KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. JAMIE KAY ROBERTS-GIBSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrnar (~vurf of
2003-SC-0681-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
DQ`~
COMPLAINANT
IN SUPREME COURT
JAMIE KAY ROBERTS-GIBSON
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association brought this action against Respondent, Jamie
Kay Roberts-Gibson, a/k/a Jamie Kay Roberts, of Louisville, Kentucky. The Inquiry
Commission charged the Respondent with the following five violations : (1) SCR 3.130
5 .5(a), practicing law while suspended ; (2) SCR 3 .130-1 .3, failure to exercise
reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of a client ; (3) SCR 3.1301 .4(a), failure to keep a client reasonably informed about a case and failure to comply
with a reasonable request for information ; (4) SCR 3.130-8 .3(c), conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by making untruthful statements to a
client ; and (5) SCR 3.130-8 .1(b), failure to knowingly respond to a lawful demand for
information from the disciplinary authority. Respondent filed no response .
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law on January 2, 2001, for
failure to comply with her continuing legal education requirements. She was aware of
her suspension because she inquired with the KBA as to the procedure for
reinstatement . However, Respondent did not take any additional measures to actually
be restored or reinstated to practice .
Despite the suspension, Respondent accepted employment from a client to draft
and enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in June of 2001 . The client paid the
Respondent Three Hundred Dollars ($300) as a fee, but the Respondent failed to file
the order. Nor did the Respondent inform the client of her suspension . The client
made repeated attempts to contact Respondent concerning the matter and to request
information, but to no avail . Shortly thereafter, the client learned of Respondent's
suspension and filed this complaint .
Respondent has a significant prior disciplinary history . As stated above,
Respondent was suspended from practice on January 2, 2001, for failure to fulfill her
continuing legal education requirements . On February 20, 2003, this Court suspended
Respondent for one hundred eighty (180) days. Kentucky Bar Association v. RobertsGibson , Ky ., 97 S .W .3d 450 (2003). In that second disciplinary action, the record
established that Respondent continued to act as a guardian ad litem before the
Jefferson Family Court, and even accepted new appointments as a guardian ad litem,
despite the January 2001 suspension . In addition to practicing law while suspended,
this Court determined that Respondent had also violated SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) by
misrepresenting her status as an attorney to the Jefferson Family Court and her clients,
and SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) for her failure to respond to the bar complaint or acknowledge its
receipt.
On September 18, 2003, this Court issued a third suspension . Kentucky Bar
Association v. Roberts , Ky., 114 S .W .3d 843 (2003) .
-2-
In this most recent disciplinary
action, Respondent was suspended for an additional three years for six disciplinary
violations. The record established that Respondent was hired to represent a client in
1997 regarding a personal injury matter on a contingent fee basis without providing a
written fee agreement . Although she had not even filed the claim, Respondent made
misrepresentations to the client concerning the status of the claim and the existence of
settlement offers. In addition, the client made repeated requests for information, which
were ignored . Finally, the client learned of the suspension, which Respondent
specifically denied, and filed a complaint . Again, Respondent violated SCR 3 .1308 .1 (b) for her failure to knowingly respond to a lawful demand for information from the
disciplinary authority .
As to the present violations, a vote was taken concerning Charges 1 through 4,
and the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association voted 17-0 for guilt. As to
Charge 5, the Board voted 16-1 for guilt . The Board then voted 12-5 to recommend the
addition of a two-year suspension to all currently imposed penalties. The five Board
members in the minority would have disbarred Respondent . Respondent has made no
request pursuant to SCR 3 .370(8) that this Court review the Board of Governor's
recommendation and this Court declines to initiate a review . Therefore, pursuant to
SCR 3.370(10), the recommendation of the Board of Governors is adopted .
Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is therefore ORDERED that:
1) Jamie Kay Roberts-Gibson be and is hereby suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two years, to run consecutively from her current suspensions .
2) Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Roberts-Gibson is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $133.98, for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
3) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, and to the extent that she has not already done so,
Roberts-Gibson shall, within ten (10) days from the entry of this Opinion and Order,
notify all clients in writing of her inability to represent them, and notify all courts in which
she has matters pending of her suspension from the practice of law, and furnish copies
of said letters of notice. to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association .
4) Roberts-Gibson is also ordered to immediately cancel any and all advertising
in which she may be engaged to the extent possible .
All concur.
Entered : December 18, 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.
