KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. WILLIAM RALPH WOODS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,;VUFr.rMr
Courf -of "
PR
NO . 2006-SC-000749-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
WILLIAM RALPH WOODS
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association has
recommended to this Court that William Ralph Woods be suspended from the practice
of law for five years . We agree with the Board's recommendation . Woods was
admitted to practice law in Kentucky on November 18, 1983 ; and his bar roster address
is P .O. Box 848, Grayson, Kentucky 41143,
This Court suspended Woods's law license in December 2005 for nonpayment of bar dues and for non-compliance with continuing legal education
requirements. While under suspension, in January 2006, Woods appeared before the
Boyle District Court to represent a client. Later that same month, Woods filed a petition
for nomination for the office of circuit judge in which he falsely swore that he met all of
the constitutional and statutory requirements for that office . His sworn statement was
false because Section 122 of Kentucky's constitution requires that a candidate be
licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth in order to be eligible to be a circuit
judge.
Woods failed to answer letters sent to him by the Office of Bar Counsel
inquiring as to why he appeared in court while suspended and filed paperwork to seek
an office that he could not hold because of his suspension . Eventually, the Inquiry
Commission authorized a bar complaint against Woods to which he made no response.
Later, the Commission formally issued a four-count charge against Woods, charging
that Woods:
violated Kentucky Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.130
(5.5)(a), which states that a lawyer may not "[p]ractice
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation
of the legal profession in that jurisdiction" ;
"
violated SCR 3.130(3 .3)(a)(1) and (2), which provide that
a lawyer shall not knowingly "[m]ake a false statement of
material fact or law to a tribunal . . . [or] [flail to disclose a
material fact to the tribunal when disclosure is necessary
to avoid a fraud being perpetrated upon the tribunal" ;
violated SCR 3.130(8 .3)(c), which forbids a lawyer from
engaging in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit[,]
or misrepresentation" ; and
"
violated SCR 3.130(8 .1)(b), which forbids a lawyer from
"knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or disciplinary
authority[ .]"
Woods failed to respond to these charges .
The Board unanimously found Woods guilty on all four counts. Fourteen
members of the Board then voted to recommend that Woods be suspended from the
practice of law for five years, and five members of the Board voted to suspend him from
the practice of law for three years . After due consideration of the serious nature of the
charges against Woods, as well as his lengthy disciplinary history, we agree that the
more severe five-year suspension is appropriate .
In order to demonstrate why such a serious penalty against Woods is
appropriate, it is necessary to highlight his professional disciplinary history. In 1999,
while Woods served as a district judge, the Judicial Conduct Commission suspended
him from his duties as a district judge without pay for sixty days because Woods, among
other things, sentenced defendants to home incarceration under the administration of a
for-profit company owned by Woods's wife . After an unsuccessful race for circuit judge
that same year, Woods engaged in a pattern of behavior so improper and dangerous
that the Judicial Conduct Commission termed it "judicial tyranny ." Among other
improper actions, Woods:
"
openly displayed a handgun while on the bench;
"
requested a circuit clerk to relieve a deputy clerk from her
duties as his bench clerk simply because he believed the
deputy clerk had failed to support his circuit court
candidacy;
"
arbitrarily increased fines and jail times for offenses ; and
held the Elliott County Sheriff and two deputies in
contempt of court (and ordered them jailed) in retaliation
for what Woods perceived to be a lack of support for his
candidacy . Woods only rescinded these arrest orders
after receiving a phone call from the Chief Justice of
Kentucky.
Ultimately the Judicial Conduct Commission ordered Woods removed
from office . And finally, as previously noted, this Court suspended Woods from the
practice of law in December 2005 for failing to pay bar dues and non-compliance with
continuing legal education requirements .
Based on Woods's demonstrated pattern of disturbingly unprofessional
conduct, we believe the Board's recommendation of a five-year suspension is amply
justified . Woods has not filed a notice of review under SCR 3 .370(8) ; and we decline to
review the decision of the Board under SCR 3.370(9), meaning that the decision of the
Board is hereby adopted under SCR 3.370(10) .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1)
Respondent, William Ralph Woods, is suspended from the practice
of law for five years . The period of suspension shall commence on the date of entry of
this opinion and order and shall continue until he is reinstated to the practice of law by
this Court under SCR 3.510;
2)
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Woods is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $223.96, for
which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order; and
3)
Under SCR 3.390, Woods shall, within ten (10) days from the entry
of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients, in writing, of his inability to represent them;
notify, in writing, all courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the
practice of law; and furnish copies of all letters of notice to the Executive Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association . Furthermore, to the extent possible, Woods shall
immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged .
Lambert, C .J . ; McAnulty, Minton, Noble, and Wintersheimer, JJ., concur .
Scott, J., dissents in part by separate opinion in which Graves, J ., joins.
ENTERED : December 21, 2006.
TO BE PUBLISHED
,Supreme
~vurf n£
irufurhV
NO. 2006-SC-000749-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
WILLIAM RALPH WOODS
RESPONDENT
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE SCOTT
Although I agree with Counts III and IV, I would dismiss Count II (making a false
statement to a tribunal.) This charge was founded upon the respondent's filing for
election to the office of Circuit Judge, which under Section 122 of the Kentucky
Constitution, required him to be licensed to practice law in the courts of this
Commonwealth, and a licensed attorney for at least eight years . At the time of his
application for election, he had been temporarily suspended for failing to pay bar dues
and for non-compliance with continuing legal education requirements - all of which were
remedial .
The time to test for qualifications, however, is the time one takes office - not
when one files . Kirkpatrick v. Brownfields , 97 Ky. 558, 559, 31 S.W . 137, 138 (Ky.
1895) ; Ky. OAG 79-601 (1979). See also Com. ex. rel. Buckman v. Miller, 272 S .W.2d
468 (Ky. 1954) . Thus, there could be no false statement. Otherwise, attorneys who do
not meet all of the qualifications for office at the time of filing could never file and run for
office, though they would be constitutionally qualified to hold the office once elected .
The majority opinion should not be so interpreted .
Graves, J., joins this dissent.
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.
