Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court approved Nancy Oliver Roberts’s reinstatement to the practice of law following a 61-day disciplinary suspension. The Court held that Supreme Court Rule 3.510 permits discretion to waive reinstatement proceeding costs when fairness and justice require it and accepted the Kentucky Bar Association Board of Governors’ recommendation to exempt Roberts from additional costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether SCR 3.510(1) permits the Supreme Court to exercise discretion to exempt a reinstatement applicant from paying additional costs when fairness and justice require it.
- Whether the Kentucky Bar Association Board of Governors exceeded its authority under SCR 3.510(3) by recommending that Roberts be exempted from reinstatement costs.
Holdings
- SCR 3.510(1)'s provision that additional reinstatement costs 'will be paid by Applicant' establishes the customary allocation of costs but does not eliminate the Supreme Court's discretion to depart from that allocation when fairness and justice require.
- The Board of Governors did not exceed its authority under SCR 3.510(3) by recommending that Roberts be exempted from additional reinstatement costs; its authority to recommend approval or disapproval of an application is not limited to an unqualified recommendation on reinstatement alone.
Key quotations
“The rule does not negate the possibility that circumstances will compel a deviation from that expectation, and so we confirm now that this Court retains the discretion to depart from the customary directive for allocating costs when fairness and justice so require.” (531 S.W.3d at 17)
“We read nothing into the rule that constrains the Board to only recommending the approval or rejection of an application for reinstatement.” (531 S.W.3d at 17)
Factual background
Roberts, admitted to practice in Kentucky in 1988, received a 61-day suspension in 2014 and completed the required suspension-related obligations. Her automatic reinstatement was delayed after Bar Counsel objected based on a 2009 complaint that had been held in abeyance; that complaint was later resolved with a private admonition, and another complaint concerning alleged unauthorized practice was dismissed without discipline. The Character and Fitness Committee found that Roberts satisfied the prerequisites for reinstatement, and the Board of Governors recommended reinstatement without assessment of additional costs because of the substantial delay.
Procedural history
Roberts received a 61-day disciplinary suspension in 2014. Although she completed the required suspension-related steps, Bar Counsel objected to her automatic reinstatement based on a disciplinary complaint that had been held in abeyance, causing substantial delay. Roberts later filed a formal reinstatement application; the Character and Fitness Committee recommended reinstatement, and the Board of Governors recommended approval, exemption from additional costs, and participation in an ethics program. The Supreme Court accepted the reinstatement and cost-waiver recommendations.