with Supreme Court precedent, which would have easily been a victory for Rev. Kiner, Judge Newsom ruled that Rev. Kiner’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice due to a procedural technicality, making Kiner refile with proper compliance with court procedures.
Rudnick’s Probable Breach of Legal Ethics: Violating Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct
Elizebeth Rudnick’s actions may also constitute several violations of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, which set the standard for attorney behavior:
- Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions): Rudnick’s motion for summary judgment was filed without proper legal basis, likely intended to hinder Rev. Kiner’s efforts rather than pursue a legitimate defense for the City of Memphis. The motion was, in essence, a frivolous filing, violating this rule.
- Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal): By misquoting Rev. Kiner’s statements and attempting to mislead the court, Rudnick violated her duty of candor toward the tribunal. This rule requires attorneys to be truthful and avoid misleading the court.
- Rule 4.4 (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons): Rudnick’s actions showed a lack of respect for Kiner’s rights. Her demand for sanctions against a pro se litigant, in this case, appeared vindictive, retaliatory, and without merit, suggesting an unwillingness to respect the basic rights of individuals trying to navigate the court system without counsel.
- Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): Rudnick’s conduct throughout the proceedings, including her baseless motions, failure to follow procedure, and attempts to mislead the court, may constitute misconduct under this rule.
Impact on the Legal Profession
Rudnick’s behavior highlights a troubling trend in some areas of legal practice where tactics are employed not to seek justice but to obstruct it. Her actions not only damage the credibility of her client, the City of Memphis, but also tarnish the public’s perception of attorneys as a whole. Attorneys like Rudnick set a dangerous precedent for future litigation, particularly in cases where one party is unrepresented and vulnerable to such tactics.
The role of attorneys is not just to represent their clients but also to ensure that justice is served. When legal practitioners like Rudnick resort to delaying tactics, unsubstantiated motions, and threats of sanctions against self-represented parties that committed no ethical violations, they risk the erosion of the public trust in the legal system.
Undermining the Integrity of the Legal Profession
The behavior displayed by Elizebeth Rudnick throughout this case is an alarming example of legal misconduct that should be addressed. Instead of operating on the principle, “they go low, we go high”, Attorney Rudnick, seems to operate on the principle, “they go low, we go lower.”
As a member of the bar, her actions undermine the integrity of the legal profession and set a poor example for others in the field. It is crucial for the legal community to hold attorneys accountable for such behavior to preserve the fairness and transparency that are the hallmarks of our justice system.
In the end, Rudnick’s conduct serves as a stark reminder of the need for greater oversight and enforcement of ethical rules within the legal profession. But it is also a responsibility of firms like Reifers Holmes & Peters, LLC to reconsider its stance on employing such practitioners who so flagrantly disregards both legal procedure and the principles of justice for all.
About Post Author
