Title: MELINDA CHRISTINE HARHAI V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2022-SC-0073-KB MELINDA CHRISTINE HARHAI MOVANT V. IN SUPREME COURT KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT OPINION & ORDER This case is before the Court upon Melinda Christine Harhai’s—also known as Melinda Christine Vinson, her married name—appeal of her suspension from the practice of law. Her bar number is 89853 and her registered address is 500 Brook Ridge Circle, Cordova, TN, 38018. Harhai failed to pay her annual bar dues by September 1, 2021. On September 15 and October 18 of that same year, she was sent a reminder that she was delinquent in payment via email. On November 22, a Show Cause Notice of Delinquency was mailed to her at her registered address via certified mail. Harhai was suspended from the practice of law on January 21, 2021. In total, Harhai owed $410, for membership fees, late fees, and costs. Harhai has appealed her suspension. Contemporaneously, she sent a check to the KBA for the amount owed and it has been accepted. Although she admits to not paying her dues by September 1, she argues she thought she had paid them on December 8, prior to her suspension. As proof she attaches an invoice she received of the delinquency, with a handwritten notation stating “pd 12/8/21”. Additionally, she attached a copy of the Kentucky Law Update 2021 On Demand Agenda, again with handwritten notations representing her completion of the CLE credits. She states she took these CLE credits in belief that she had paid her dues on December 8, 2021. The KBA has responded to Harhai’s appeal, requesting no specific relief except what this Court deems appropriate. This Court is poorly positioned to be a fact finder in cases such as this. Harhai has conceded she was delinquent in paying her dues, but insists she thought she had paid off the debt prior to her suspension. Her explanation is plausible on its face, but the evidence she has submitted to support it is dubious as to authenticity. SCR 3.050 states a member suspended for failure to pay bar dues may apply for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 3.500. Immediately after, however, it grants a right to appeal suspension orders to this Court. Id. SCR 3.500 contains several conditions a suspended member must meet prior to consideration for reinstatement. There are no preconditions listed for appeals from suspensions, suggesting this Court has discretion to impose conditions as it deems appropriate in such appeals as the case may suggest. But that discretion must be exercised within the spirit of the rules; thus, SCR 3.500 and 3.685, though not binding in this appeal, do inform our disposition. SCR 3.500 states an application for restoration can be effective either by order of the Board of Governors or this Court. SCR 3.500(1). Moreover, suspended members are typically required to have the requisite CLE credits certified by the Director for CLE alongside an affidavit of compliance. SCR 3.685(2). Completion of these credit hours is a precondition for reinstatement. SCR 3.685(1). Considering the spirit of these rules, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Harhai’s suspension should be lifted upon certification by the Director of CLE that she completed the necessary CLE credits for 2020-21. 2. If she has not completed the necessary credit hours, opportunity shall be allowed for her to complete the unsatisfied credits. 3. Harhai will submit the certification of completed credits for the 2020-21 year to the Board of Governors, as well as pay any applicable fees as determined by the Board of Governors, which, upon receipt, will order her reinstatement to the practice of law. 4. We remand this case to the Board of Governors for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion & Order. All sitting. Keller, Lambert, Nickell, and Conley, JJ., concur. Minton, C.J., dissents by separate opinion, in which Hughes and VanMeter, JJ., join. MINTON, C.J., DISSENTING: I dissent from the majority opinion because, despite the Kentucky Bar Association’s failure to include in its response any information relevant to resolving Harhai’s motion, I do not believe Harhai has demonstrated good cause for revoking her suspension as required under SCR 3.050 and, instead, believe she should be required to apply for reinstatement under SCR 3.504. Hughes and VanMeter, JJ., join. ENTERED: June 16, 2022. _______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE