ARTHUR P. HIPWELL V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
uyrtmt (~Vixrf
CORRECTED : OCTOBER 27, 2008
TO BE PUBLISHED
71
of
2008-SC-000267-KB
ARTHUR P. HIPWELL
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT -
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association has charged Arthur P . Hipwell with practicing law
without a license and with violating a Supreme Court Order suspending him from the
practice of law.
ftwell admits his violations and
has moved this Court for a one-year
suspension . The KBA has stated it has no objection to this motion. For the following
reasons, the motion is granted .
Hipwell graduated from the University of Louisville School of Law in 1976; and he
was admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky on October 21, 1976. He joined
'Louisville-based Humana, Inc., in 1979 as a tax attorney.
On January 10, 1985, this Court entered an order suspending Hipwell from the
practice of law for non-payment of bar dues. Despite this suspension, he continued to
progress through the ranks at Humana. Hipwell was named Vice-President and
Associate General Counsel of Humana in 1990. In 1992, Humana made him its Senior
Vice-President and General Counsel, a capacity in which he would serve almost
continuously until 2007. At no time between 1985 and the present was Hipwell admitted
to the practice of law in Kentucky or any other jurisdiction .' On March 7, 2007, the
KBA's Inquiry Commission formally notified Hipwell of its investigation . Hipwell
immediately stepped down as General Counsel of Humana but remained in his capacity
as an executive .
In his motion, Hipwell admits he was aware that his license had been suspended
but claims by way of mitigation that he did not believe performance of his duties as
General Counsel for Humana constituted the practice of law that would require a
license. He points out that at no time did he appear in any court on behalf of Humana
while under suspension. Likewise, Hipwell claims he did not draft legal documents or
otherwise perform legal work for the "general public ." He further states :
[T]he Movant never realized that the `practice of law' requiring a license
was so broadly defined as to include his activities at Humana. Instead,
the Movant considered himself to be a business executive who used his
legal education and training, along with business experience and his
accounting training to perform his varied duties . . . .
SCR 3.020 defines the practice of law as:
The practice of law is any service rendered involving legal knowledge or
legal advice, whether of representation, counsel or advocacy in or out of
court, rendered in respect to the rights, duties, obligations, liabilities, or
business relations of one requiring the services . . . .
Hipwell admits his duties as Senior Vice-President and General Counsel included
supervising the work of in-house attorneys, working with outside counsel, reviewing and
In 1985, this Court adopted SCR 2.111, which permits attorneys who perform strictly inhouse legal counsel work to obtain a limited certificate of admission to practice in Kentucky,
provided, among other things, that the attorney is admitted to practice and in good standing
in another state. While this rule was adopted after Hipwell's suspension and has no direct
application in this case, it bears mentioning here because it clearly enunciates the obligation
upon in-house attorneys to seek the requisite licensure .
approving reports from in-house and outside counsel . He also admits that he signed
corporate documents for government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in his capacity as General Counsel . Furthermore, the Humans corporate
website stated that Hipwell's responsibilities included "providing strategic legal
direction . . . compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission and New York
Stock Exchange requirements . . . [and] litigation management." Clearly, these activities
are within the ambit of the practice of law as contemplated by SCR 3 .020 and,
therefore, require appropriate licensure . While there are no allegations that Hipwell's
unauthorized practice of law was undertaken for nefarious purposes or that it resulted in
harm to the public or to Hipwell's employer, it is incumbent upon this Court to maintain
the integrity of the profession by ensuring that those who hold themselves out to the
public as attorneys are authorized to do so .
In its response, the KBA cites to a very recent opinion of the Supreme Court of
Oklahoma concerning an attorney's petition for reinstatement to the state bar. In that
case,2 an attorney-Vice-President and Assistant General Counsel of an Ohio
corporation-registered with the Ohio bar in 1985 as an in-house counsel, despite the
fact that he had been unknowingly suspended from the practice of law by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court in 1980 for non-payment of bar dues. As a result, the attorney practiced
law without a license for 27 years . The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ultimately decided
to reinstate the attorney but deferred reinstatement for a year, stating that "years of . . .
unauthorized practice of the law cannot be ignored .,,3 That case varies from the case at
2
3
In re Reinstatement of DeBacker, 184 P.3d 506 (Okla. 2008).
Id. at 517
hand in two major respects . First, the attorney in the Oklahoma matter self-reported to
the appropriate disciplinary authority after becoming aware of his violation . Secondly,
Hipwell has not, as yet, made an application for reinstatement.
For his part, Hipwell now acknowledges that his formerly held belief that his
activities at Humans did not amount to the practice of law was in error. In accepting
responsibility for his violations of SCR 3.130-5 .5(a) and SCR 3.130-3 .4(c), he asks this
Court to impose a one-year suspension against him. He further asks that this
suspension be made to begin on May 5, 2007, the day he claims he brought his conduct
into compliance with the KBA's request that he cease the unauthorized practice of law .
The KBA filed a response to Hipwell's motion, stating that it does not object to
the discipline he has proposed . The motion, along with the relevant case law, was
reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Inquiry Commission and the Immediate Past
President of the Kentucky Bar Association before submission to this Court under the
Office of Bar Counsel's standard procedure in consensual discipline cases . The KBA
has certified the costs of this action to be $139.80 .
Accordingly, we accept the proposed disposition in this matter, and we order that:
1)
Arthur P. Hipwell is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
year, effective May 4, 2007;
2)
Hipwell shall pay the costs of this action in the amount of $139.80, for
which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Order; and
3)
Hipwell shall notify all courts in which he has matters pending and all
clients for whom he is actively involved in litigation and similar legal
matters
of his
suspension.
Minton, C .J.; Cunningham, Noble, Schroder, Scott, and Venters, JJ ., sitting . All
concur. Abramson, J ., not sifting .
ENTERED : October 23, 2008.
ZZ
'
;vUyrrU1r Coixrf of ~RQufurhv
2008-SC-000267-KB
APPELLANT
ARTHUR P. HIPWELL
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
APPELLEE
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
ORDER OF CORRECTION
The Opinion and Order, rendered October 23, 2008, is corrected on
its face by the substitution of page 1 . Said correction does not affect the
holding.
ENTERED : October 27, 2008 .
F JUSTICE JOHN D. MINTON
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.