TO BE PUBLISHED 

,i5uprrittr efittifurtiv 

2014-SC-000258-KB 

JOHN E. DUTRA MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

The Movant, John E. Dutra, under SCR 3.480(2), moves this Court to 

enter an Order resolving the pending disciplinary proceeding against him (KBA 

File No. 21285) by imposing a 181-day suspension, with 61 days to be served 

and the remainder probated for two years subject to conditions. This motion is 

the result of an agreement with Bar Counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association. 

For the following reasons, the motion is granted. 

Dutra was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky on October 9, 2000; his KBA member number is 88405. His bar 

roster address is 113 North Hamilton Street, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324. 

In 2010, Dutra was hired by Sandra Southwood to represent her on 

multiple criminal charges, including attempted murder. While the charges were 

pending, an irrevocable trust agreement was drafted for Southwood. The trust 

was funded with a $50,000 check from a third party, and Dutra was named 
trustee. In 2011, Southwood was indicted for two additional counts of witness 

tampering. 

At various times during the representation, Dutra wrote a total of over 

24,000 in checks on the account, including a check for $3,000 payable to 

Dutra's law firm (but with a memo line stating it was for a forensic 

psychological evaluation), two checks totaling $2,690 payable to the forensic 

psychological evaluator, a check for 3,833.33 payable to the firm's escrow 

account, a check for $5,000 payable to cash (with a note reading "tampering 

indictment"), and three checks totaling S 12,200 payable to Dutra's law partner, 

David Higdon (one of these checks had "Atty fee" written on the memo line, and 

another said "Southwood-Reimbursement"). 

In November 2011, Southwood entered a guilty plea and was sentenced 

to ten years in prison. Some time after that, she asked Dutra for information 

about the trust account and copies of trust account records. Apparently, this 

request was prompted by Dutra's failure to deposit money into Southwood's 

inmate account and failure to timely pay a fee for a storage unit. Dutra did not 

respond to the request. In October 2012, Southwood filed a bar complaint 

against Dutra. 

While the complaint was being investigated, on February 27, 2013, Dutra 

sent Southwood a letter stating he would refund $5,000 to the trust and that 

the balance in the trust account would be $17,915. However, on February 27, 

2013, the balance in the account was 206.45. Included with the letter was a 

document titled "Agreement of Parties," in which Dutra stated he would 

2 
transfer his trustee duties to Ed Wofford if Southwood agreed to the withdrawal 

and dismissal of the bar complaint. Southwood signed the agreement, but 

added by hand that she was not responsible for any decisions of the Office of 

Bar Counsel. 

On March 28, 2013, Dutra provided a cashier's check for $17,465 to 

Wofford, who deposited the check into the trust account. 

In July 2013, the Office of Bar Counsel sent a letter to Dutra asking for 

additional information about the bar complaint and stating that a failure to 

respond could result in a charge of misconduct under SCR 3.130-8.1(b). Dutra 

never responded to this letter. 

In October 2013, the Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge of 

professional misconduct against Dutra. The charge alleged that he violated 

SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(2) 1by failing to consult with Southwood about the 5,000 

check to pay for Dutra's representation in the new indictment; SCR 3.130- 

8.1(b) 2by failing to respond to the July 2013 letter from bar counsel requesting 

information about this matter, despite having been given notice that failure to 

respond could result in an additional charge; and SCR 3.130-8.4(c) 3by 

withdrawing funds from the trust account for purposes other than to benefit 

1"A lawyer shall ... reasonably consult with the client about the means by 

which the client's objectives are to be accomplished ...." SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(2). 

2"[A] lawyer ... in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not ... fail to 

disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have 

arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond`to a lawful demand for information 

from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require 

disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6." SCR 3.130-8.1(b). 

3"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ...." SCR 3.130-8.4(c). 

3 
Southwood (such as making payments to his law firm), by failing to inform 

Southwood of the withdrawals, by failing to provide Southwood an accurate 

balance of the account, and by refusing Southwood's requests for copies of the 

account records. 

Dutra and the Office of Bar Counsel have reached an agreement to 

resolve this matter. And Dutra now asks this Court to enter an order in 

conformity with his negotiations with the Office of Bar Counsel. The proposed 

sanction is a 181-day suspension, with 61 days to be served and the remaining 

120 days to be probated. The probation is to be subject to the following 

conditions: (1) that Dutra will comply with the notification requirements of SCR 

3.390(b); (2) that Dutra will not receive a charge of professional misconduct 

based on conduct occurring or discovered after entry of this Court's order; and 

(3) that if the Court revokes Dutra's probation and imposes the remainder of 

his suspension, then the provisions of SCR 3.510(3) will apply. 4 

Dutra admits that he is guilty of violating the Rules of Professional 

Conduct as set forth in the charge. He also states that during the time he 

represented Southwood, "he was involved in significant marital discord 

resulting in ... dissolution proceedings" and that "the illness of his law partner, 

ultimately resulting in brain surgery and recovery therefrom, was among the 

stresses in his personal and professional life during this general time period." 

4Under SCR 3.510(3), an attorney suspended more than 180 days must 

proceed before the Character and Fitness,Committee before being reinstated to the 

practice of law. 

4 
He states that he submits these facts "only ... in mitigation and not in defense 

of the violations admitted [in the motion]." 

The Office of Bar Counsel has no objection to the motion and asks that it 

be granted. Bar Counsel cites several cases that it claims support the proposed 

sanction. See Kentucky BarAss'n v. Gevedon, 398 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2013) (30-

day suspension for failing to file custody petition and failing to communicate 

with client); Kentucky BarAss'n v. Ellis, 302 S.W.3d 75 (Ky. 2010) (imposing 

90-day suspension for improperly getting a $400 fee from a parent instead of 

the state, and failing to file a divorce action and failing to return the $240 fee 

for that representation); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Lampe, 183 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. 

2006) (120-day suspension for violations including failing to timely reopen a 

workers compensation matter, to provide competent representation, to act with 

diligence, or to keep the client informed); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Stevenson, 2 

S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 1999) (181-day suspension for failing to file complaint in 

estate matter after telling client he would do so, failing to keep client fully 

apprised of status of her claim, misleading client, and failing to respond to bar 

complaint). Bar Counsel states that cases involving deficient client 

communication, dishonesty to a client, and failure to respond "have resulted in 

sanctions reflecting the seriousness of the conduct as well as aggravating or 

mitigating factors present." 

According to the KBA, the Chair of the Inquiry Commission and a Past 

President of the KBA have reviewed and approved the sanction proposed by 

Dutra. Dutra has no history of past discipline. 
The negotiated sanction rule provides that "[t]he Court may consider 

negotiated sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges if the 

parties agree." SCR 3.480(2). Specifically, "the member and Bar Counsel [must] 

agree upon the specifics of the facts, the rules violated, and the appropriate 

sanction." Id. Upon receiving a motion under this Rule, "[t]he Court may 

approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or may remand the case for 

hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of remand." Id. Thus, 

acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction still falls within the discretion 

of the Court. 

After reviewing the allegations, Dutra's previous disciplinary record, and 

the cases cited by Bar Counsel, this Court concludes that the discipline 

proposed by Dutra is adequate. 

Order 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Movant, John E. Dutra, is found guilty of the above-described 

and admitted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

2. Dutra is suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for 

181 days. Dutra must serve 61 days of that suspension, and the 

remaining 120 days is probated for two years on the following 

conditions: 

a. That Dutra complies with the notification requireMents of SCR 

3.390(b); 

6 
b. That Dutra does not receive a new charge of professional 

misconduct based on conduct occurring after or discovered 

after entry of this Court's order; and 

c. That if the Court revokes Dutra's probation and imposes the 

remainder of his suspension, then the provisions of SCR 

3.510(3) will apply. 

If Dutra violates any of these conditions, the Office of Bar Counsel 

may move to have the probation revoked and the remainder of the 

suspension imposed. 

3. As required by SCR 3.390, and as agreed by Dutra, Dutra will, within 

10 days after the issuance of this order of suspension from the 

practice of law for more than 60 days, notify, by letter duly placed 

with the United States Postal Service, all courts or other tribunals in 

which he has matters pending, and all of his clients of his inability to 

represent them and of the necessity and urgency of promptly 

retaining new counsel. Dutra shall simultaneously provide a copy of 

all such letters of notification to the Office of Bar Counsel. Dutra shall 

immediately cancel any pending advertisements, to the extent 

possible, and shall terminate any advertising activity for the duration 

of the term of suspension. 

4. As stated in SCR 3.390(a), this order shall take effect on the 10th day 

following its entry. Dutra is instructed to promptly take all reasonable 

steps to protect the interests of his clients. He shall not during the 

7 
term of suspension accept new clients or collect unearned fees, and 

shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.130-7.50(5). 

5. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Dutra is directed to pay all costs 

associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum 

being $269.42, for which execution may issue from this Court upon 

finality of this Opinion and Order. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED.: August 21, 2014. 

8