KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, CLE COMMISSION V. GREGORY STEVEN PAGE, KBA MEMBER NO . 86734
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrrmr (~ourf of "rufurh
2002-SC-1037-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION,
CLE COMMISSION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
GREGORY STEVEN PAGE,
KBA MEMBER NO . 86734
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 19, 2002, this Court issued an Order directing Respondent,
Gregory Steven Page, of Dayton, Ohio, to show cause why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky because of his
failure to comply with SCR 3.661's minimum Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
requirements . SCR 3.661 requires Kentucky Bar Association members to complete "a
minimum of twelve and one-half (12 .5) credit hours in continuing legal education
activities approved by the Commission," SCR 3 .661(1), and "[a]t least two (2) of the
twelve and one-half (12.5) credit hours required shall be devoted to continuing legal
education specifically addressing the topics of legal ethics or professional
responsibility ." SCR 3 .661(2) . For the 2001-2002 educational year, Respondent is
deficient 0 .50 ethics credits .
In response to the Order to Show Cause, Respondent states that: (1) on or
about June 29, 2002, he "visited the Kentucky Bar Association website [www.kybar.org]
to ascertain the status of any additional required [CLE credits]" and learned from the
website that he was only one (1) CLE ethics credit short of meeting the requirements;
(2) accordingly, the next day, June 30, 2002 -- the last day of the 2001-2002 CLE
educational year -- he participated in, and certified completion of, a one (1) hour online
CLE ethics course ; (3) in August, when he received notice from the Commission that he
was actually still 0.5 ethics credits short of the SCR 3.661 requirements, he contacted
the Commission and spoke with Assistant Director Lewis Payne ("Payne") who,
according to Respondent, informed him "that the KBA website had been experiencing
`technical difficulties' . . . that [were] the likely cause of the inaccurate reporting" and
advised him "to simply take another ethics course to complete my certification" but at
no point "did anyone indicate that as a result of the KBA website error, I would need to
file a request for extension to comply with the Supreme Court's requirements"' ; (4) he
then completed another course on August 29, and "submitted the appropriate
paperwork evidencing my completion of the program" but "heard nothing from KBA until
September 24, 2002, when they advised me that I missed a deadline to request an
'Despite this allegation, Respondent admits that he did, in fact, obtain and
submit an application for a hardship extension . As to the timing of that application,
Respondent states :
An application for extension of time was prepared and
signed on August 30, 2002. KBA claims it did not receive
the application until after the filing deadline . Respondent
cannot speak to this issue as he signed the completed
application on August 30 . Respondent is uncertain as to
why the application "allegedly" did not reach the KBA until
September 16 th .
extension of time to complete my 2001-2002 CLE requirements ." Respondent thus
"maintains that he was in fact compliant as of June 30, 2002" and alternatively argues
that the alleged website error and further misinformation from CLE Commission
personnel represents "good cause" for any deficiency .
In reply, the Kentucky Bar Association's Continuing Legal Education Commission
states that it "can neither confirm nor deny" Respondent's allegation that he received
erroneous information regarding his CLE deficiency from the KBA website .
Nonetheless, the Commission argues that there is no dispute that Respondent obtained
only 1 .5 hours of the required two (2) CLE ethics credits and thus ended the 2001-2002
educational year with a deficiency of 0.5 ethics credits . And, even if Respondent is
given the benefit of the doubt as to this explanation for his failure to complete all of his
mandatory CLE credits during the educational year in question, the Commission argues
that Respondent had actual knowledge of the deficiency by, at the latest, August 2002,
and yet failed to make a timely application for an extension of time to satisfy his
continuing education requirements . See SCR 3 .667(1) ("The time requirements
associated with completion of mandatory .continuing legal education and certification
thereof . . . may be extended by the Commission in case of hardship or other good
cause clearly warranting relief. . . . All requests for time extension must be received by
the Commission no later than the September 10" following the end of the educational
year for which the time extension is sought."). The Commission further suggests that
Respondent's two mutually-exclusive excuses regarding his request for a hardship time
extension -- i .e., both that he : (1) was misinformed regarding his need to file for an
extension of time ; and (2) that he "prepared and signed [his application] on August 30,
2002" and thus "cannot speak to" why the Commission "allegedly" did not receive it --3-
lack credibility. Specifically, the Commission notes : (1) on July 26, 2002, it mailed
Respondent his annual CLE statement, which listed the online program that
Respondent completed on the last day of the educational year, but accurately reflected
the deficiency of 0 .5 ethics credits, and Respondent took no steps at that time to
address the deficiency; (2) on August 21, 2002, the Commission mailed Respondent a
"final notice" letter informing him of the continued deficiency, and, after that date,
Respondent spoke with Payne about the alleged inaccuracy in Respondent's online
CLE record ; (3) Payne "told Respondent to take another course in order to `make-up'
the deficiency and file for a hardship time extension by the September 10, 2002
deadline" ; (4) although Respondent completed another online course on August 29,
2002, and ostensibly completed his application for a hardship extension the next day,
he did not mail the application until September 13, 2002 ;2 and (5) the Commission
denied the extension application when it received it after the September 10th deadline .
Accordingly, the Commission moves the Court to find that Respondent has not shown
cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law or otherwise
sanctioned pursuant to SCR 3 .669(4).
.
In lieu of suspension, however, the Commission recommends other sanctions for
Respondent's failure to satisfy SCR 3.661's mandatory CLE requirements . The
2The Commission attaches to its reply a copy of both : (1) a letter from (and
personally signed by) Respondent -- and dated September 13, 2002 -- that states
"[e]nclosed, please find the completed Application for Extension of Time for Completion
of Continuing Legal Education" ; and (2) Respondent's attachment to that Application, in
which he admits that, during the conversation with Payne (whom Appellant
misidentifies), Payne "suggested that I take a course immediately, which I did and then
submit the enclosed, which I am now doing." (emphasis added) . On the basis of these
documents, we conclude that Respondent's suggestion that he "cannot speak to" the
issue of why the Commission received the application after the September 10f
deadline is less than forthright, and quite possibly a willful misrepresentation of fact.
Commission observes that in an unpublished opinion and order rendered just last
January, the Court fined Respondent $750 .00 for a two (2) credit CLE deficiency at the
end of the 2000-2001 educational year . Accordingly, the Commission recommends
that Respondent be publically reprimanded and fined $1,250 .00 and that he be
additionally prohibited from obtaining a "non-hardship" time extension under SCR
3 .667(2) for the educational years ending June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2004. The
Commission further suggests that 0 .5 ethics credit of the one (1) ethics credit
Respondent earned on August 29, 2002 (i.e., in the current 2002-2003 educational
year) be applied back to Respondent's 2001-2002 educational year total to cure the
prior year's deficiency.
We find that Respondent has not shown cause why he should not be suspended
from the practice of law; however, we agree with the Commission's recommendations .
Accordingly, we hereby ORDER the following :
(1) Respondent, Gregory Steven Page, is hereby publically reprimanded for his
non-compliance with the requirements of SCR 3 .661(1), and, as an additional sanction
for this non-compliance, Respondent shall pay a fine of $1,250 .00, payable to the
Kentucky Bar Association within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order; and
3At that time, we also ordered "that Page is precluded from obtaining a
nonhardship time extension under SCR 3 .667(2) for the educational year ending June
30, 2002 and for the educational year ending June 30, 2003." Thus, when Respondent
ended the 2001-2002 educational year with a CLE credit deficiency, the only time
extension avenue available to him was a hardship extension under SCR 3.667(1) .
(2) Respondent is prohibited from applying for a SCR 3 .667(2) "non-hardship"
time extension for the educational years ending June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2004; and
(3) Respondent's existing 2001-2002 CLE deficiency shall be cured by the CLE
Commission's application of 0 .50 ethics credits earned by Respondent during the 20022003 education year to Respondent's total for the 2001-2002 educational year .
All concur.
Entered : January 23, 2003.
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.
