KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. SHERIDAN MARTIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
6$ixyrsme ~Ourf
of
2006-SC-0353-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
DQ A
~7E\I-&-
IN SUPREME COURT
SHERIDAN MARTIN
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors ("Board") of the Kentucky Bar Association ("KBA") has
recommended to this Court that Sheridan Martin, who was admitted to practice law in
Kentucky in May 1993, whose Bar Roster Address is P .O. Box 777, 5 Court Street,
Allen, Kentucky 41601, and whose KBA Member Number is 84699, be suspended from
the practice of law in Kentucky for two years, with 181 days to serve and the remainder
probated upon reinstatement with certain conditions . On May 16, 2005, the Board
tendered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation related to two
disciplinary cases (KBA File Nos. 7839 and 10898) against Martin . Martin subsequently
filed a timely notice pursuant to SCR 3.370(8) for the Court to review the Board's
findings and recommendation . Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the record, we
conclude that the discipline recommended by the Board was insufficient in light of the
egregiousness of Martin's behavior and impose a different sanction .
The first disciplinary case, KBA File No. 7839, rose from a criminal conviction for
the sexual assault of one of Martin's female employees that occurred on December 13,
1999. Martin was at home, rather than work, because of an alleged back ailment . The
employee went to Martin's home to deliver mail from the office . She testified that she
was apprehensive because Martin had previously made inappropriate and unwelcome
sexual comments to her and another employee and had touched their backs, knees,
and hair. When the employee arrived at Martin's home, he was wearing jogging pants
and a t-shirt. He asked the employee to come into another area of the house, which
turned out to be a bedroom, because he was "down in his back." When the employee
entered the bedroom, Martin grabbed her hair and then forced her right hand into his
pants and against his penis. A small struggle ensued, during which Martin threw the
employee on the bed, climbed on top of her, and forcefully tried to kiss her. The
employee's pager went off, and Martin stopped his conduct, apparently alarmed by the
sound . The employee said that the page was an emergency call from her son's school.
Martin unlocked his front door and the employee left.
Following the incident, the employee contacted the County Attorney . She left
Martin's employ soon thereafter (as did the other female employee who had been
subjected to Martin's inappropriate behavior in the office) . Investigators from the
Commonwealth's Attorney's office investigated the crime and obtained tape-recorded
statements from Martin wherein he admitted his inappropriate conduct . Martin was
indicted for First-Degree Sexual Assault, a class D felony . Martin subsequently entered
into a plea agreement wherein the charge would be reduced to Third-Degree Sexual
Assault, a class B misdemeanor. The final judgment of conviction was entered on
January 24, 2001 . Martin was sentenced to 90 days in jail, probated for two years on
several conditions, including that he continue good behavior, refrain from further
violations of the law, complete community service, have no contact with the victim, and
complete a counseling program.
There was also evidence that less than one month after this conviction, Martin
made inappropriate sexual advances toward a female nurse at the nursing home where
his mother lived . The nurse claimed that Martin put his hands on her waist, rubbed his
"front side against [her] back side," and commented on her looks . This incident led the
prosecutor to move to revoke Martin's probation . The trial court denied this motion,
noting that while the behavior was inappropriate, it fell into the category of bad behavior
only marginally.
The second disciplinary case, KBA File No. 10898, rose from another criminal
conviction, this time for the sexual assault of a former client on April 27, 2001, less than
three months after the initial conviction . Martin had previously represented the woman
in a personal injury claim . At the time of the sexual assault, the woman was seeking
Martin's legal counsel regarding a social security claim for her minor son . While behind
closed doors in his office, Martin flirted with the woman, then exposed his genitals and
began masturbating in her presence . He approached her and placed his genitals
against her. He then locked the door and began fondling, embracing, and kissing the
woman . Martin's conduct was interrupted when an employee knocked on his door.
Martin acknowledged that he had sexual contact with the woman, stating that he
initiated the flirting, which progressed to kissing and then to oral sex being performed on
him. However, Martin claims that the encounter was consensual, though he admits that
it was ethically inappropriate .
Martin was subsequently charged with Third-Degree Sexual Abuse and SecondDegree Unlawful Imprisonment . He entered a plea to Third-Degree Sexual Abuse
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970). He was
sentenced to thirty days in jail, probated for two years on the condition that he commit
no further crimes, continue psychological therapy, and have no contact with the victim.
The KBA initiated disciplinary proceedings against Martin, and in April 2004, the
Inquiry Commission issued two formal charges against him for violating SCR 3 .1308.3(b) for having "[c]omit[ted] a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects ." The charges were
referred to a trial commissioner, who heard evidence and rendered findings of fact,
conclusions of law and a recommendation :
The trial commissioner's findings of fact lay out the facts related to Martin's
criminal acts and convictions in substantially the same manner as described above.
Those findings also indicated that Martin continued to practice law after his convictions .
They also describe Martin's psychological counseling . He began seeing Bill Jett, a
licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist, in November 2000. Following the
April 2001 sexual assault incident, Jett recommended that Martin attend the Sante
Center for Healing, an inpatient mental health facility in Denton, Texas, that specializes
in treating professionals with sexually-related mental disorders . Martin attended the
Sante Center from May 18, 2001 to July 1, 2001 . He left against the recommendation
of the facility, allegedly due to the unavailability of funds to cover further treatment. The
Sante Center's records indicate that Martin "still has a lot of work to do in all the problem
areas of his treatment plan." Martin subsequently received outpatient treatment through
the Baptist Hospital East in Louisville, Kentucky, and continued counseling and
treatment with Bill Jett. He also participated in the Hebron Ministries Addiction Support
Program in Pikeville, Kentucky.
Bill Jett testified that there had been gaps in Martin's treatment, but that he had
been following up with his therapy and was taking anti-depressant medication for his
condition as recommended by his psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Ruth . He also noted that
Martin had instituted strict controls in his office and that there had been no indication of
recurrence of any inappropriate behavior . Finally, Jett testified that Martin had not yet
reached a "maintenance level" in his therapy and would require continued therapy for
his "sexual addiction ."
The trial commissioner's findings also discuss Martin's relationship with Bill Baird
III, an attorney in Pikeville, Kentucky. Martin had worked as a law clerk for Baird while
attending law school . Baird and Martin had a chance meeting in 2002. During that
meeting, the men discussed Martin's mental, emotional, and spiritual health . Baird then
introduced Martin to the Hebron Ministries program, which Baird had established in the
Pikeville area . Baird testified that Martin had effectively and continuously participated in
the program and had reestablished a credible position as a practitioner in his
community . Baird also testified that he would have no hesitancy in referring a client to
Martin and that he would be willing to act as Martin's mentor if requested by the KBA.
The trial commissioner's report also describes the testimony of Molly Rader, one
of Martin's current employees . She testified favorably about the current manner in
which Martin conducts his office, noting that there are no inappropriate sexual
comments or physical contacts . She also described Martin as a wonderful employer
who treats his employees well.
The trial commissioner noted that Martin's guilty pleas, including the Alford plea,
constituted proof of guilt of ethical violations in the disciplinary proceedings. The
commissioner also found that the other testimony and evidence proved Martin's ethical
violations beyond a preponderance of the evidence .
As a preface to his recommendation, the trial commissioner noted that Martin's
behavior had been egregious, would have a long-lasting adverse emotional effect on
the victims, demonstrated an inappropriate leverage of power and authority over an
employee and a client, and had cast the legal profession in an unfavorable light. He
also noted that the gaps in Martin's therapy and his leaving of the Sante Center against
the recommendation of the facility indicated that the genuineness of his efforts was
suspect. The commissioner was also concerned that Martin's efforts to seek treatment
were motivated more by his pending Bar complaints than his actual need for treatment.
Nonetheless, the commissioner found that Martin's efforts were primarily a good faith
attempt to address his mental health issues .
In light of this, the trial commissioner recommended that Martin be required to
undergo aggressive therapy, with supervision by the KBA, for at least two more years.
The recommended required therapy included weekly group therapy sessions through
Hebron Ministries or another equivalent organization, weekly individual therapy
sessions specialized for sexual addictive behavior through Mr. Jett or another
equivalent healthcare provider, and regular follow-ups with Dr. Ruth or another
psychiatrist for medication control for Martin's depression and other mental issues . The
commissioner also recommended that Martin be required to continue the utilization of
office controls that he has instituted subject to monitoring by the KBA consisting of the
utilization of a taped monitoring surveillance system to be utilized particularly when
counseling female clients with tapes to be maintained by the office manager or other
member of the practice beyond control of Martin, and the continued utilization of an
office procedure wherein Martin would have a female employee present whenever
Martin is consulting with a female client or the maintenance of an open door to his office
when interviewing a female client. The commissioner also recommended that Martin be
directed to avoid making any inappropriate sexual comments, remarks, or innuendos to
any female, or otherwise engage in any other inappropriate non-invited or nonconsensual sexual activity with a female during the course of his probation, and that he
not engage in any further conduct resulting in criminal or disciplinary charges.
The commissioner also indicated that a period of suspension was necessary in
light of the gravity of the offenses and the fact that they represented a pattern of
conduct, rather than an isolated incident. Thus, the commissioner recommended that
Martin be suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for two years, with at least
181 days to serve with the remainder probated upon reinstatement on the condition that
he comply with the recommended course of treatment described above. The trial
commissioner also recommended that William Baird III be designated as the Mentor
representative of the KBA during the course of Martin's probationary period to ensure
that Martin complies with the Board's mandates in this regard .
The Board of Governors voted to adopt the trial commissioner's findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendation by a vote of thirteen to six.
Martin seeks review of the Board's decision on the grounds that the Board's
decision is not in conformity with this Court's decisions in similar disciplinary cases and
does not adequately reflect the full factual circumstances surrounding his behavior,
specifically his mental health and sexual addiction problems.'
Martin also complains that an Alford plea does not constitute an admission of
the prosecuting witness's allegations . We note simply that the witness's allegations are
not the cornerstone of the disciplinary process . Rather, the question of discipline in a
Martin cites three Kentucky cases, Kentucky Bar Association v. Colton , 54
S .W .3d 158 (Ky 2001), Kentucky Bar Association v. Rankin , 862 S .W.2d 894 (Ky.
1994), and Kentucky Bar Association v. Dunn, 965 S .W.2d 158 (Ky. 1998), for the
proposition that the recommended discipline in this case is too harsh . He argues that
in cases involving addiction and mental health issues, lesser sanctions are called for. In
essence, he argues that any discipline should focus on making sure that his mental
health issues are treated .
In Colton, the attorney was convicted of several misdemeanor counts of
harassing communications and violating a DVO. There was evidence that the attorney
had a drug and alcohol abuse problem, and suffered from depression and bi-polar
disorder . He was given a public reprimand and a probated six-month suspension from
the practice of law.
In Rankin, the attorney was convicted of several misdemeanors, including
second-degree wanton endangerment and fourth-degree assault . There was also
evidence related to several DUI charges. That attorney was given a six-month
suspension, probated for two years on the condition that he comply with a variety of
conditions related to treatment of alcohol addiction .
case like this turns on the fact of criminal action as evidenced by the criminal conviction,
which is by itself an ethical violation regardless of the specifics. And our case law is
clear that an Alford plea is proof of the fact of the conviction and therefore is sufficient to
support disciplining the attorney . See Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Haggard , 57 S.W.3d 300
(Ky. 2001); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Taylor , 549 S.W.2d 508 (Ky. 1976). Moreover, the
trial commissioner found that the testimony and other evidence independently
established that Martin had committed the ethical violations with which he was charged.
2 Martin also cites disciplinary cases from several other states for the same
proposition . While such cases can no doubt be persuasive authority, though perhaps
less-so in disciplinary cases than in other areas of the law, they are unnecessary when
there is adequate authority in our own case law. Because there is adequate precedent
in our case law, we need not address the cases from other states cited by Martin .
8
In Dunn , the attorney pled guilty to five misdemeanors, one count of DUI and four
counts of second-degree wanton endangerment . He was also given a six-month
suspension, probated for two years on the condition that he comply with a variety of
conditions related to treatment of alcohol addiction.
Regarding his mental health and addiction issues, Martin notes that his divorce
and the deaths of his father, father-in-law, and his mother had significant impacts on his
mental health . He also notes that he suffers from depression and obsessivecompulsive disorder with sexual elements, but that he has undergone aggressive
treatment since 2001 .
Regarding the cases that Martin cites, we note that they differ in several
significant respects from his own. To begin with, Martin has two separate convictions,
one of which was based on acts occurring after the final judgment and sentencing for
the other. We agree with the trial commissioner's assessment that this indicates a
pattern of conduct, rather than an isolated incident. More importantly, however, we note
that Martin's crimes, unlike those in the cases he cites, were directly related to his law
practice . One of the victims was an employee in his law office, and the other was a
client who was seeking legal advice about her disabled son. Again, we agree with the
trial commissioner's characterization of the effect of these aspects of Martin's crimes:
they demonstrate an inappropriate leverage of power and authority over his victims
related to his law practice . In this respect, Martin's crimes reflect very poorly on the
profession as a whole .
We are persuaded that Martin's behavior is more like that in some of the cases
cited by the KBA. See Bowling v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 971 S.W.2d 294 (Ky. 1998)
(nine-month suspension for one count of fourth-degree assault, four counts of terroristic
threatening, two counts of unlawful imprisonment, and one count of second-degree
wanton endangerment) ; Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. McKinney, 900 S.W .2d 605 (Ky. 995)
(six month suspension for misdemeanor fourth-degree assault conviction) .3 If anything,
Martin's behavior is worse than that in those cases since his was the result of a pattern
of conduct and involved the victimization of a woman working in his law practice and a
client . This makes his violations particularly egregious.
While Martin is correct that those cases do not involve addiction or other mental
health issues, whereas the cases he cites do, that consideration does not control the
decision to impose discipline . We are also cognizant of the ABA guidelines that he cites
which counsel in favor of granting probation when the ethical lapse is related to a
mental health disorder that can be corrected or treated medically. Had the ethical
violations Martin committed been less egregious, i.e., not directly related to his law
practice or less than criminal, we might be persuaded that probation or a lesser sanction
would be appropriate . However, Martin's unfortunate mental health issues, even when
combined with his efforts to seek treatment and to control his behavior, simply do not
counteract the fact that he victimized a law-office employee and a client by means' of
criminal behavior. This leads us to conclude that a substantive sanction is in order.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we elect to review the decision of the Board
pursuant to SCR 3.370(8). However, the reasons offered by Martin for a reduction in
the proposed sanction are not compelling . In fact, because we find that Martin's
3 However, we do not rely on those cases cited by the KBA where the attorney
was convicted of a felony, e .g_, Kentucky Bar Assn v. Wessell , 766 S.W.2d 628
(Ky.1989), as such cases are substantively different from those involving misdemeanor
convictions . See SCR 3 .166 (requiring automatic suspension when an attorney is
convicted of a felony) .
10
behavior was so egregious, we conclude that the Board's recommended sanction is
insufficient .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1)
Sheridan Martin is suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a
period of two years . The period of suspension shall commence on the date of entry of
this Order.
(2)
Martin's reinstatement to the practice of law, should he seek it after his
period of suspension, is conditioned on his continued, good-faith participation in
appropriate psychological and/or psychiatric treatment for his diagnosed mental
conditions during his period of suspension . Should Martin be reinstated to the practice
of law, he will be subject to any forward-going requirements related to continued
treatment and in-office safeguards and monitoring by the KBA (such as those currently
in place) recommended by the Character and Fitness Committee .
(3)
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Martin is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $4,973.58,
for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
(4)
Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the
entry of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent
them, and notify all courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the
practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association .
All concur.
Entered : November 22, 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.
