KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, CLE COMMISSION v. ADAM BOYD BLEILE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2002-SC-0359-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION,
CLE COMMISSION
v.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
ADAM BOYD BLEILE
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 8,2002, this Court issued a Show Cause Order against Respondent,
Adam Boyd Bleile, to show why he should not be suspended from the practice of law
for failure to comply with the New Lawyer Skills Program requirements as set forth in
SCR 3.652. SCR 3.652(5) requires Kentucky State Bar Association members to
complete the New Lawyer Skills Program within twelve (12) months following the date
of their admission. Bleile was admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky on July 28,
2000, but did not complete and certify the New Lawyer Skills Program until April 4-5,
2002, a lapse of more than twenty (20) months past his deadline to complete the
requirement.
Bleile responds that he completed the New Lawyer Skills Program requirement
shortly after Mr. Louis Payne from the Kentucky Bar Association informed him of his
deficiency. Bleile states that he believed he had attended the New Lawyer Skills
Program in Covington, Kentucky, but did not apply for proper credit because he
practices exclusively in Ohio and the Ohio Bar Association allows a two-year grace
period for CLE credits. According to Bleile, the time requirement begins to run and the
lawyer loses the grace period when he/she applies for CLE credit. Bleile does not
contest the fact that he is in non-compliance with the New Lawyer Skills Program
requirement. He also acknowledges that he disregarded a prior deficiency notice, but
he asks for leniency on the grounds that he has been “going through a painful divorce,”
has been terminated from his job, and only recently has decided to practice law again.
In reply, the Kentucky Bar Association’s Continuing Legal Education
Commission states that the New Lawyer Skills Program registration lists for Covington,
Kentucky, do not have Bleile listed in either of the past two programs which occurred in
that location (March 22, 2001 and May 27, 1999). In addition, Bleile failed to request
an extension under SCR 3.652(8) due to “hardship or other good cause clearly
warranting relief .‘I Further, although Bleile certified to the Court that he had served a
copy of his Response upon Janis E. Clark through U.S. Mail on April 25, 2002, the CLE
Commission states that it was only able to acquire a copy of Bleile’s Response after a
request to the Court.
In its reply to Bleile’s pleading, the CLE Commission moves the court to find that
Bleile has not shown cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law
or otherwise sanctioned pursuant to 3.652(g). In lieu of a suspension, the CLE
Commission requests the Court fine Bleile $250 for his failure to attend and certify his
completion of the New Lawyer Skills Program.
-2-
,
We find that Bleile has not shown cause why he should not be suspended from
the practice of law or otherwise sanctioned. However, we adopt the CLE Commission’s
recommendation for,a fine in lieu of suspension. Accordingly, we enter the following
Order:
Bleile shall pay a fine of $250.00 for non-compliance with the CLE requirements
of SCR 3.652(5) for the 2000-2001 educational year, to be paid to the Kentucky Bar
Association within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, for which execution may
issue upon expiration of said thirty (30) days.
Lambert, C.J.; Cooper, Johnstone, Keller, Stumbo, and Wintersheimer, JJ.,
concur. Graves, J., would refer this matter to Bar Counsel’s Office to determine the
accuracy of Bleile’s representations.
Entered: June 13, 2002.
-3-
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.
