MICHAEL L. JAMES V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
,~Uyrrmr (~Vurf
V.
of
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING REINSTATEMENT
This matter comes before the Court on the Application for Reinstatement
by Michael L. James pursuant to SCR 3 .510 . The Character and Fitness
Committee ("Committee") found that James presently exhibits good and moral
character and appreciates the prior actions which led to his disbarment.
Based on these findings, the Committee recommended that James be
reinstated to the bar . The Board of Governors ("Board") reviewed the
Committee's recommendation and voted to approve the application . We agree
with the Board's recommendation and hereby approve James' application for
reinstatement.
I . BACKGROUND
On September 3, 1998, the Kentucky Supreme Court suspended James
from the practice of law for 30 days . Three other separate discipline cases
against James followed and resulted in additional suspensions that totaled 25
months. James has never been reinstated to the practice, so that 25 month
period has become a suspension of nine and a half years.
James was ordered to notify all of his clients of his inability to represent
them and to notify all courts in which he had matters pending, of his
suspension . He was ordered to provide copies of these notices to the KBA. The
Court also issued an Order which directed James to "seek treatment for
depression and to provide medical records to the KBA in regard to such
treatment" before filing any petition for reinstatement.
During the Committee's investigation it heard the testimony of three
judges who knew him personally. Respectively, all three judges indicated that
they believed James' misbehavior stemmed from one period in his life when he
was going through a divorce, that they had faith in James' ability to practice
law, that they believed James was remorseful for his actions, and that they
believed James should be reinstated to the practice of law.
The Committee also heard the testimony of a mental health professional
who was asked to prepare a psychological treatment plan for James . That
individual recalled being satisfied with James' participation and process and
stated that he released him from treatment in September 2001 . He thinks he
sent a report to the "referral source"; however, he could not state that with
absolute certainty.
Additionally, a friend, colleague, and fellow volunteer youth football
coach, submitted a letter of recommendation for James in which he described
him as gentlemanly and scholarly . After their relationship as volunteer
coaches together, he had requested that the school system hire James as his
assistant high school coach, which it did. I
James applied for reinstatement on September 16, 2003 . Pursuant to
SCR 3 .510(4), his application was referred to the Character and Fitness
Committee, and a full investigation followed in accordance with SCR 2 .040. On
October 16, 2007, the Committee held a formal hearing pursuant to SCR
2 .050 . On March 5, 2008, the Character and Fitness Committee issued a
report wherein it determined that James has meet his burden of showing by
clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite character, fitness
and moral qualification for readmission to the practice of law. SCR 2 .300(6),
SCR 3 .330 and White v. Kentucky Bar Association , 989 S.W.2d 573 (Ky. 1999) .
II. FINDINGS
A. Burden of Proof
Where an attorney, proven to have violated our rules regarding
professional conduct, seeks to be readmitted to the practice of law, he bears
the burden "of proving by clear and convincing evidence that [he] possesses the
requisite character, fitness and moral qualification for readmission."2 SCR
1 The Committee's investigation revealed that James has no pending criminal charges
and that he has not practiced law during his suspension (other than an appearance
at a mediation) . According to a letter from Jay R. Garrett, Chief Deputy Bar
Counsel, there are no KY Bar disciplinary matters pending against James . A KBA
Memorandum dated September 10, 2003 stat[ed that all Client Security Fund
claims had been resolved and a Memoranda from the KBA Continuing Legal
Education Commission dated September 12, 2003 and July 20, 2005 showed
satisfactory CLE hours .] . . .
2 Scholl, 213 S.W.3d 687, 689 -690 ; SCR 2 .300(7) ("an applicant for readmission is
held to a substantially more rigorous standard than a first time applicant for an
initial admission to the Bar") .
2 .300(6) . "[A]n applicant for readmission is held to a substantially more
rigorous standard than a first time applicant for an initial admission to the
Bar." SCR 2 .300(7) . We focus in part on :
1 .) whether the applicant has complied with the terms of the suspension
order ;
2 .) whether the applicant proves his conduct while under suspension is
worthy of public trust and confidence ;
3 .) whether the applicant proves he possesses professional capabilities to
serve the public as a lawyer ;
4 .) whether the applicant presently exhibits good moral character; and,
5 .) whether the applicant proves he appreciates the wrongfulness of his
prior misconduct, manifests contrition for his prior professional
misconduct, and has rehabilitated himself from past derelictions . SCR
2 .300(6)(a)-(e) .
SCR 2 .300(7) ; Scholl v. Kentucky Bar Assn, 213 S .W.3d 687, 689 -690 (Ky.
2007) .
B . Analysis
In an effort to explain the cause of the breakdown that led to his
suspension, James points to his divorce and its proximity in time to the
misconduct . The record appears to support this argument in that it does not
indicate that James' misconduct was part of any pattern of wrongful activity
extending for an indefinite period of time . In fact, James had practiced without
incident in four jurisdictions until September 3, 1998 . It wasn't until 1993
when his marriage began to dissolve and a child custody battle arose between
him and his wife (who is also an attorney) that James' professional
responsibilities began to erode . It is important to note, however, that the
explanation tendered by James is not an attempt to detach himself from his
wrongful behavior by refusing responsibility for his actions . 3 Rather, James'
remorse for and recognition of his misconduct is strongly supported by the
testimony of fellow attorneys, former and current judges, and two mental
health professionals . Although James refused to admit guilt in the Hardin case
and mistakenly participated in a mediation while barred from doing so, these
actions did not deter the Committee and do not outweigh the fact that James
has otherwise credibly repented the wrongfulness of his conduct and
manifested true contrition for his prior misconduct .
We have consistently held that "if a disbarred attorney can prove after
the expiration of a reasonable length of time that he appreciates the
significance of his derelictions, has lived a consistent life of probity and
integrity, and shows that he possesses that good character necessary to
guarantee uprightness and honor in his professional dealings and the faithful
discharge of his duties as a lawyer, and therefore is worthy to be restored, the
court will so order." E .g., Futrell v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 189 S .W .3d 541, 550
(Ky. 2006) . James' suspension totaled 25 months yet he waited nine and a
half years before applying for reinstatement. During that time he complied
with the Orders of this Court and showed candor towards all reviewing
authorities . Although the KBA Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC") objects to the
Board's recommendation on the grounds that James failed to comply with our
Orders regarding psychological treatment and notifying clients of his
3 See Futrell, 189 S.W.3d 541, 550 (Ky. 2006) (where suspended attorney argued his
misconduct was an isolated breakdown stemming from his divorce yet the Court
found the misbehavior was, in fact, part of a pattern beginning well before the
attorney was even married) .
suspension, these failures appear to be more the result of confusion than a
lack of appreciation for those Orders. Therefore, the reasons cited by the OBC
in its objection do not negate our finding that James satisfactorily cooperated
with this Court and other reviewing authorities while suspended.
Finally, and most importantly, during James' absence from practice he
made a sincere effort to address the cause of his breakdown and resolve those
issues . James addressed his problems directly by extending his break from
law practice beyond that which was mandated and for an amount of time
which he found sufficient to rehabilitate himself and the personal and
professional relationships affecting his practice .
III . CONCLUSION AND ORDER
"At its most basic level, the reinstatement inquiry involves looking into
an applicant's `conception of the serious nature of his act and his previous and,
what is of more importance, his subsequent conduct and attitude toward the
courts and the practice ."' Id. Placing emphasis on James' conduct following
his suspension and his attitude toward the courts and practice of law,
including the numerous statements attesting to his moral and professional
capabilities from respected members of the legal community, we are persuaded
by the Recommendation of the Character and Fitness Committee as adopted by
the Board that James has met his burden for reinstatement.
Accordingly, we hereby adopt the Recommendation of the Board and
approve the entry of an Order restoring Michael L. James to the practice of law
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky .
Thus, it is ORDERED that :
Michael L . James, KBA Member No . 89260, is restored to the practice of
law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, subject to his payment of costs
incurred in this proceeding and $5,215 .86 for balance due to the Kentucky Bar
Association as required by SCR 3 .500(5) .
All sitting. All concur.
Entered January 22, 2009 .
Chief/JiAtice
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.
