KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION HELEN M . PERRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2003-SC-0031-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
HELEN M. PERRY
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association has
recommended to this Court that Helen M . Perry, who was admitted to the practice of
law in Kentucky on May 3, 1999 and whose last known address is 902 East Jefferson
Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40206, be suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky
for 181 days. Perry was found guilty of four counts of professional misconduct arising
from two disciplinary cases.
The first case involves the following facts. On April 20, 2001, Perry
entered into a "Legal Services Agreement" with C .P . Moore. Perry was to represent
Moore in a civil suit, which he had filed pro se on February 13, 2001 in Jefferson
County . Perry agreed to represent Moore on a contingency basis, and she took no
retainer. On May 10, 2001, Perry entered her appearance on behalf of Moore in the
Jefferson Circuit Court .
On July 24, 2001, Perry sent a letter to Moore stating that she had
"decided to retire from the practice of law" and would no longer be representing him.
Subsequently, Perry failed to respond to opposing counsel's interrogatories, requests
for production, and inquiries regarding her failure to respond . Perry also failed to
respond to Moore's request for his file . On October 30, 2001, Moore filed a bar
complaint against Perry, which was served upon her by certified mail . She apparently
signed the certified mailed receipt, yet failed to file any response .
The Inquiry Commission charged Perry with three counts of professional
misconduct arising from these facts . Count I alleged that Perry violated SCR 3.1301 .16(d), involving termination of representation, by failing to return Moore's file and by
failing to notify the Court and opposing counsel of her withdrawal from the case,
causing her to remain counsel of record and thereby to receive pleadings . Count II
alleged that Perry violated SCR 3.130-1 .4(a), which involves keeping clients informed,
by failing to inform Moore of opposing counsel's requests . Count III alleged that Perry
violated SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b), which mandates response to disciplinary demands, by
failing to respond to the bar complaint .
The KBA attempted yet failed to make actual service of the charges upon
Perry at her bar roster address as well as two other addresses that appear in
communications with Moore . Thereafter, the KBA made constructive service upon
Perry by serving the Secretary of State. As Perry filed no answer, the case was
submitted as a default case pursuant to SCR 3.210(1) . The Board of Governors found
Perry guilty of Counts I and Ill . Perry was found not guilty of Count 11, as this rule
applies to current clients, and Perry had clearly informed Moore that she was
withdrawing from the case .
The second disciplinary case involves these facts. On February 12, 2001,
Perry corresponded with Eddyville prisoner Jacta Est Alea (a/k/a Kenneth Uriah Ross,
a/k/a Uriah Marquis Pasha), acknowledging receipt of a videotape and hundreds of
pages of documents regarding Alea's pending federal lawsuit . On March 27, 2001,
Perry wrote to Alea for the second time, indicating that she had "already entered her
appearance" in the federal court case and was enclosing her "standard Legal Services
Agreement." Nothing in the record indicates that Alea signed and returned this
agreement .
On October 9, 2001, Alea filed a complaint with the KBA against Perry,
asserting that Perry had failed to return his documents and videotape, that she had
refused to answer his correspondence, and that her last listed telephone number had
been disconnected with no forwarding number. Based upon these allegations, Perry
was charged with two counts of professional misconduct. Count I alleged that Perry
violated 3 .130-1 .16(d), regarding termination of representation, by failing to inform Alea
that she no longer represented him and by failing to return his file in a timely fashion .
Count II alleged that Perry violated SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) and (b), regarding keeping a
client informed, by failing to return phone calls and the file, and by failing to inform him
that she was no longer representing him in the civil action, thereby allowing him to
make a decision regarding his case. This case was also submitted to the Board of
Governors as a default case . The Board found Perry guilty of both counts.
The Board considered the two cases jointly for purposes of its recommendation to this
Court. In deciding upon the level of sanction, the Board considered that Perry had
been suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for non-payment of bar dues on
February 7, 2002, but otherwise had no prior disciplinary history. The Board
recommended a 181 day suspension from the practice of law.
Pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), we hereby adopt the recommendation of the
Board . Accordingly, it is hereby ordered :
1 . Respondent, Helen M . Perry, is suspended from the practice of law in
Kentucky for a period of one hindered and eighty-one (181) days. The period of
suspension shall commence on the date of entry of this Order and shall continue until
she is reinstated to the practice of law by Order of this Court pursuant to SCR 3.510 .
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay the costs
of these actions in the amount of $372.27, and for which execution may issue from this
Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
3. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, within ten (10) days, Respondent shall notify all
clients in writing of her inability to represent then and shall furnish copies of said letters
of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association . She shall also provide such
notification to all courts in which she has matters pending .
All concur.
ENTERED : April 24, 2003 .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Bruce K. Davis, Executive Director
Jay R. Garrett
Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Helen M . Perry
902 East Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40206
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.
