KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. GEORGE MARTIN STRECKFUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrrxrrr C~oixrf of ~~~~t
2009-SC-000184-KB
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
GEORGE MARTIN STRECKFUS
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 9, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended George Martin
Streckfus (KBA Member No . 81553) from the practice of law in that court for an
indefinite period for his protracted non-cooperation with the Indiana
disciplinary process . On May 21, 2009, this Court issued an order directing
Streckfus to show cause, if any he had, within twenty days why he should not
be subjected to reciprocal discipline in Kentucky under SCR 3 .435(4) .
Streckfus's bar roster address is P. O. Box 1632, Louisville, Kentucky 40201 .
He was admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky in April 1986 and
suspended in Kentucky for nonpayment of dues in January 2008.
Since Streckfus has not responded to this Court's Show Cause Order and
the twenty days to do so have passed, he has failed to establish any reason
why we should not impose identical reciprocal discipline . So we now impose
such identical reciprocal discipline as required by SCR 3 .435(4) .
On November 23, 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Streckfus to
show cause why he should not be immediately suspended from the practice of
law in the state of Indiana due to his failure to respond to the Indiana Supreme
Court Disciplinary Commission's demands for a response to a grievance filed
against him. The order required Streckfus to show cause, in writing, within ten
days of service of the order. Streckfus failed to respond to the show cause
order.
Based on his failure to respond to the show cause order, the Indiana
Supreme Court entered an Order on January 31, 2006, suspending Streckfus
from the practice of law in Indiana, which suspension would continue until:
(1) the Executive Secretary of the Disciplinary Commission certified to the court
that Streckfus cooperated with the investigation, (2) the investigation or any
related disciplinary proceedings that arose from the investigation were
concluded, or (3) until further orders of the court.
On March 3, 2006, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
filed a motion to dismiss the cause, stating Streckfus had complied with the
Commission's demands on February 23, 2006. On April 3, 2006, the Indiana
Supreme Court entered an order dismissing the matter as moot, reinstating
Streckfus and directing Streckfus to pay costs.
On May 23, 2006, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Streckfus to show
cause, in writing, within ten days why he should not be immediately
suspended from the practice of law due to his failure to respond to a subpoena
duces tecum from the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
concerning another grievance filed against him. Streckfus failed to respond
within ten days . On July 18, 2006, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an
order suspending Streckfus from the practice of law in Indiana. The
suspension was to continue until: (1) the Executive Secretary of the
Disciplinary Commission certified to the court that Streckfus cooperated with
the investigation, (2) the investigation or any related disciplinary proceedings
that arose from the investigation were concluded, or (3) until further orders of
the court.
On March 9, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order granting
the Disciplinary Commission's motion to convert the suspension for noncooperation with the disciplinary process to an indefinite suspension . The
Indiana Supreme Court found that more than six months had passed since
Streckfus was suspended for non-cooperation with the disciplinary process'
and that he had failed to respond to the motion to convert the suspension to an
indefinite suspension .
As Streckfus has failed to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline
should not be imposed in this jurisdiction under SCR 3.435, this Court
ORDERS :
r
Although not explicitly stated by the Indiana Supreme Court, apparently, Streckfus
did not attempt to cooperate with the investigation during the intervening six
months.
1)
George Martin Streckfus is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky until he demonstrates that his suspension
from the Indiana Supreme Court has been lifted.2 At that time, Streckfus may
apply for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 3 .510;
2)
Under SCR 3.390, Streckfus shall, within ten days from the entry
of this Opinion and Order, notify, in writing, all courts in which he has matters
pending and all clients he is currently representing of his inability to provide
further legal services and provide the Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar
Association with a copy of all such notice letters, or with a certification that he
has no active clients, whichever is applicable . In addition, to the extent
possible, Streckfus shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising
activities in which he is engaged; and
3 . In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Streckfus shall pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him and for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order .
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED : August 27, 2009 .
a
Though our disciplinary rules do not explicitly provide for the imposition of
indefinite suspensions, we recently imposed a similar indefinite suspension in
order to impose the "identical" reciprocal discipline required by SCR 3 .435(4) . See
Kentucky Bar Association v. Sebastian , 268 S.W.3d 928 (Ky. 2008) .
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.
