KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. STUART L. LYON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
n~
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uprerar (~ourf of
2005-SC-736-KB
A
I7n
.r
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
STUART L. LYON
KBA MEMBER NO. 42900
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Stuart L. Lyon, was admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on July 8, 1960 . His bar roster address is Legal Arts
Building, 200 South 7th Street, Suite 305, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 .
On April 1, 2003, Respondent entered a guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v.
Alford , 400 U .S. 25, 91 S .Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed .2d 162 (1970), to one count of perjury in the
first degree, a class D felony . Upon entry of his plea, Respondent was automatically
suspended pursuant to SCR 3 .166 . Also, as a result of his plea, the Inquiry
Commission, on April 23, 2003, issued a two-count charge . Count I alleged
Respondent violated SCR 3.130-8 .3(b), which provides : "it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to: commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects ." Count II alleged Respondent
violated SCR 3.130-8 .3(c), which provides : "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation ."
Respondent argued for an evidentiary hearing to prove he was not actually guilty
of the crime, but the Trial Commissioner ruled that conviction of a felony forecloses
inquiry into the Respondent's guilt or innocence and that the conviction itself was the
ethical violation for which he was being charged .
Respondent was granted, however, the right to an evidentiary hearing on
whether aggravating or mitigating factors were present so as to affect Respondent's
discipline . The hearing was held in March of 2005. At the hearing, Respondent
explained the perjury charge arose from his testifying in Jefferson District Court,
Probate Division, that the purported Last Will and Testament of Leathean Frazier was,
in fact, her will, and that he had witnessed its execution . The will had been prepared by
Nick VanMeter, then a licensed practitioner who shared offices with Respondent. In
reality, VanMeter had forged the entire will, including the signatures of the testatrix and
Respondent in order to allow a previously disinherited nephew an inheritance to which
he was not entitled . VanMeter requested Respondent go to a probate hearing to prove
the will . When VanMeter presented the will to him in court, Respondent claims his
signature appeared authentic, so he testified in accordance with that belief.
Respondent had been a sole practitioner for over forty years, handling lower
court misdemeanor criminal work and a few bankruptcies and personal injury cases.
He had an office-sharing relationship with Nick VanMeter for twelve years .
Respondent presented several mitigating factors, including, without limitations:
(1) absence of any prior disciplinary record ; (2) absence of a profit motive ; (3)
cooperative attitude with the Kentucky Bar Association ; (4) remorse and no likelihood of
any future offenses . Respondent called several witnesses, including a retired district
judge, all of whom testified to his good character and honesty .
After hearing all the evidence, the Trial Commissioner recommended
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for five (5) years without any credit
for time served . Respondent appealed to the Board of Governors on the sole issue of
whether Respondent should be given credit for the time that he had been and continues
to be automatically suspended .
After a report by a Board member and deliberation, The Board made the
following decisions and recommendations : All 18 members voted Respondent was
guilty of violating SCR 3 .130-8 .3(b) and SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) ; 10 members voted for a four
year, nine month suspension beginning as of the date of the guilty plea in April of 2003 ;
6 members voted for a five year suspension, beginning as of the date of the guilty plea
in April of 2003; one member voted for a five year suspension to begin from the date of
this Court's Order; one member voted for permanent disbarment .
We adopt the finding of the Board of Governors regarding Respondent's guilt.
We also find the appropriate discipline shall be a four year nine month suspension'
from the practice of law, beginning as of the date of the temporary suspension on April
2, 2003.
Thus, it is ORDERED that:
1) Stuart L . Lyon is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for four years and nine months, commencing from the date
of his original suspension on April 2, 2003 pursuant to SCR 3 .166.
2) That at the end of this suspension Lyon shall be required to reapply for
admission to the Kentucky Bar, and that such application be reviewed under the
provisions of SCR 3.505, SCR 2.040, and SCR 3 .510.
SCR 3 .510(4)
3) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Lyon shall provide notice to any clients, if applicable,
he currently represents of his inability to provide further legal services, to notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension and to provide the Director of
the Kentucky Bar Association with a copy of all such letters simultaneously with their
mailing .
4) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Lyon is directed to pay all costs associated
with the disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $1,361 .47, and for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
ENTERED : December 22, 2005.
COUNSEL FOR MOVANT :
Bruce K. Davis, Executive Director
Dana Cox Nickles
Deputy Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Michael L . Maple
123 S . Seventh Street
Louisville, KY 40202-2703
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.
