Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted Clyde F. Johnson's motion for a negotiated sanction arising from his failure to comply with a bankruptcy court order and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities. The Court publicly reprimanded Johnson, required him to attend an Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program, and ordered him to pay $39.82 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Kentucky should approve Johnson's negotiated sanction under SCR 3.480(2).
- What discipline was appropriate for Johnson's admitted violations of SCR 3.130-3.4(c) and SCR 3.130-8.1(b).
Holdings
- The proposed discipline of a public reprimand, mandatory attendance at the next Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program, and payment of proceeding costs was adequate and should be approved.
- Johnson was found guilty of violating SCR 3.130-3.4(c) and SCR 3.130-8.1(b).
Key quotations
“After reviewing the authorities cited by the KBA and the record, we conclude that the discipline proposed by Movant is adequate.” (364 S.W.3d at 194)
“While we strongly disapprove and condemn any attorney's failure to respond to a court order, we note that during the time period Movant committed the misconduct, he was dealing with several family matters including his wife undergoing bypass heart surgery and his father's death.” (364 S.W.3d at 194)
Factual background
Johnson represented a client in a wrongful-termination action that was later affected by the client's bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee obtained orders requiring Johnson to turn over the client's litigation file, but Johnson initially failed to comply, was held in contempt, and was fined. After eventually producing the file, Johnson failed to respond to two bar-counsel letters requesting additional disciplinary information. Johnson cited family circumstances, including his wife's bypass surgery and his father's death, as mitigating factors.
Procedural history
After a bankruptcy court found Johnson in contempt for failing to turn over a client's wrongful-termination case file, the Kentucky Bar Association issued an Inquiry Commission Complaint. Johnson responded to the complaint but failed to respond to later bar-counsel requests for information. He admitted violating SCR 3.130-3.4(c) and SCR 3.130-8.1(b), moved for a public reprimand and mandatory attendance at an Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program, and the KBA did not object. The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted the motion and imposed the proposed discipline, along with costs.