TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2016-SC-0082-KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT

V. IN SUPREME COURT

JEFFREY OWENS MOORE RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER

On August 25, 2016, this Court indefinitely suspended Jeffrey Owens 

Moore from the practice of law. Since that date, Moore has failed to seek 

reinstatement. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), pursuant to Supreme 

Court Rule (SCR) 3.167(5), now moves for his permanent disbarment. Moore 

initially failed to respond to the KBA’s motion. After this Court entered an 

Order for Moore to show cause why he should not be permanently disbarred, 

Moore moved for an enlargement of time to respond which this Court granted.

However, Moore failed to respond within the enlarged timeframe. For the 

reasons stated below, this Court permanently disbars Moore. 

I. BACKGROUND

This Court has issued three previous orders sanctioning Moore. The first 

of this Court’s three orders was entered on August 25, 2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. 

Moore, 493 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. 2016). In that order, this Court indefinitely 
2

suspended Moore for his failure to respond to the charge in an underlying 

disciplinary case. Id. at 359. This suspension followed another order from this 

Court, entered on June 16, 2016, extending Moore’s initial time to respond by 

twenty days, after which Moore still failed to answer to the charges. Id.

Following the indefinite suspension, this Court considered the 

disciplinary case underlying the August 25 order. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 498 

S.W.3d 786 (Ky. 2016). The charge in that case spanned four counts of 

misconduct all stemming from Moore’s mismanagement of a client relationship. 

Id. at 787. Moore represented a couple who paid him a $4,100 retainer. Id.

Moore also borrowed $2,000 from the clients. Id. Moore tried the clients’ case 

in circuit court. Id.

When he lost the case in the circuit court, Moore appealed to the Court 

of Appeals, but he failed to file a prehearing statement or any pleadings in the 

appellate court. Id. Moore missed several deadlines and attempted to withdraw 

as counsel. Id. During this time, the couple also hired separate counsel. Id. 

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied Moore’s motion to withdraw and 

granted opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss. Id. Following the dismissal, the 

couple’s new attorney requested the couple’s files, an accounting of the $4,100 

paid for his representation, and repayment of the $2,000 loan. Id. Although 

Moore initially agreed to repay the loan, he ultimately attempted to have the 

loan discharged in bankruptcy. Id. The bankruptcy court denied the discharge, 

but Moore still failed to repay the $2,000. Id. Moore also failed to successfully 

account for all $4,100 in legal fees, claiming that his records were lost in a car 

accident. Id.
3

The Inquiry Commission filed a complaint against Moore. Id. Moore 

responded to this initial complaint, but then failed to respond to a request for 

information sent by Bar Counsel. Id. He similarly failed to respond to the fourcount charge issued against him. Id. at 788. Moore sent to Bar Counsel via 

email an explanation of his elusive behavior. In that email, he detailed a series 

of events that made it difficult to address the charge: his father had suffered a 

stroke, and as a result, Moore became his father’s primary caretaker and the 

steward of his father’s large working farm; Moore’s office had been sold and so, 

because of this as well as the earlier car accident, it was difficult for him to 

locate any of his records; and Moore’s knee required surgery, which was 

postponed due to his father’s medical trouble, so Moore could not drive to and 

from court with any ease. Id.

This Court ultimately found Moore guilty of each of the four counts 

detailed in the charge. Id. First, Moore was guilty of Count I for entering a 

business transaction and acquiring a monetary interest adverse to his clients 

in violation of SCR 3.130-1.8(a). Id. He did this by taking a $2,000 loan from 

his clients in addition to his fee for services. Id. He was guilty of Count II for 

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation 

by telling the clients that he would repay the loan, but then unsuccessfully 

attempting to discharge it in bankruptcy instead, violating SCR 3.130-8.4(c). 

Id. Moore was similarly guilty of Count III for violating SCR 3.130-1.15(b) when 

he failed to return his clients’ funds or promptly account for them. Id. On 

Count IV, Moore was found guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1.16(d) for failing to 
4

return his clients’ papers or property, as well as for failing to return the 

unearned portion of his fee after the clients terminated the representation. Id.

For these instances of misconduct, this Court ordered that Moore be 

suspended for one year with sixty-one days to serve, then probated the 

remainder for one year. Id. at 789. This suspension was to run concurrently 

with his indefinite suspension. Id. Moore was also ordered to repay the $2,000 

loan and attend and successfully complete an Ethics and Professionalism 

Enhancement Program (EPEP) within one year of the order. Id.

The Court entered its third order sanctioning Moore on October 20, 

2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 499 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2016). That case regarded 

rule violations across two KBA files. The underlying facts of the first KBA file

(No. 23041) stem from Moore’s 2014 criminal charge of public intoxication for 

being under the influence of benzodiazepines and oxycodone while in a 

courtroom. Id. at 281. Moore acknowledged that he had struggled with an 

addiction since being treated for a heart attack in 2011. Id. Criminal 

prosecution was deferred, and the Inquiry Commission privately admonished 

Moore conditioned upon his compliance with the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance 

Program (KYLAP). Id.

Moore was ordered to provide written updates on his participation in 

KYLAP to Bar Counsel every three months. Id. When he failed to comply, the 

Inquiry Commission revoked the private admonition. Id. at 282. He was then 

charged with two counts: Count I charged him with violating SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) 

for engaging in “a criminal act that reflects adversely” on his “honesty, 

trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;” Count II charged him 
5

with violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) for knowingly disobeying “an obligation under 

the rules of a tribunal.” Id. Moore failed to answer the charge, and this Court 

found him guilty of both counts. Id.

The second KBA file (No. 23469) addressed in our third Order related to 

Moore’s failures in the course of representing a client. Id. The client, Brenda 

Banks, retained Moore for a divorce action. Id. Although Moore initially filed a 

responsive pleading in the action, he failed to do any work afterward on the 

case. Id. Moore did, however, borrow $8,510 from Banks. Id. 

Banks eventually hired a different lawyer to finalize her divorce. Id. 

Moore tried to get the loan discharged in bankruptcy, but just as with the 

$2,000 loan he had taken from his other clients, the bankruptcy court denied 

his motion. Id. In light of Moore’s actions, the Inquiry Commission filed a threecount charge against Moore. Id.

Count I alleged Moore violated SCR 3.130(1.3) by failing to “act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Id. Count II 

alleged he violated SCR 3.130(1.8)(a) by entering “into a business transaction 

with a client” without meeting any exceptions provided. Id. Count III alleged 

that Moore violated SCR 8.130(8.4)(c) by engaging “in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Id. Moore failed to answer this 

charge. Id. Accordingly, this Court found him guilty of these rule violations. We 

again suspended Moore. Id. at 283. This order stipulated that he be suspended 

for one year (to run consecutively to his other suspensions), ordered him to 

repay the $8,510 loan that he had still failed to repay, and ordered him to 

participate in KYLAP. Id. 
6

Although his two one-year suspensions have ended, his indefinite 

suspension is still in effect. In the last six years, Moore has failed to file for 

reinstatement. Accordingly, the KBA moved for Moore’s permanent disbarment 

pursuant to SCR 3.167(5). SCR 3.167(5) states that “[i]f a Respondent fails to 

seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite 

Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent 

disbarment.” This Court issued an order for Moore to show cause why he 

should not be disbarred. Moore subsequently filed a document with this Court 

titled “Show Cause,” in which he wrote,

Respondent states as his show cause why he should not be 

permanently disbarred that[] Respondent has undergone 7 

surgeries to his right knee and has been unable to answer to 

questions/summons/motions of this Honorable Court and/or 

Kentucky Bar Association. In view of this[,] Respondent’s 

numerous surgeries and subsequent recoveries, Respondent 

requests 60 days to enter a response(s) to all information 

previously requested.

This Court treated Moore’s filing as a motion for enlargement of time to file a 

response to our show cause order. The KBA responded, stating that it had “no 

objection to Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to 

Show Cause.” We granted Moore’s request for an enlargement of time. The 60 

days have passed, and Moore has failed to provide any further information in 

accordance with his initial response.

II. ANALYSIS

As noted above, SCR 3.167(5) provides that “[i]f a Respondent fails to 

seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite 

Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent 
7

disbarment.” (Emphasis added). In the six years since his indefinite suspension 

was ordered, Moore has not sought reinstatement. Thus, the KBA acted 

appropriately in moving for Moore’s disbarment. Because the language of his 

only response to this Court’s order to show cause is ambiguous, we may 

consider it either as merely a motion for enlargement, or as an attempt to show 

cause. In either case, we grant the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment.

If Moore’s response titled “show cause” was, as this Court and the KBA 

have understood it, a motion for additional time to file an actual response, then 

he has failed to respond to these proceedings. The KBA was under an 

obligation to move for Moore’s disbarment under SCR 3.167(5). Moore initially 

failed to make any filings regarding the KBA’s motion, and only did so to 

request more time to respond to this Court’s Order to show cause. In the 

absence of any material response from Moore as to why he should not be 

disbarred and given the KBA’s outstanding motion, this Court permanently 

disbars Moore from the practice of law.

Even if we were to consider Moore’s filing as a statement showing cause, 

we still would not be persuaded against permanent disbarment. The reason 

Moore alleges he should not be disbarred is that he “has undergone 7 surgeries 

. . . and has been unable to answer questions/summons/motions.” Moore 

submitted this statement without proof of his procedures, their chronology, or 

any further explanation as to his unavailability or the extent of his need for 

accommodation. The one accommodation he requested—60 days to file a 

response—went unused. Unfortunately, what Moore has provided is 

insufficient to show good cause why he should not be disbarred.
8

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Respondent, Jeffrey Owens Moore, is permanently disbarred from the 

practice of law.

(2) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Moore shall, if he has not already done so in 

accordance with his suspension, within ten (10) days from the entry of 

this Opinion and Order, notify all clients, in writing, of his inability to 

represent them; notify, in writing, all courts in which he has matters 

pending of his disbarment from the practice of law; and furnish copies of 

all letters of notice to the Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar 

Association. Furthermore, to the extent possible, Moore shall 

immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is 

engaged.

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: February 16, 2023.

______________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER