KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. JULIETTE STEWART HOUSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2000-SC-032 1 -KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
IN SUPREME COURT
V.
JULIET-TE
RESPONDENT
STEWART HOUSE
OPINION AND ORDER
Juliette Stewart House was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth on
April 28, 1989. She is also admitted in Colorado and Utah. By order entered
January 7, 2000, effective February 9,2000, Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law in Colorado for a period of one year and one day, with all but ninety (90)
days stayed. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) moved this Court to direct
Respondent to show cause, if any, why reciprocal discipline of a ninety day suspension,
and such additional terms as consistent with the suspension order entered by the
Colorado Supreme Court, would be unwarranted. Respondent was directed to do so by
amended order of the Court entered July 5,200O.
order, but has failed, pursuant to SCR 3.435(4)
Respondent responded to that
to demonstrate why a ninety day
suspension in the Commonwealth should not be imposed.
The Colorado suspension order was based on a stipulation agreement which
contained a conditional admission of misconduct by Respondent. The stipulation
described the circumstances surrounding the misconduct as follows:
In the latter half of 1998, Respondent agreed to represent Michelle H. Spreier in
obtaining an uncontested divorce from Mitchell Spreier. In August 1998, Mr. Spreier
tendered to Respondent a check in the amount of $131 .OO as an advance of estimated
court costs. As part of her representation of Spreier, Respondent agreed to draft and
file a petition for dissolution of the Spreiers’ marriage, based on the terms previously
agreed to by the Spreiers. While Respondent prepared a summons and petition for
dissolution, these documents were never filed in court. Respondent believed that the
documents had been filed through the law firm for which she worked at the time, but
took no steps to verify whether the pleadings had actually been filed. Her belief that the
pleadings had been filed continued until after disciplinary proceedings were
commenced against her in 1999.
Respondent informed the Spreiers that a divorce could be obtained three months
after the dissolution petition had been filed and after the parties submitted a finalized
separation agreement to the court. Believing that the petition had been filed,
Respondent represented such to the Spreiers. Respondent drafted a separation
agreement which was later revised but never finalized. In August 1998, Ms. Spreier
moved to Nevada. Respondent continued to communicate with the Spreiers through
the fall of 1998. In October 1998, Respondent moved from her home in Monument,
Colorado, to Durango, Colorado. While Ms. Spreier continued to have a working
cellular phone number for Respondent, the Spreiers were not notified of Respondent’s
change of address, nor did Respondent ever attempt to withdraw her representation.
-2-
I
’
Respondent continued to visit Monument, Colorado, after her move to Durango, and
spoke with Mr. Spreier in person in December 1998. Throughout her contacts with the
Spreiers, Respondent continued to represent that their dissolution pleadings had been
filed in district court.
In December 1998, Mr. Spreier contacted the court clerk and learned that the
Spreiers’ dissolution petition had not been filed. He then contacted Respondent’s
employer and learned that she no longer worked in that office. Ms. Spreier eventually
filed the petition for dissolution of marriage in Nevada and the marriage was dissolved
in May 1999 without further contact with Respondent.
At the time of Respondent’s move to Durango, the Spreiers had the address and
telephone number of the Denver law firm for which Respondent worked. Respondent
contended that she had arranged for the law firm to forward any calls or inquiries made
of her while she was in Durango. She received no messages indicating that the
Spreiers had attempted to contact her at the Denver office. In June 1999, Respondent
moved from Durango, Colorado, to Kentucky in order to accept employment with
another law firm. For both of her re-locations, Respondent completed United States
Post Office change-of-address forms requesting that all mail be forwarded for a oneyear period.
Respondent stipulated that she effectively terminated her representation of Ms.
Spreier by failing to take further action on the case and by failing to communicate with
Ms. Spreier after the fall of 1998. Upon terminating her representation, Respondent
failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the Spreiers’
interests, by failing to give reasonable notice and by failing to allow time to employ
alternate counsel.’ Finally, Respondent failed to refund the $131 .OO in advanced court
-3-
I
.
costs until after she was served notice of the disciplinary proceedings. Nor did she hold
the advanced costs in a trust account. Respondent further stipulated that:
1.
She “did not complete the services for which she had been retained by
Ms. Spreier. She also failed, through negligence, to apply the funds that
had been paid to her by Mr. Spreier to the purpose for which they were
intended.”
2.
She “negligently and temporarily converted the funds paid to her by Mr.
Spreier to be applied toward costs of the dissolution proceedings.”
3.
She “made negligent misrepresentations to the Spreiers concerning the
status of their case.”
4.
She violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to that lawyer), which is similar to SCR 3.130-I .3: “A lawyer
shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client.”
5.
She violated Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (failure, upon termination of
representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
protect a client’s interests), similar to SCR 3.130-I .16(d): “Upon
termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other
counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled
and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.”
6.
She violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation), similar to SCR 3.130-8.3(c): “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to . . . [elngage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
..
As a result of this stipulation and subsequent order of the Colorado Supreme
Court, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and
one day, “with all but 90 days of the period of suspension stayed on the condition that
the respondent be placed on probation for two years commencing upon the completion
of the 90 day suspension” and was subject to certain conditions, including the
involvement of a mentor and imposition of a monitoring system for case files.
-4-
I
l
Pursuant to SCR 3.435(2), upon receipt of a certified copy of an order
demonstrating that Respondent had been disciplined in another jurisdiction, this Court
issued a notice to Respondent containing:
a copy of said order from the other jurisdiction; and
an order directing that the attorney inform the Court, within twenty (20)
days from the service of the notice, of any claim by the attorney . . . that
the imposition of the identical discipline in this State would be
unwarranted and the reasons therefor.
The KBA contends that pursuant to SCR 3.435(4), Respondent is subject to
identical reciprocal discipline in the Commonwealth absent a showing by substantial
evidence of:
(4
09
a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or
that [the] misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline
in this State.
There is no assertion by Respondent that Colorado lacked jurisdiction or
conducted a fraudulent disciplinary proceeding against her. Rather, her response
explains her version of the events surrounding her handling of the Spreiers’ divorce.
Respondent also maintains that her suspension in Colorado did not affect her law
practice, since she had moved to Kentucky prior to her knowledge of the complaint filed
against her. The focus is not, however, whether Respondent’s suspension in the
Commonwealth would affect her law practice, but rather, whether her misconduct
.
warrants discipline that is substantially different from that imposed in Colorado. We
conclude that it does not. While Respondent has shown that she is complying with the
provisions of the Colorado order, including monthly meetings with her supervisor to
discuss cases, and while she maintains that she has had no other complaints filed
against her, Respondent has failed to show that her misconduct, which she herself
-5
stipulated, warrants substantially different discipline in the Commonwealth.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Respondent, Juliette Stewart House is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in Kentucky for a period of ninety (90) days, with such additional terms as
consistent with the order of suspension entered by the Colorado Supreme Court on
January 7, 2000. The period of suspension shall commence on the date of entry of this
Opinion and Order and continue until such time as Respondent is reinstated pursuant
to SCR 3.510(2).
2. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the entry
of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing of her inability to represent them,
and notify all courts in which she has matters pending of her temporary suspension,
and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar
Association.
All concur.
ENTERED: August 24,200O.
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
