KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. CHRISTOPHER S. BURNSIDE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
V.
RESPONDENT
CHRISTOPHER S. BURNSIDE
OPINIONANDORDER
Christopher S. Burnside, Respondent, of Louisville, Ky., was sent four notices
regarding his Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements for the educational year
ended June 30,200O. Respondent did not meet the CLE requirements and, as a
result, this Court issued Respondent an order to show cause why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law in this state.
Burnside responded on November 28, 2000, well within the twenty day deadline.
Respondent stated that he was deficient one hour of ethics credits for the year ended
June 2000, and he has since obtained the appropriate credits by reviewing a video
tape. This viewing, however, took place after the deadline for ethics credits. He further
explained that he was scheduled to attend a seminar on June 21,200O that would have
satisfied his credits before the deadline, but Respondent chose, instead, to attend a
deposition for his law firm. Respondent accounted for his choice by explaining that he
believed he could get an extension of time pursuant to SCR 3.667(2).
Respondent’s
belief was mistaken, however, as he had applied for an extension of time for the
previous year ended June 1999. Pursuant to SCR 3.667(2),
a member may not submit
a plan for making up a delinquency if the member has submitted “such a plan . . . for
either of the two preceding educational years.”
Respondent further explained that he was going through a “bitter separation and
divorce” in 1998 and 1999. This divorce affected his work with his law firm and led to
his getting an extension on his CLE requirements for 1999. In an effort to improve on
his relations with his firm, he chose to attend a deposition instead of completing his
CLE requirements. Respondent admits he made a “grievous mistake” and asks that
this Court not suspend him from the practice of law. He also asks that he not be fined
because of his present financial situation.
The Kentucky Bar Association CLE Commission (the Commission), replied to
Burnside’s response in which it moved this Court to find that Respondent has not
shown cause for failing to meet the CLE requirements for the year ended June 30,
2000. The Commission does, however, recommend leniency by this Court for
Respondent. Rather than suspension, the Commission requests that the Respondent
be ordered to pay a $500.00 penalty, plus costs in the amount of $130.00.
The Commission also requests that this Court specify that a time extension
pursuant to SCR 3.667 will not be available to Respondent for the current educational
year ending June 30,200l or the next year ending June 30,2002.
We find this penalty satisfactory and so order Christopher S. Burnside to pay a
penalty for disregard of Supreme Court rules and procedure, and for non-compliance
with the CLE requirement for the educational year ended June 30, 2000, in the amount
-2-
of $500.00, plus costs in the amount of $130.00, total of $630.00, to be paid within
twenty days of the date of this Order. Further, pursuant to SCR 3.667, Respondent
may not apply for a time extension for the educational years ending June 30, 2001 and
June 30, 2002. Failure to either pay the fine or complete the CLE requirements in the
future will result in suspension pursuant to SCR 3.669(4).
All concur.
ENTERED:
January
252001.
-3-
I
-
COUNSEL FOR MOVANT:
Janis E. Clark
Director, CLE
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
RESPONDENT:
Christopher S. Burnside
Brown, Todd & Heyburn, PLLC
400 West Market Street
32nd Floor
4
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.