KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. JAMES KEVIN MATHEWS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Q
,;VUyrrxttQ Caurf of `
Pfiru
TO BE PUBLISHED
2009-SC-000102-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVAN
IN SUPREME COURT
JAMES KEVIN MATHEWS
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors for the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), has
recommended that Respondent, James Kevin Mathews, KBA Member No.
84435, with a last known bar roster address of 2801 Creekside Drive,
Louisville, Kentucky 40241, 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 16275 and 16524 . We agree with the
Board's rulings and adopt its recommendations.
File No. 16275
On September 21, 2007, Jacqueline Hill hired Respondent to represent
her in a civil action against her ex-husband. Respondent was paid a total of
$1,000 .00 for his representation of Ms . Hill .
Ms. Hill produced medical records and pictures of her injuries requested
by Respondent that formed the basis of her lawsuit. On September 24, 2007,
Respondent filed the lawsuit. Thereafter, Ms . Hill made repeated, unsuccessful
attempts to contact Respondent until she learned that he had closed his office
on October 1, 2007. Moreover, she received an Order compelling her to
respond to defendant's interrogatories; however, Respondent never informed
her that the interrogatories had been served . Ms. Hill has not been able to
contact Respondent since their meeting in September 2007, nor has she
received her case file or any type of refund . She thereafter filed a complaint
concerning the matter.
On March 18, 2008, the Disciplinary Clerk mailed a copy of the Bar
Complaint to Respondent . After three (3) unsuccessful attempts to deliver, the
Complaint was sent to the Jefferson County Sheriff for service on the
Respondent . On May 7, 2008, Respondent was personally served by the
sheriff. Respondent failed to file a response despite the fact that the Office of
Bar Counsel sent a reminder letter on May 28, 2008, reminding him of the
deadline to respond to the complaint.
On September 20, 2008, the Inquiry Commission issued a five-count
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 3.1301 .16(d) (requiring a lawyer to take reasonable steps to protect a client's
interests upon termination of representation) . Count IV charged respondent
with violating SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c) (requiring that a lawyer "shall not knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal," through his failure to
maintain current bar roster address in compliance with SCR 3 .175(1)) . Lastly,
Count V 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) . Respondent failed to answer the charge or
provide an accurate bar roster address.
Because no answer was filed, the matter went to the Board of Governors
as a default case, pursuant to SCR 3 .210(l) . The Board voted nineteen (19) to
zero (0) to find Respondent guilty on all five (5) counts of the charge.
File No. 16524
On August 8, 2006, Linda °and Billy Jordan hired Respondent to
represent them in a civil action for damage done to their home. Mrs . Jordan
paid Respondent $1,000 .00 to begin work on the case . Respondent filed the
lawsuit in September 2006 . On August 2, 2007, one of the defendants sent
interrogatories to Respondent which were then forwarded to Mr. and Mrs.
Jordan. The Jordans sent their answers to Respondent, but Respondent failed
to file any response to the interrogatories . In March of 2008, Mrs . Jordan
attempted to contact Respondent, only to discover that his office phone and
cellular phone had been disconnected .
Mrs. Jordan contacted the court and learned that a motion to dismiss
had been granted as to one of the defendants due to Respondent's failure to file
pleadings or respond to requests for information . The Jordans filed a motion
for reconsideration and attempted to hire another attorney to represent them .
Unfortunately, they were financially unable to do so and were forced to
withdraw their motion on April 29, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Judge Barry
Willett, the presiding judge, wrote the Office of Bar Counsel, informing them of
Respondent's abandonment of the Jordans' case.
The Disciplinary Clerk mailed a copy of the Complaint to Respondent on
May 23, 2008 . Respondent failed to file an answer despite the fact that the
Office of Bar Counsel sent a reminder letter on June 24, 2008 . Respondent
has not updated his Bar Roster Address or filed any type of response .
On September 20, 2008, the Inquiry Commission issued a five-count
charge against Respondent . The five (5) charges are identical to the charges
issued in KBA file No. 16275, supra, pertaining to violations of SCR 3 .130-1 .3,
3.130-1 .4(a), 3 .130-1 .16(d), 3 .130-3 .4(c), and 3 .140-8 .1(b) . 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
nineteen (19) 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. We note that Respondent is
already serving a suspension for failing to pay bar dues on January 31, 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 when deciding guilt 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, James Kevin Mathews, 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
he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law,
and notify all clients in writing of his 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 Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar Association .
Furthermore, to the extent possible and necessary, Respondent
shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in
which he is engaged.
1 We note that during the penalty phase, four (4) of the board members voted to
only suspend respondent for sixty-one (61) days .
3)
In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Respondent is directed to pay all
costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings, in the
amount of $1,155 .55, for which execution may issue from this
-Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order ;
4)
If he has not already done so, Respondent shall immediately
refund $1,000 .00 (plus interest at the legal interest rate stated in
KRS 360 .010, calculated from the date each bar complaint was
filed) in fees to each of the above named clients ;
5)
Respondent shall attend the Bar Counsel's remedial ethics
program within one year of the date of this opinion and order.
Respondent shall pass any examination given at the end of the
program . Respondent will not apply for CLE credit of any kind for
his attendance at that remedial ethics program and is required to
furnish a release and waiver to the Office of Bar Counsel to review
his 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 he has not reported any hours
to the CLE Commission that are taken as remedial education;
6)
Respondent 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 : May 21, 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.