PAMELA C. BRATCHER V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AT
NLIVurf
~*Uyrrmr
of
2009-SC-000358-KB
PAMELA C . BRATCHER
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, Pamela C. Bratcher, pursuant to SCR 3 .480(2), moves this
Court to enter an Order resolving the pending disciplinary proceeding against
her (KBA File No. 11213) by imposing a public reprimand as negotiated with
Bar Counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) . For the following
reasons, the motion is granted .
Movant was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on November 4, 1988 ; her KBA member number is 66930. Movant's
bar roster address is 943 College Street, P.O . Box 130, Bowling Green,
Kentucky 42102 .
Movant represented Dennis D . Babbs in a wrongful termination action
against his former employer, R.C. Components, Inc . After suit was filed,
Movant learned of a company called Documented Reference Check ("DRC"),
which could be hired to determine the type of reference being given by a former
employer . Movant obtained an application form from DRC and provided it to
her client . Movant also paid DRC's fee on behalf of her client. An employee of
DRC subsequently called the owner of R.C . Components, identified herself as a
prospective employer of Mr. Babbs, and requested information about him . The
telephone conversation was transcribed and provided to Movant.
Movant sent a copy of the transcript to defense counsel as part of
discovery in the case. After receiving the transcript, R.C . Components sought
to have Movant disqualified as Mr. Babbs's counsel and to have the DRC
transcript suppressed .
Then Circuit Judge John Minton presided over the case . He entered an
order disqualifying Movant and suppressing the transcript . He also found that
Movant's conduct violated SCR 3 .130-4 .2, which prohibits a lawyer from
communicating about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer
knows to be represented by counsel, and SCR 3 .130-8 .3(a), which prohibits a
lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct through the conduct of
another .
Mr. Babbs sought a writ of prohibition from the Court of Appeals against
enforcement of the order. The Court of Appeals denied the writ, stating that
while Movant did not think she had violated any rules and had voluntarily
disclosed the transcript, her conduct nevertheless violated SCR 3 .130-4 .2 and
8 .3(a) . On appeal, this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals .
Movant now admits that her conduct violated the requirements of SCR
3.130-4 .2 and 8 .3(a), and requests that this Court impose a public reprimand.
In support of her motions, she cites Callis v. Kentucky Bar Association, 143
S .W.3d 603 (Ky. 2004), wherein this Court previously imposed a public
reprimand for a violation of SCR 3 .130-4 .2 .
2
The negotiated sanction rule provides that the KBA may "object[] to the
terms proposed . . . ." SCR 3 .480(2) . Upon receiving such objection, "if the
Court determines good cause exists, [it] shall remand the case for hearing or
other proceedings specified in the order of remand ." Id. However, the KBA has
stated that it has no objection to the sanction proposed by Movant, citing Callis
along with Moore v. Kentucky Bar Association, 950 S.W.2d 230 (Ky. 1997), in
which a public reprimand was also deemed the appropriate sanction for
violating SCR 3 .130-4 .2 . According to the KBA, the Chair of the Inquiry
Commission and the Immediate Past President of the KBA have reviewed and
approved the sanction proposed by Movant.
However, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction still falls within
the discretion of the Court: "The Court may approve the sanction agreed to by
the parties, or may remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified
in the order of remand." SCR 3.480(2) .
After reviewing the allegations, the cases cited by the parties, and
Movant's disciplinary record, which notes no prior discipline, this Court
concludes that the discipline proposed by Movant is adequate . Though Movant
violated SCR 3 .130-8 .3(a) in addition to 4.2, which might distinguish this
situation from those cases cited, it is apparent to this Court that the
substantive violation of which Movant is guilty is of SCR 3 .130-4 .2, which she
accomplished through an agent, thus giving rise to the violation of SCR 3 .1308.3(a) . That she violated the Rule by way of an agent, given the circumstances
of this case, does not require a greater sanction than that imposed in Callis or
Moore . The Court therefore approves the discipline agreed to and proposed by
the Movant and declines further review of the matter.
ORDER
ACCORDINGLY ; IT IS ORDERED THAT :
1 . Movant, Pamela C. Bratcher, is found guilty of the above-described
and admitted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and is publicly
reprimanded for those violations.
2 . In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Movant is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against her, said sum being
$41 .79, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this
Opinion and Order.
Abramson, Cunningham, Noble, Schroder, Scott and Venters, JJ .,
concur. Minton, C .J., not sitting.
ENTERED: August 27, 2009 .
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
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.
