TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2021-SC-0468-KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT

V. IN SUPREME COURT

GRACE INGRID GARDINER RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER

The Kentucky Bar Association has moved to suspend Grace Ingrid 

Gardiner’s license to practice law in Kentucky as reciprocal discipline for that 

imposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in an Order of Enforcement entered 

August 30, 2021. Her Kentucky bar number is 87584, and her bar-roster 

address is 13902 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 216 Tampa, FL 33618. 

Gardiner was admitted to the practice of law in Kentucky in 1999. 

The allegations against Gardiner arise from her practice of law in the 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in 2016. Gardiner 

served as counsel in four cases before the Bankruptcy Court. These cases were 

referred to her by UpRight Law, LLC, a Chicago, Illinois, law firm. Gardiner 

and UpRight Law had two partnership agreements. Under both agreements, 

the clients paid UpRight Law, but in some instances, Gardiner would represent 

the parties in court, and UpRight would handle a majority of the
2

documentation. In other instances, Gardiner was to handle both the 

documentation and court representation. 

During her representation in these four cases, Gardiner allowed UpRight 

to sign her name signifying she had disclosed certain information to clients 

even though she had not yet met with them. Further, Gardiner signed the 

name of the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee without the Trustee’s 

authorization. Additionally, Gardiner’s paralegal forged a “wet” signature of 

one client, backdated documentation already signed by other clients, and filed 

those documents with the Bankruptcy Court. Gardiner then advised her 

clients of the forged signature but still knowingly submitted the documents to 

the court. Ultimately, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 

Tennessee entered an agreed order suspending Gardiner from practicing law in 

the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for five years. 

Following this sanction, the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Board of 

Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline. After investigation 

and a hearing, the Hearing Panel suspended Gardiner for three years, with four 

months to be served and the remainder probated.

The KBA asks this Court to impose reciprocal discipline. Our Supreme 

Court Rules require us to impose the identical discipline imposed by another 

state unless the Respondent proves by substantial evidence either (a) a lack of 

jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that the 
3

misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this state.1 Gardiner 

agrees to the KBA’s motion for reciprocal discipline. This Court typically 

imposes the same sanction as the reciprocal state, so long as our rules are 

similar.2 We find in this matter the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 

violated by Gardiner to be substantially similar to our own. 

Gardiner violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.3, 

5.3, and 8.4. Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 reads, “A lawyer 

shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation 

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably 

necessary for the representation.” Kentucky Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1

is identical to Tennessee’s.3 Gardiner violated this rule when she allowed her 

name to be shown on retainer agreements that included bankruptcyproceeding disclosure requirements when she was not present and did not 

know whether those requirements had been met; when she submitted a 

document purportedly signed by the Chapter 13 Trustee; when she presented 

to the court numerous documents that had been signed after they were filed, in 

violation of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011; and when she presented to the court a 

document bearing the forged signature of a client, in violation of Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 9011. 

1 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.435.

2 Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Harwood, 341 S.W.3d 85 (Ky. 2011); SCR 3.435. 

3 SCR 3.130(1.1) (“A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 

Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 

preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”).
4

Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, requiring candor to the 

tribunal, is substantively like our rule.4 While Tennessee’s rule has additional 

sections, both rules prohibit attorneys from presenting to the court facts they 

know to be false.5 Gardiner violated this rule when she presented to the court 

a purported agreed order containing the signature of the Chapter 13 Trustee; 

when she presented to the court numerous documents that had been signed 

after they were filed, in violation of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011; and when she 

presented to the court a document bearing the forged signature of a client, in 

violation of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. 

Likewise, Tennessee’s Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 is substantively 

similar to ours. Both rules require that “a lawyer having direct supervisory 

authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the 

nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the 

lawyer.”6 Gardiner violated this rule when she failed to ensure her paralegal 

had obtained the clients’ signatures, as opposed to forging them. 

Finally, Tennessee’s Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 is substantively 

similar to ours, as both rules are broken when any of the professional rules 

4 SCR 3.130(3.3).

5 See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.3(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making a “false 

statement of fact or law to a tribunal”); SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1) (prohibiting same).

6 Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 5.3(b); SCR 3.130(5.3)(b).
5

have been violated.7 Gardiner therefore violated Kentucky Rule of Professional 

Conduct 8.4 as well. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Grace Ingrid Gardiner, KBA Member No. 87584, is hereby suspended 

from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of three years, with four 

months to be served and the remainder to be probated, effective January 20, 

2022, until such time as she is reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee 

and until she is reinstated to the practice of law by Order of this Court 

pursuant to SCR 3.501; and

(2) This Opinion and Order shall supersede the Court’s January 20, 

2022, Opinion and Order.

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: April 28, 2022

______________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE

7 See SCR 3.1380(8.4)(a) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . 

violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct . . . .”); Tenn. Sup. Ct. 

R. 8, RPC 8.4(a).