TO BE PUBLISHED 

2018-SC-000049-KB 

MARC LAWRENCE OBERDORFF MOVANT 

v. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

The Office of Bar Counsel (Bar Counsel) requests review of the Findings 

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations of the Board of Governors 

of the Kentucky Bar Association (Board) entered January 31, 2018. Marc 

Lawrence Oberdorff, who was admitted to the Kentucky bar in August 2000, 

was suspended from the practice of law in February 2010. In December 2016, 

Oberdorff filed an application for restoration. After a review, the Character and 

Fitness Committee (Committee) recommended disapproval of his application for 

restoration. Pursuant to Supr~me Court Rule (SCR) 3.500(3)(f), ·this matter 

was referred to the Board for its review.· Disagreeing wit;h. the Committee's 

assessment, the Board recommended that Oberdorffs application for 

restoration be granted. Bar Counsel petitions this Court to reject the Board's ( 

recommendation and, in its place, follow the recommendation of the 

Committee. After a careful review, this Court adopts the recommendation of 

the Board. 
'7 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Oberdorff was admitted as a member of the Kentucky bar on August 18, 

" 2000. Previously, Oberdorff had practiced law in Ohio for twenty years, having 

been ad~itted in 1980. Oberdorff's purpose in becoming a member of the 

Kentucky bar was to expand his Ohio legal practj.ce into K~ntucky. However, 

the expected business did not develop and Oberdorff never acquired any clients 

in Kentucky. Consequently, Oberdorff stopped paying his dues as mandated 

by SCR 3.050 and failed to comply with the continuing legal education · 

requirements of SCR 3.645 (previously SCR 3.669). Accordingly, Oberdorff was 

sus.pended from the practice of law in ·Kentucky on February 17, 2010. 

In the interim, Oberdorff continued to practice law in Illinois until late 

2016, when he took a position with Pope Flynn, LLC in South Carolina. When J. 

Oberdorff began the licensing process in South Carolina, he learned that he 

could not sit for the South Carolina bar· exam while suspended in another 

jurisdiction. To clear this impediment to his sitting for the South Carolina bar 

- . . 

exam, Oberdorff filed an application for restoration of his membership in the 

Kentucky bar. 

In a-letter to KBA Executive Director'John O. Meyers, Oberdorff stated 

that 1) he had never practiced law in Kentucky; 2) he had no expectation of 

practicing law in Ke°:tucky in ·the future; 3) the purpose of fi~ing his application 

was to certify to the State of South Carolina that his license was not suspended . 

in another jurisdiction, and 4) upon restoration, he planned to formally 

withdraw as a member of the Kentucky bar. Subsequently, Oberdorff 

2 

( 
submitted the required documentation to the Committee, including application 

fee·s and a cash bond of $2,500. Oberdorffs application established, 

notwithstanding the reasons for his suspension in Kentucky, his lack of prior 

discipline or criminal activity which would cast adverse light on his application. 

On August 8, 2017, the Committee rendered its Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of.Law, and Recommendat~ons. While the Committee concluded 

that Oberdorff "provep by clear and convincing evidence that he is worthy of 

the trust and_ confidence of the public and met his burden to show that he 

possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law in K_entucky[,]" it 

recommended disapproval of his application for restoration. I The Committee 

found that Oberdorff did not e_xptess :the intent to practice law in Kentucky as 

mandated by SCR.2.013. 

Subsequently, Oberdorffs case was submitted to the Board for review 

pursuant to SCR 3.500(3)(f). The Board by a vote of 18-0 (with two members 

absent) adopted all findings of the Committee with the exception of its findings 

regarding Oberdorffs eligibility for license restoration. Rejecting the 

Committee's findings that Oberdorff failed to express intent to practice law in 

Kentucky, the Board explained "[a]lthough, Mr. Oberdorff candidly admitted he 

1 The Coriim.ittee was initially concerned about whether Oberdorff was engaging 

in the unauthorized practice of law given that he appeared to be practicing law in 

South Carolina, while .not yet admitted there. However, the Committee was satisfied 

by Oberdorffs statement that he was practicing federal tax law in South Carolina, 

which he was authorized to perform. Additionally, Oberdorff stated that his work was 

being supervised by other licensed attorneys in South Carolina. Moreover, Oberdorff 

submitted an expert report from Professor Michael J. Virzi, that stated that Oberdorff 

was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina. 

3 
had no intent to practice in Kentucky when he made his initial application, 

during the application process ·and in his brief he stated, by and through 

. . I 

counsel, his intent to practice in Kentucky." Furthermore, the Board noted 

that "there is no mention iri SCR 2.013 of the time period for expressing the 

required intent." Employing a common sense analysis of the totality of the 

circumstances, the Board elected to reject the recommendation of the . 

Committee and conclude that Oberdorff was eligible for restoration, had 

complied with all relevant rules and requirements for restoration, and that he 

should be permitted to sit for the Kentucky bar exam pursuant to SCR 

~ . 

3.500(3). Oberdorff was further ordered to pay.current membership dues at 

the time this Court renders its decision along with the costs of his ethics 

proceeding. 

.· 

Subsequently, Bar Counsel sought review of the Board's 

I 

recommendation. As acknowledged by Bar Counsel, SCR 3.500(3)(f) does not 

address the situation present in the case at bar, namely where the Board has 

disagreed with the Committee's recommendation of disapproval for an 

application for restoration. Oberforff does not object to this Court's 

consideration of this issue, which will be discussed in detail below.2 

2 Oberdorff does object to Bar Counsel's motion for leave to file a brief, arguing 

that Bar Counsel's tenqered brief was little more than a redressing of its pleading· 

before the Board, and that as such it is unnecessary for this Court's review. In the 

alternative, Oberdorff filed a motion for the Court's consideration, were we to grant 

Bar Counsel's motion. We have overruled Oberforff's objection and have reviewed the 

pleadings submitted by Bar Counsel and Oberdorff. 

4 

/ 
ANALYSIS 

Bar Counsel urges this Court to reject the Board's. recommendation 

because it allegedly ignores and circumvents the clear language of SCR 2.013. 

SCR 2.013 states that 

[e]very applicant must intend to engage in the practice of law in 

Kentucky ·and agree to abide by the rules, duties and standards 

imposed upon attorneys of this state. No person shall seek 

admission to the Bar of Kentucky for the primary purpose of using 

·such admission as a ba~is for obtaining admission to the Bar of 

some sister state or the District of Columbia or to circumvent the 

admission requirements of such sister state or District. The giving 

· of erroneous information as to intention to practice law in the State 

of Kentucky shall be grounds for denying the applicant's 

,application or for disbarment. 

\ 

Bar Counsel contends that Oberdorff's statements to Executive Director Meye:i;-s 

demonstrate that he does not intend to practice law in Kentucky. 

Furthermore, Bar Courisel contends that Oberdorff's sole purpose for. 

restoration is to becorp.e eligible to apply for admission to South Caro,Iina~s bar. 

Oberdorff responds by arguing that Bar Counsel and the Committee have 

erred by not permitting him to change his mind regarding his desire to practice 

law in Kentucky. Oberdorff contends that under the reasoning promulgated by 

Bar Counsel and the Committee, "if an attorney states he does not intend to · 

. . 

practice law in Kentucky, that is an irrevocabl~ position which ~annot be 

changed or altered at any point in time. Under that approach, six months 

later, or six years later, the Applicant,. such as Mr. Oberdorff would not be able . ' I . 

to take a different position." Further, Oberdorff noted the Board's conclusion 

that SCR 2.013 does not have any time frame as to when the intent to practice 

law in· Kentucky must be expressed. 

5 
1 

We agree with the Board that SCR 2.013 does not expressly state a time 

frame within which an attorney must identify his intent to practice 'law in the 

Commonwealth. While Oberdorff referenced the possibility of his practicing law 

in Kentucky before the Committee and Board, his intention to practice should 

his motion for,restoration be granted is far from definitive.3 However, we agree 

with the Board that _Qberdorff's representation about his intent to practice law 

in Kentucky is sufficient to meet the requirements of SCR 2.013. While 

Oberdorff seeks to obtain restoration to pursue licensing in South Carolina, 

this goal is not mutually exclusive with Oberdorff's newfound interest in 

practicing law in Kentucky. 

Accordingly, we adopt the recommendations of the Board, and it is 

hereby ORDERED, 

1. Marc Lawrence Oberdorff is eli'gible for restoration to membership in 

the Kentucky bar. 

2. This matte+ shall be referred to the Board of Bar Examiners for 

examination as set forth in SCR 3.500(3); the results of the examination shall 

\ 

be certified by the B'oard of Bar Examiners to this Court and to the Executive 

Director of the KEA. 

3 In a letter to the Committee's General Counsel Oberdorff stated that "[he] 

could, legitimately, seek public finance/federal tax public.entity representation in 

Kentucky as a condition of the restoration of his license in Kentucky." Oberdorff went 

on to say that "[t]he Pope Flynn law firm, although located in South Carolina, also 

, occasionany handles niatters in North Carolina. Extending-that to Kentucky would 

not necessarily be a stretch. If, as a condition of obtaining restoration of his license in 

Kentucky, that potential needs ~o be so~dified, he will do so." 

6 
3. Upon su~cessful corhpl.etion of the exam, Oberdorff shall not be 

restored to membership until he pays due~ and all costs associated with these 

disciplinary proceedings, in the amount of $768.18. 

All sitting. All concur. 

' ENTEREp: April 26, 2018. 

r 

7