TO BE PUBLISHED

2011-sc.:.000255-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT



### 'v. IN SUPREME' COURT.

LAUREN M. THOMPSON RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER

Lauren Thompson was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky onApril 30, 2010. Her bar roster address is 100 Logan St., Suite ( 201, Williamson, West Virginia 25661, and her KBA Member Number is 93483. On April 10, 2017, the Supreme Court ofAppeals ofWest Virginia suspended Thompson from the practice oflaw for three (3) months; ordered Thompson to ' \. complete an additional twelve (12) hours ofcontinuing legal education; and required Thompson to pay the costs ofthe disciplinary proceedings. On May 31, 2017, the Kentucky BarAssociation (KBA) filed a petition asking this Court to orderThompson to show cause why we should not impose,reciprocal discipline and,·in the event we found cause lacking, to impose that discipline
'
. . ·pursuantto Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.435. On June 7, 2017, we issued a

show cause order, and on August 1, 2017, Thompson filed a response objectingto the**i~position** ofreciprocal discipline. This matter is now readyfor decision by the Court.

/ I. BACKGROUND.

, \ 

### A. Procedural History and Ch,arges. West Virginia instituted disciplinary charges against Thompson on January 6, 2016. The Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) found violations of the West Virginia Rules ofProfessional Conduct and recommended that Thompson be suspended for three months, required to petition for reinstatement, and attend an additional twelve hours ofcontinuing legal education in the.area ofabuse and neglect and/or law office management in

. \ . addition to paying the costs ofthe disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court ofAppeals ofWestVirginia adopted the three-month suspension recommended by HPS, alongwith the recommendation ofthe_completion ofadditional continuing legal education; held that automatic reinstatement after suspension

. . . . ofthree months was appropriate; and required Thompson to paythe costs of the disciplinary proceedings.I The Supreme Court ofAppeals ofWest Virginia. described the facts ofThompson's violations as follows: In 2013, Ms. Thompson was appointed guardian ad litem ofa fourmonth-old infant who was the subject ofCPS [child protective services] proceedings.· Ms. Thompson rep:resented-·the child as

- . I We note that the ChiefJustice ofthe Supreme Court ofWest Virginia dissented from the majority opinion and would impose an 18-month suspension, to be followed by two years ofsupervisedpractice, as well as the other sanctions adoptei:i by I the majority. Justice Workman concurredin the suspe:r;ision .issued bythe majority,

.but would have permanentlybarred Thompson from taking court appointments as

guardian adlitemin abuse/neglect and family lawmatters, and would require that she petitionfor remstatement and undergo one year.ofsupervised practice subsequent to any**r~instatement.** LawyerDisciplinaryBoard v. Thompson, 16-000_3 (WV 2017). 2guardian ad litem throughout the course or'the abuse and neglect proceedings. On or about February 9, 2015, the Circuit Court of Mingo County, the Honorable John Cummings, Senior Status Judge, presiding, entered an order terminating the parental, custodial, and guardianship rights ofthe child's biological mother and father. Ms. Thompson represented to Judge Cummings that, upon her independent investigation, she agreed with the position

. ofCPS and**recommende~** that the pare?tal rights be**terminated~**

Both the mother and father filed notices ofintent to appeal with this Co_urt. Initially, we issued separate scheduling orders·for each parent's appeal. Subsequently, this Court issued an order · directing the filing ofajoint appendix and further orderingthe filing ofbriefs or summary responses by Ms. Thompson as · guardian ad litem on or before May 20, 2015. Ms. Thompson failed to file a briefor summary response.on or before May 20, 2015. On·May 22, 2015, a staffmember ofthe West Virginia Supreme Court Clerk's Office ("Clerk's Office") telephoned Ms. Thompson's law office and left a message with an office assistant advising that the briefs. in the pending appeals were past due. Thereafter, no responsive briefs were filed by**Ms~** Thompson. By Order entered May 27, 2015, this Court issued Notices ofIntent to Sanction and Amended Scheduling Ordets in the appeals of both the father and the mother. The Order directed Ms. Thompson to file briefs or summary responses on or before June 1, 2015. She was reminded·that failure to comply could result in the imposition ofsanctions. The Notices and Orders were issued through certified mail. Again, Ms. Thompson failed to file a briefor summa:ry response as**requir~d** ofguardians ad litem and as ordered by this Court. On·or about Friday, June 5, 2015, a strufattorney in the Clerk's Office sent Ms. Thompson an e-mail"advising her that the Court had issued Notices ofIntent to Sanction. Copies ofthe Notices were included as attachments to the e-mail. The staffattorney requested that Ms. Thompso_n file her responses as soon as possible. On Monday, June 8, 2015, Ms. Thompsone-mailed the staff.attorney stating, in pertinent part, "I have no idba whatis
. going on. . . . .I was unaware ofany ofthis. I will figure outwhat has happened today." · Thereafter, the staffattorney replied to Ms. Thompson advising her that respo·nses could be submitted by fax to the Clerk's Office 3together with a motion·to file the responses out of-time. The staff attorney attached a signed confirmation demonstrating that Ms. Thompson's law office had received the Notices and Orders ofMay 27, 2015. We note that Ms. Thompson testified before the. HPS that she was uriaware ofthe pending appeals until she received the e-mail on June 8, 2015. Specifically, Ms. Thompson testified to a lack of staffand stafffailures at her office thatresulted in her lack o.f knowledge ofthe appeals. Ms. Thompson did recognize her ultimate responsibility for any problems and challenges with her staff.

·. Still having received no briefs or summary responses from Ms.

Thompson, this Court, on its own motion, entered Orders on June 11, 2015, wherein rules to show cause in contemptwere awarded and issued against Ms. Thompson in**bo~** appeals for her failure to timely- file the response briefs. The rules to show cause why she should not be held in contempt ofcourt were returnable on · September 2, 2015, unless sooner mooted by the filing ofbriefs. Ms. Thompson personally signed the return receipt confirmation on June 17, 2015, indicating she received the Orders ofJune 11, 2015. Nevertheless, Ms. Thompson continued in her failure to represent the infant and failed to file any responses.

. . . . Staffin the Clerk's Office called, contacted, and/or attempted to contact Ms. Thompson about.**~he** filing ofresponses on July 5, 2015; July 

### 23, 2015; August 7, 2015; and August 14, 2015. On each occasion, Ms. Thompson was unavailable to take the calls. -Further, Ms, Thompson did not return any ofthe phone calls or contacts from the Clerk's Office. -It appears thatThompson blamed her failure to respond on office.**~taff** and also on her frustrations with the Department ofHealth and Human

· Resources (DHHR) in Mingo County, WestVirginia. Thompson conveyed these

. . frustrations to Judge Cummings at a judicial review hearing ofthe infant child, wherein Judge Cummings advised herto file her briefs or the West Virginia Supreme Courtwould implement sanctions.

4Thompson finally submitted her briefs the day before oral argument on the show cause order. On September 3, 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court enter_ed an Order finding thatThompson'sjustification for failing to file her briefs was unsatisfactory. The West Virginia Supreme Court issued a second rule to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Thompson responded to the Order to Show Cause asserting that her concerns with the
. DHHR were the reasons for the late filing ofher briefs. Oral argw;nent on the

· . show cause order was held on September 15, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court held Thompson in contempt and ordered that· she be denied eligibility for guardian ad litem and other court_appointments

., J

. until such time as the investigation ofdisciplinary proceedings could conclude. The Office ofDisciplinary Counsel (ODC) found thatThompson failed to timely file a. briefor a summary response as a guardian ad litc::m for a child in the abuse and neglect case, thus viofating the WestVirginia Rules of

I ·Professional Conduct (Rules) l.l[competence], l.3[diligence], and

8.4(d)[prejudice to the administration ofjustice]. The ODC also found that Thompson**f~led** to zealously advocate for her ciient, the child, in the abuse and neglectproceedings and because her own actions caused delay and potential harm to the minor child by delaying permanency by several months, violated Rules l.l[competence], 1.2 [failure to take necessary action on miiior's behalfto achieve ultimate goal ofpermanency], and 1.7 [conflict of**inte~est].** finally, the ODC found thatThompson violated Rule 8.4(d) [prejudice to the administration ofjustice] and Rule 3.4(c) [knowingly disobeying an obligation 5 \ \**~** . under the rules ofa**~ribunal]** when she failed to obey numerous orders from the Supreme Court to file a briefor summary response which resulted in a

. . finding 

### ofcontempt by the highest court in the state. II. ANALYSIS. The only questionfor this Court to decide is whether identical reciprocal discipline or a lesser sanction is warranted. This Court shall "iIJJ.pose the identical discipline uriless Respondent proves**~y** substantial evidence: (a) a

.lack ofjurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b)
. ·thatmisconduct established warrants substantialiy different discipline ih this state." SCR 3.435(4). Thompson has not alleged lack ofjurisdiction or fraud in the West Virginia proceedings. Thompson does assert, in her Response to Petition for ·**~eciprocal** Discipline, thather misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in the Commonwealth. In large part, Thompson, although acknowledging her failure to timely file her briefs, continues to assert that she had good reason to do so. This Courtis not convinced. Thompson may have had frustrations with the WestVirginia DHHR and those frustrations may have been well-founded. Those frustrations, however, did not providejustification for Thompson's willful disregard ofthe WestVirgipia s.upreme Court's orders. Furthermore, those frustrations do·l}ot support her'·conten.tion that thisCourt should impose a lesser sanction. Thompson argues that she should only be·given a reprimand in Kentucky because the WestVirginia disciplinary actio:ps and subsequent
6**~.** suspension had a negative impact on herlaw practice, which.in her'view, is
more than enough punishment for her actions. In light ofthe West Virginia sanctions, ana the dissents that would impose harsher penalties, this Court**i~**

.not persuaded byThompson's arguments. ACCORDINGLY, IT·IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent, Lauren Thompson, is subject to reciprocal discipline for the ' misconduct found by th_e WestVirginia Supreme Court. Respondent's misconductiS established conclusively for purposes ofdisciplinary \ proceedings in this State. 2. /Respondent is suspended from the practice oflaw in Kentucky for a pe_riod ofthree months. The period ofsuspension shall commence 

### op the
I date ofentry ofthis Opinion and Order. Respondent is also. ordered.to '\ complete an additional twelve (12) hours ofcontinuing legal ·education classes in the area ofabuse arid neglect and/or ethics and law office management. Proofofcomple_tion ofthe additional**~ontinuing** legal education classes in WestVirginia will comply**w~th.this** Order.

. ( 3. In

## ac~ordance with SCR\3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against her, ifthere are any, for which execution may issue from this Courtupon finality ofthis

. i

. . Opinion and Order. 4. Should Respondent currently have any clients, .pursuantto SCR**3.390~** she shall, within ten days from the entry ofthis Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing ofher inability to represent them, and notify 7 \all courts in which she has matters pending ofher suspension from the practice oflaw, and furnish copies of said letters ofnotice to the Office of

. .**~** Bar Counsel. To the extent**po~ssible,** Thompson shall immediately**c~ncel** and ce_ase any ac;ivertising activities in**whi~h** she is engaged.·
I

. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: September 28, 2017.

8