MICHAEL L. JAMES V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2001
-SC-0220-KB
MICHAEL L. JAMES
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant Michael L. James, whose last known address is 8809 Nottingham Pky.,
Louisville, KY 40222, desires to terminate Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) proceedings
against him by consenting to a suspension from the practice of law for six months
pursuant to SCR 3.480(3). The KBA has no objection to the motion for termination of
proceedings. James is currently suspended from the practice of law. He was
previously suspended for thirty days on September 3, 1998, James v. Kentucky Bar
Association, Ky., 973 S.W.2d 844 (1998); for six months on October 21, 1999,
Kentuckv Bar Association v. James, Ky., 2 S.W.3d 787 (1999); and for one year with a
concurrent sixty-day suspension on March 23,2000, James v. Kentuckv Bar
Association, Ky., 13 S.W.3d 925 (2000). He has not been reinstated.
On November 18,2000, the Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge
against Movant, regarding his representation of Jennifer Owens. On June 25, 1997,
Movant filed suit on Owens’s behalf for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile
accident. However, James was suspended from the practice of law for thirty days on
September 18, 1998. Since the KBA objected to Movant’s automatic reinstatement,
representation of Owens was assumed by another attorney in Movant’s office.
However, that attorney was convicted of a felony, terminated from his employment, and
automatically suspended from the practice of law on December IO-I 1, 1998. Owens
was left without an attorney and remained unaware that Movant was suspended from
the practice of law.
Soon thereafter, opposing counsel noticed Movant for a scheduled deposition of
Owens. Movant failed to notify Owens of this fact and she did not appear for the
deposition. Opposing counsel then moved to dismiss the action. Movant received
notice of the motion, but failed to inform Owens of the motion and its hearing date.
No
one appeared in court to contest the motion and Owens’s suit was dismissed on
January 26, 1999. Owens did not discover this until June 1999.
Count I alleges a violation of the attorney’s duty of diligence, SCR 3.130-I .3, for
failing to notify Owens of her deposition, the motion for dismissal, and the dismissal of
her case. Count II alleges a violation of SCR 3.130-I .4(a), the duty to keep a client
reasonably informed, for failing to notify Owens of her deposition, the motion to dismiss,
and the dismissal of her case. Count III alleges a violation of SCR 3.130-I .16(d), which
states “[ulpon 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 . . . .‘I
Count III alleges that Movant violated this provision by failing to have a licensed
-2-
attorney appear at Owens’s deposition or dismissal hearing, and failing to have a
licensed attorney file a response to the motion to dismiss.
Movant denies Counts I and II of the charges claiming that he could not have
taken the actions described in those charges without engaging in the practice of law in
contravention of the terms of his suspension. Movant asks that these charges be
dismissed. As to Count III, Movant admits to the violation and asks to be suspended for
six months from the practice of law effective March 23, 2001. Thus, Movant will have
been suspended from the practice of law for a total of three years. While we regard as
dubious, at best, Movant’s assertion that mere notification of his client of either pending
discovery or a motion to dismiss would have violated the terms of his previous
suspension, the KBA does not object to Movant’s proposed disposition of the charges.
Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is ordered that Movant’s motion for
termination of the proceedings against him is granted. It is further ordered that:
1. The Movant, Michael L. James, is hereby suspended from the practice of law
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of six months. The period of suspension
shall commence on March 23,200l and continue until such time as Movant is
reinstated to the practice of law by order of this Court pursuant to SCR 3.510 or any
controlling amendment to SCR 3.510.
2. Counts I and II are dismissed.
3. In accordance with SCR 3.450 and SCR 3.480(3),
Movant is directed to pay
all costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being
$40.67, and for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this opinion
and order.
-3-
4. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Movant shall, within ten (10) days from the entry of
this order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law, and
furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association.
All concur.
ENTERED: April 26, 2001.
-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.
