KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. AN UNNAMED ATTORNEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
ixpum (90urf of "t
2006-SC-000243-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
AN UNNAMED ATTORNEY
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), moves this Court to enter an
Order privately reprimanding him in the above captioned disciplinary proceeding . The
Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has raised no objection to this motion ; however, it asks
that we publish this private reprimand as "An Unnamed Attorney Opinion" so that
members of the bar may be informed as to the limitations upon the use of suspended
attorneys in their law practice .
The Inquiry Commission issued a Charge against Respondent containing
one Count. The Charge concerned Respondent's employment of a suspended attorney
to assist in specific litigation . On or about February 8, 2004, Respondent attended a
meeting of current and former employees of a company in Versailles . The purpose of
the meeting was to determine whether the employees had any legal remedies for the
involuntary conversion of their pension plans. Prior to this meeting, Respondent had
discussions with the spokespersons for the group, and he had undertaken the task of
investigating the mechanics of their pension conversion and the remedies available to
them.
The meeting of February 8, 2004 was attended by Respondent and a
person employed by Respondent . The person with Respondent was an attorney who
was at that time suspended from the practice of law. He had been suspended on
December 18, 2003, pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(a), (b), and (d). Later on January 16,
2004, he was suspended again by order of this Court for failure to pay bar dues and
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements . Respondent employed
the suspended attorney on an independent contractor basis, and paid him an hourly
rate of $50.00 . The suspended attorney did not have an office in Respondent's law
office, nor did he have unlimited access to the client files of Respondent.
At the aforementioned employees meeting, Respondent introduced the
suspended attorney to the group and said that he was not practicing law due to "health
reasons and for other reasons that we need not go into today ." Neither Respondent nor
the suspended attorney told the group of employees that he was suspended . At this
meeting, Respondent allowed the suspended attorney to make a presentation
concerning certain issues relating to the conversion of the pension plans. The
suspended attorney also answered questions regarding the nature of the cash balance
pension plans in relation to other forms of pension plans, and the applicability of the
statute of limitations.
Three days later, on February 11, 2004, the KBA sent a letter to
Respondent questioning the presence of the suspended attorney at the February 8,
2004, meeting . Thereafter, Respondent requested an Ethics Opinion from the KBA
Ethics Hotline pursuant to SCR 3.530. That Ethics Opinion set out the nature of the
services which the suspended attorney would be able to provide as a suspended
attorney . The Ethics Hotline Opinion also expressed the need for Respondent to avoid
any misunderstanding with his clients as to the proper and limited roles of the
suspended attorney .
SCR 3.130-5 .5(b) provides that a lawyer shall not "assist a person that is
not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized
practice of law." Respondent violated SCR 3.130-5 .5(b) when he allowed a suspended
attorney to make a presentation at the employees meeting. Additionally, Respondent
violated the aforementioned rule when he allowed the suspended attorney to answer
questions regarding the nature of the cash balance pension plans in relation to other
forms of pension plans and the applicability of the statute of limitations . Respondent's
incomplete, possibly deceptive, information to the meeting attendees that the
suspended attorney had a legitimate role, but that he was unable to practice law was
ineffectual to conform to the rules.
While we agree that this was a violation of SCR 3.130-5 .5(b) and properly
punishable by a private reprimand, we have concealed the identity of the parties
involved so that the public and members of the bar may learn from Respondent's
mistakes . This case illustrates the caution lawyers must observe to avoid facilitating
evasion of our rules.
Upon the Respondent's Motion and his admission of guilt, there being no
objection from the KBA, it is ordered that:
1 . Respondent is hereby privately reprimanded for a violation of SCR
3 .130-5 .5(b) .
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $42 .13, for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
ENTERED : May 18, 2006.
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.
