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 on April 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 of Appeals of West Virginia suspended 

Thompson from the practice oflaw for three (3) months; ordered Thompson to 

' \. 

complete an additional twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education; and 

required Thompson to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. On May 

31, 201 7, the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed a petition asking this Court 

to order Thompson to show cause why we should not impose ,reciprocal 

discipline and,· in the event we found cause lacking, to impose that discipline 

' . . 

·pursuant to 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 objecting 
to the i~position of reciprocal discipline. This matter is now ready for 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 of Professional Conduct and recommended that 

Thompson be suspended for three months, required to petition for 

reinstatement, and attend an additional twelve hours of continuing legal 

education in the. area of abuse and neglect and/ or law office management in 

. \ . 

addition to paying the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court 

of Appeals of West Virginia adopted the three-month suspension recommended 

by HPS, along with the recommendation of the_ completion of additional 

continuing legal education; held that automatic reinstatement after suspension . . . . 

of three months was appropriate; and required Thompson to pay the costs of 

the disciplinary proceedings.I The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 

described the facts of Thompson's violations as follows: 

In 2013, Ms. Thompson was appointed guardian ad litem of a fourmonth-old infant who was the subject of CPS [child protective 

services] proceedings.· Ms. Thompson rep:resented-·the child as 

- . 

I We note that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of West Virginia 

dissented from the majority opinion and would impose an 18-month suspension, to be 

followed by two years of supervised practice, as well as the other sanctions adoptei:i by I 

the majority. Justice Workman concurred in the suspe:r;ision .issued by the majority, 

. but would have permanently barred Thompson from taking court appointments as 

guardian adlitemin abuse/neglect and family law matters, and would require that 

she petition for remstatement and undergo one year.of supervised practice subsequent 

to any r~instatement. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Thompson, 16-000_3 (WV 2017). 

2 
guardian 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 of the child's biological mother 

and father. Ms. Thompson represented to Judge Cummings that, 

upon her independent investigation, she agreed with the position 

. of CPS and recommende~ that the pare?tal rights be terminated~ 

Both the mother and father filed notices of intent 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 of ajoint appendix and further ordering the 

filing of briefs or summary responses by Ms. Thompson as · 

guardian ad litem on or before May 20, 2015. 

Ms. Thompson failed to file a brief or summary response .on or 

before May 20, 2015. On·May 22, 2015, a staff member of the 

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 of Intent 

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 of sanctions. The Notices and Orders were issued 

through certified mail. 

Again, Ms. Thompson failed to file a brief or summa:ry response as 

requir~d of guardians ad litem and as ordered by this Court. On ·or 

about Friday, June 5, 2015, a struf attorney in the Clerk's Office 

sent Ms. Thompson an e-mail" advising her that the Court had 

issued Notices of Intent to Sanction. Copies of the Notices were 

included as attachments to the e-mail. The staff attorney 

requested that Ms. Thompso_n file her responses as soon as 

possible. On Monday, June 8, 2015, Ms. Thompson e-mailed the 

staff.attorney stating, in pertinent part, "I have no idba what is . 

going on. . . . .I was unaware of any of this. I will figure out what 

has happened today." · 

Thereafter, the staff attorney replied to Ms. Thompson advising her 

that respo·nses could be submitted by fax to the Clerk's Office 

3 
together 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 of May 

27, 2015. 

We note that Ms. Thompson testified before the. HPS that she was 

uriaware of the pending appeals until she received the e-mail on 

June 8, 2015. Specifically, Ms. Thompson testified to a lack of 

staff and staff failures at her office that resulted in her lack o.f 

knowledge of the 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 contempt were 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 of court were returnable on · 

September 2, 2015, unless sooner mooted by the filing of briefs. 

Ms. Thompson personally signed the return receipt confirmation 

on June 17, 2015, indicating she received the Orders of June 11, 

2015. Nevertheless, Ms. Thompson continued in her failure to 

represent the infant and failed to file any responses . 

. . . . Staff in the Clerk's Office called, contacted, and/ or attempted 

to contact Ms. Thompson about. ~he filing of responses 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 of the phone calls or 

contacts from the Clerk's Office. 

-It appears that Thompson blamed her failure to respond on office. ~taff 

and also on her frustrations with the Department of Health and Human 

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

frustrations to Judge Cummings at a judicial review hearing of the infant child, 

wherein Judge Cummings advised her to file her briefs or the West Virginia 

Supreme Court would implement sanctions. 

4 
Thompson 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 that Thompson's justification 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 of her 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 of disciplinary proceedings could conclude. 

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) found that Thompson failed to 

timely file a. brief or a summary response as a guardian ad litc::m for a child in 

the abuse and neglect case, thus viofating the West Virginia Rules of 

I 

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

8.4(d)[prejudice to the administration of justice]. The ODC also found that 

Thompson f~led to zealously advocate for her ciient, the child, in the abuse 

and neglect proceedings 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 

behalf to achieve ultimate goal of permanency], and 1.7 [conflict of inte~est]. 

finally, the ODC found that Thompson violated Rule 8.4(d) [prejudice to the 

administration of justice] and Rule 3.4(c) [knowingly disobeying an obligation 

5 

\ 

\ 
~ . 

under the rules of a ~ribunal] when she failed to obey numerous orders from 

the Supreme Court to file a brief or summary response which resulted in a . . 

finding of contempt by the highest court in the state. 

II. ANALYSIS. 

The only question for 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 of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) . 

·that misconduct established warrants substantialiy different discipline ih this 

state." SCR 3.435(4). 

Thompson has not alleged lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the West 

Virginia proceedings. Thompson does assert, in her Response to Petition for · 

~eciprocal Discipline, that her 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 Court is not convinced. Thompson may have 

had frustrations with the West Virginia DHHR and those frustrations may have 

been well-founded. Those frustrations, however, did not provide justification 

for Thompson's willful disregard of the West Virgipia s.upreme Court's orders. 

Furthermore, those frustrations do·l}ot support her'·conten.tion that this Court 

should impose a lesser sanction. 

Thompson argues that she should only be· given a reprimand in 

Kentucky because the West Virginia disciplinary actio:ps and subsequent 

6 
~. 

suspension had a negative impact on her law practice, which .in her' view, is 

more than enough punishment for her actions. In light of the West Virginia 

sanctions, ana the dissents that would impose harsher penalties, this Court i~ 

. not persuaded by Thompson's arguments. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT·IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent, Lauren Thompson, is subject to reciprocal discipline for the 

' 

misconduct found by th_e West Virginia Supreme Court. Respondent's 

misconduct iS established conclusively for purposes of disciplinary 

\ 

proceedings in this State. 

2. /Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a 

pe_riod of three months. The period of suspension shall commence op the I 

date of entry of this Opinion and Order. Respondent is also. ordered.to 

'\ 

complete an additional twelve (12) hours of continuing legal ·education 

classes in the area of abuse arid neglect and/ or ethics and law office 

management. Proof of comple_tion of the additional ~ontinuing legal 

education classes in West Virginia 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, if there are 

any, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this . i . . 

Opinion and Order. 

4. Should Respondent currently have any clients, .pursuant to SCR 3.390~ 

she shall, within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, 

notify all clients in writing of her inability to represent them, and notify 

7 \ 
all courts in which she has matters pending of her suspension from the 

practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice 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