KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. KAREN MARTIN DOYLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
~ixyrQn~tP ~o~t~ v~ ~1J
2004-SC-0361-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KAREN MARTIN DOYLE
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Respondent, Karen Martin Doyle, whose bar roster address is 412 East
Spring, Cookeville, Tennessee, was publicly censured by the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee for violating DR 7-102(A)(1) and (2)
(two counts), DR 7-105(A), and DR 7-106(A)(C)(7) . Upon motion by the Kentucky Bar
Association (KBA), this Court issued a show cause order directing Respondent to show
cause, if any, pursuant to SCR 3.435(2)(b), why the imposition of identical discipline
should not be imposed . Respondent does not object to the Court issuing an order of
reciprocal discipline if said order will resolve all charges pending against her, to which
the KBA does not object .
SCR 3.435(4) states in pertinent part that this Court "shall impose the identical
discipline unless Respondent proves by substantial evidence : (a) a lack of jurisdiction
or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that misconduct established
warrants substantially different discipline in this State ."
The Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
determined that Respondent "was held in contempt in a case in which she was
personally a party for her failure to comply with an order of the court." The order further
states that the Respondent "filed an action on her behalf for collection of child support
in Tennessee on the basis of an Order issued by a Kentucky court which was no longer
effective ." Further, she "participated in presenting a criminal charge solely to gain an
advantage in her civil matter ." Respondent committed these violations in the context of
her contentious divorce proceedings pending in Kentucky.
The conduct proscribed in the aforementioned Tennessee disciplinary rules is
also proscribed in SCR 3.130-3 .1, which provides that a lawyer "shall not knowingly
bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a
basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an
extension, modification or reversal of existing law" ; in SCR 3.130-3 .4(f), which states
"[a] lawyer shall not present . . . criminal or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an
advantage in any civil or criminal matter"; in SCR 3.130-3 .4(c), which provides that a
lawyer shall not "[k]knowingly or intentionally disobey an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists" ; and in SCR 3.130-3 .4(e), which prohibits a lawyer from "knowingly or
intentionally allud[ing] to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is
relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence . . . ."
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
(1) Respondent, Karen Martin Doyle, is hereby publicly reprimanded for her
violation of SCR 3 .130-3 .1, SCR 3 .130-3 .4(f), SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c), and SCR 3.130-3 .4(e).
-2-
(2) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent shall pay all costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings against her, and for which execution may issue from
this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
Entered : October 21, 2004.
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.