JAMES D. HOWES V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
"Supreme
TO BE PUBLISHED
Courf of
'~
2007-SC-000086-KB
JAMES D. HOWES
KBA Member No. 33905
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Movant, James D . Howes, KBA Member No. 33905, 1501 Durrett
Lane, Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40213, moves this Court, pursuant to SCR
3.480(2), to declare himself guilty as charged by the Inquiry Commission in KBA
File 12408 to Counts I, II, IV, and V . He moves that Count 111 be dismissed .
Movant also moves this Court to enter a Public Reprimand for his conduct and to
order ten (10) hours of remedial ethics education . The Kentucky Bar Association
(KBA) has no objection and requests that Count III in KBA File 12408 be
dismissed. We find sufficient evidence to adjudicate Movant guilty of Counts I, II,
and IV; but dismiss Counts III and V. We also enter an order imposing the
negotiated sanction agreed to by the parties .
1. KBA File 12408
Movant was properly served a complaint by the Inquiry Commission on
December 1, 2005 . After successfully securing the payment of medical
expenses on behalf of several of his workers' compensation clients, Movant sent
letters to the treating physician of these clients . The letters state, in pertinent
part:
By successfully litigating this claim we have secured your right to
payment without any expense to you . Consequently, we are
asserting our fee in an amount equal to 25% of the amount secured
to you. . . . While we fully anticipate your cooperation in this regard
we are prepared to commence litigation within 10 days to resolve
this claim if necessary .
In another letter, Movant writes, "However, if you desire that we collect charges
owed to you at the same time we collect our fee we will be agreeable to
representing your interest without any additional charge to you ." (Emphasis in
original) .
In Count I, the complaint alleged that Movant violated SCR 3 .130-1 .5(a)
(fees) by attempting to charge a 25% recovery fee to the treating physician, who
was not his client, without approval of the administrative law judge presiding over
the workers' compensation claims of his clients, without having performed any
legal work on behalf of the physician, and without a written contingency fee
agreement .
In Count II, the complaint alleged that Movant violated SCR 3.130-4 .1
(making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person) by stating that
he had somehow already earned or was entitled to a fee from the physician .
Count III alleged that the act of sending the above referenced letters
violated SCR 3.130-8.3(c) (dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation) .
In Count IV, Movant is alleged to have violated SCR 3.130-7 .09 by not
complying with the solicitation rules and by sending solicitation involving
coercion, duress or harassment.
Count V alleged violation of SCR 3.130-7.05(2) (advertisements) when
Movant failed to submit the letters he sent to the treating physician to the
Attorneys' Advertising Commission .
In his motion, Movant admits the factual allegations set forth in Counts I,
II, IV, and V. He explains that he incorrectly implied that he was entitled to a fee
from the treating physician, when in fact he was simply asserting a claim that has
yet to be established by Kentucky law. He further explains that he did not intend
to engage in improper solicitation or the advertisement of legal services, but
realizes that the language of his letter improperly implied as such . However, he
denies that he engaged or intended to engage in dishonest conduct in violation of
SCR 3.130-8.3(c), and thus, requests this court to grant the KBA's request to
dismiss the charge in Count III of the complaint.
11. Conclusion
We find sufficient evidence to adjudicate Movant guilty of Counts I, II, and
IV in KBA File 12408 . There is insufficient evidence to support Count III, and
thus, we grant the KBA's request to dismiss that charge . We also find insufficient
evidence to support Count V, and thus, we dismiss that charge as well.
Between the years 1979 and 2003, Movant has been privately
admonished four times for varying reasons. Movant has also been suspended
once for non-payment of dues and non-compliance with CLE requirements.
Pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), we believe good cause exists upon the foregoing
facts and charges to grant the Movant's motion to approve the negotiated
sanction in this case . Therefore, it is ORDERED that:
1.
Count III and Count V in KBA File 12408 are dismissed.
2.
James D. Howes, KBA Member No. 33905, is adjudicated guilty of Counts
I, II, and IV in KBA File 12408.
3.
James D. Howes, KBA Member No. 33905, is publicly reprimanded for his
conduct.
4.
James D . Howes, KBA Member No. 33905, shall complete, at his own
expense, ten (10) hours of remedial ethics education, separate and apart from
his fulfillment of any other continuing education requirement, within one year from
the entry of this order. The remedial ethics education must be satisfied by the
Movant's personal attendance at live continuing education or adult education
programs approved by the KBA Office of Bar Counsel and must be appropriate
for the remedial education of the Movant regarding his ethical obligations to third
parties and the public. Movant shall furnish a release and waiver to the KBA
Office of Bar Counsel for the purpose of reviewing CLE records for compliance
with this order, and the release and waiver shall continue in effect until one year
after he completes his remedial education .
5.
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Movant is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $75.20 for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Order .
ENTERED: February 22, 2007.
Lambert, CJ ; Cunningham, Noble, Schroder and Scott, JJ .,
concur. Minton, J ., concurs in the sanction imposed by the Court but disagrees
with the Court's sua sponte dismissal of Count V without briefing or argument.
Howes admitted that he violated SCR 3.130-7 .05(2) (advertisements) when he
failed to submit the solicitation letters to the Attorneys' Advertising Commission.
McAnulty, J ., also concurs with Minton, J.
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.
