KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. JENNIFER SUE WHITLOCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
~*Uyrrmr (~Vurf a
f
TO BE PUBLISHED
rit
2008-SC-000936-KB
IN SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENT
JENNIFER SUE WHITLOCK
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors for the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA),
has recommended that Respondent, Jennifer Sue Whitlock, KBA Member
No . 87562, with a last known bar roster address of 1401 Winchester
Avenue, Suite 526, Ashland, Kentucky 40353, be suspended from the
practice of law for one hundred and eighty-one (181) days, for multiple
counts of misconduct . This Opinion addresses KBA file numbers 16368
and 16446 . We agree with the Board's rulings and adopt its
recommendations.
File No. 16368
On August 14, 2007, Respondent met with Margie Hubicsak to
represent her in a bankruptcy proceeding . Respondent agreed to
represent Ms. Hubicsak, who paid Respondent a total of $1,300 .00 for
her services from August 14 to September 19 . After Ms. Hubicsak paid
in full, she did not hear from Respondent for several months . Ms .
Hubicsak then called Respondent's office only to learn that Respondent
no longer worked there. Over the next two months, Ms. Hubicsak left
Respondent multiple messages on her cell phone but received no
response . Finally, Respondent contacted Ms . Hubicsak on February 1,
2008, and told her that she was still waiting on a court date to be
assigned . Ms. Hubicsak did not believe Respondent and contacted
another lawyer for assistance, whereupon it was discovered that
Respondent had not even filed the bankruptcy petition . Thereafter, Ms.
Hubicsak filed a complaint.
Respondent received the Bar Complaint on May 6, 2008 . She
received a reminder letter on June 2, 2008. Respondent did not file a
response to the Complaint .
On September 10, 2008, the Inquiry Commission issued a fourcount charge against Respondent . Count I charged Respondent with
violating SCR 3 .130-1 .3 (requiring a lawyer to "act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client") . Count II charged
Respondent with violating SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) (requiring a lawyer to "keep a
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter") . Count III
charged Respondent with violating SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) (requiring a lawyer
to . take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon termination
of representation) . Lastly, Count IV charged Respondent with violating
SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) (forbidding a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond
to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority) .
2
Respondent signed the mail receipt for the charge on September 26,
2008. Respondent failed to answer the charge .
Because no answer was filed, the matter went to the Board of
Governors as a default case, pursuant to SCR 3.210(1) . The Board voted
sixteen (16) to zero (0) to find Respondent guilty on all four (4) counts of
the charge.
File No. 16446
Melissa Fields and her husband hired Respondent in August 2007
to represent them in filing for bankruptcy . Respondent was paid a total
of $1,300.00 for representation of Mr. and Mrs . Fields .
Mr. and Mrs . Fields gathered all the paperwork that Respondent
required of them and completed their credit counseling in September
2007 . However, they did not hear from Respondent until December
2007, at which time Respondent informed them that she was having
computer trouble and had been unable to file the bankruptcy petition .
The petition was finally filed in January 2008 and Respondent informed
the Fields of their court date on February 15, 2008 . When Mrs. Fields
arrived on February 15, 2008, Respondent informed her that the court
date had been postponed because the proper paperwork had not been
filed . What Respondent failed to mention was that the missing
paperwork was the Attorney Fee Disclosure . The Fields case was
dismissed in late February 2008 because Respondent failed to file the
Attorney Fee Disclosure . Respondent did not inform the Fields' of the
dismissal, and did not respond to repeated attempts by the Fields to
contact her . Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs . Fields filed a complaint.
On May 23, 2008, Respondent personally signed the return receipt
for the Bar Complaint. A reminder letter was mailed to Respondent on
June 20, 2008 . Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint.
On August 13, 2008, the Inquiry Commission filed, issued, and
mailed a five-count charge against Respondent . Four (4) of the five (5)
charges are identical to the charges issued in KBA file No . 16368, supra,
pertaining to violations of SCR 3 .130-1 .3, 3.130-1 .4(a), 3 .130-1 .16(d),
and 3 .140-8 .1(b) . In addition to those four (4) charges, Respondent was
charged with violating SCR 3 .130-1 .1 (requiring an attorney provide
competent representation to a client) . The charge was returned on
September 2, 2008, marked "unclaimed". Ultimately, Respondent was
personally served by the Boyd County Sheriff's Office on September 15,
2008 . Respondent failed to answer the charge.
Once again, because no answer was filed, the matter went to the
Board of Governors as a default case, pursuant to SCR 3 .210(1) . The
Board voted sixteen (16) to zero (0) to find Respondent guilty on all five
(5) counts of the charge .
CONCLUSION
The preceding files involve the same patterns of conduct and both
resulted in analogous findings and charges, with case No. 16446 adding
an additional charge for failure to provide competent representation. We
note that Respondent has once already been suspended from the
4
practice of law for this very same behavior. Kentucky Bar Association v.
Jennifer Sue Whitlock, ---S .W.3d----, 2008 WL 5272763 (Ky. Dec. 18,
2008) .
Here, Respondent failed to file an answer to the charges, resulting
in both cases being classified as default cases . The Board of Governors
came to unanimous decisions in both cases . Neither party filed notice,
pursuant to SCR 3 .370(8), for this Court to review the Board's decision,
nor do we elect to review the decision of the Board pursuant to SCR
3 .370(9) . Therefore, we adopt the decision of the Board pursuant to SCR
3 .370(10) .
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS :
1)
Respondent, Jennifer Sue Whitlock, is adjudged guilty on all
counts and hereby is suspended from the practice of law for
one hundred and eighty-one (181) days from the date of this
Opinion and Order;
2)
Pursuant to SCR 3 .390, Respondent shall notify all courts in
which she has matters pending of her suspension from the
practice of law, and notify all clients in writing of her
inability to represent them and of the necessity and urgency
of promptly retaining new counsel . Such notification shall
be by letter duly placed in the United States mail within ten
(10) days of the date of this order. Respondent shall
simultaneously provide a copy of all such letters to the
Kentucky Bar Association . Furthermore, to the extent
5
possible and necessary, Respondent shall immediately
cancel and cease any advertising activities in which she is
engaged.
3)
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay
all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings in
the amount of $786.64, for which execution may issue from
this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order;
4)
If she has not already done so, Respondent shall
immediately refund $1,300 .00 (plus interest at the legal
interest rate stated in KRS 360 .010, calculated from the date
the bar complaint was filed) in fees to each of the clients who
filed the underlying complaints against her;
5)
Whitlock shall attend the Bar Counsel's remedial ethics
program within one year of the date of this opinion and
order. Whitlock shall pass any examination given at the end
of the program. Whitlock will not apply for CLE credit of any
kind for her attendance at that remedial ethics program and
is required to furnish a release and waiver to the Office of
Bar Counsel to review her records in the CLE department
that might otherwise be confidential, with such release to
continue in effect for one year after completion of the
remedial education, in order to allow the Office of Bar
Counsel to verify that she has not reported any hours to the
CLE Commission that are taken as remedial education ;
6
6)
Whitlock shall submit to mental health-related supervision,
as approved by the Kentucky Bar Association's Lawyer
Assistance Program (KYLAP), and such supervision shall
continue to the extent and duration as deemed necessary
and appropriate by KYLAP; and
7)
If Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms of
discipline as set forth herein, upon motion of the Office of
Bar Counsel, the Court may impose other discipline in this
matter.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED : March 19, 2009 .
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.
