Court Opinion

ID: 9371517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 16:04:50.262779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.355468
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

              Supreme Court of Kentucky
                              2022-SC-0503-KB

LISA M. WELLS                                                         MOVANT

                            IN SUPREME COURT
V.

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                        RESPONDENT

                           OPINION AND ORDER

     Movant, Lisa M. Wells, KBA Member No. 90086, was admitted to practice

law in this Commonwealth on April 23, 2004. Her bar roster address is 9274

Dundee Drive, West Chester, Ohio 45069. Wells moves this Court to enter a

negotiated sanction pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) to resolve

the pending disciplinary proceedings against her. The Kentucky Bar

Association (KBA) has no objection. Finding the proposed sanction to be

adequate, we grant Wells’s motion.

                               BACKGROUND

     The motion for negotiated sanctions involves three KBA disciplinary files:

16-DIS-24285, 19-DIS-0224, and 19-DIS-0229. We note that, prior to these

disciplinary files, Wells was suspended for noncompliance with Continuing
Legal Education requirements on January 17, 2020. We discuss each of the

disciplinary files in turn.

                              KBA File 16-DIS-24285

      Pursuant to SCR 3.166(1), an attorney who pleads guilty to or is

convicted of a felony “shall be automatically suspended from the practice of law

in this Commonwealth.” In March 2020, this Court temporarily suspended

Wells for misconduct as charged in KBA File 16-DIS-24285. Kentucky Bar

Ass’n v. Wells, 599 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2020). That misconduct was described by

the Court as follows:

             In 2016, Wells received a ticket in Ohio for operating a motor
      vehicle while impaired. Wells was in possession of drugs during the
      traffic stop and received both felony and misdemeanor drug
      charges. Wells entered a guilty plea to the charges in 2017 and the
      court found that Wells was a “drug dependent person,” that “her
      drug dependence was a factor leading to the criminal activity,” and
      that “rehabilitation through intervention would substantially
      reduce the likelihood of additional criminal activity.” Therefore, it
      granted her Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC).
             Under the terms of her ILC, Wells was to undergo a two-year
      period of rehabilitation. The case remained open for two years to
      ensure her compliance with the terms of the ILC and other
      conditions. Had Wells completed the ordered rehabilitation
      program and complied with the remaining conditions, the case
      would have been dismissed. However, Wells did not successfully
      complete the program.
             The Ohio court that imposed the ILC ordered Wells to show
      cause in 2019, stating she had failed to provide reports of her
      compliance with the Ohio Lawyer Assistance Program (OLAP) as
      required in her ILC and had failed to respond to attempts to
      contact her. Wells failed to appear at two different Notice of
      Community Control Violation hearings, leading to the issuance of a
      warrant.
             Wells appeared in court in November 2019 for an evidentiary
      hearing based on three alleged ILC violations. At the hearing, the
      court revoked her ILC and found her guilty of four counts of
      aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony in Ohio. The

                                       2
       court sentenced Wells to three years of community control[1] and
       determined that if she violates the community control sanctions,
       she would be sentenced “for a period of twelve (12) months on each
       count.”
Id. at 436.

      As outlined in Wells’s motion, the Ohio court also ordered that Wells

complete 60 hours of community service, obtain full-time employment,

complete an outpatient program for drugs/alcohol for one year, attend

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings three times a week,

report to Miami County Adult Parole Authority weekly, perform random drug

screens, and enroll in and attend individual therapy once a week.

      The Office of Bar Counsel attempted to monitor Wells’s compliance with

her ILC and OLAP agreements, but Wells failed to respond to requests for

information. On February 24, 2020, Wells successfully completed an alcohol

and drug treatment program. Upon discharge, the providers recommended

that Wells complete a year-long continuing care program, which she also

completed. Wells continued to report weekly to Miami County Adult Parole

Authority and on June 18, 2021, her probation officer recommended

terminating community control. That same day the Ohio court terminated

community control, five months earlier than originally ordered.

      In addition to satisfying the treatment requirements, Wells successfully

completed a five-year contract with OLAP. In August 2021, Wells signed a

second contract with OLAP which required her to call a drug screening line

      1 At the time Wells was sentenced by the Ohio court, community control was
akin to probation. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.15, § 2929.25.

                                         3
daily and report for urine screens upon request. Wells asserts that as of

November 21, 2022, she remains fully compliant with that OLAP contract and

that she has not had any other criminal issues since her release from

community control.

      On May 24, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended Wells from the

practice of law for two years, with credit for time served under her previous

December 10, 2019 interim felony suspension.2 The court further ordered

that, as a condition of reinstatement, Wells provide proof of compliance with or

completion of the five-year OLAP contract entered in August 2021. Wells

acknowledges that previously she did not consistently respond to efforts by the

Office of Bar Counsel to monitor her compliance with her supervision

agreement, in violation of SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), but that she has made consistent

efforts to comply with her OLAP agreement.

                               KBA File 19-DIS-0224

      In December 2017, Tressa Downs hired Wells to represent her son, Beau,

in a Boone Circuit Court criminal case. Downs paid Wells $12,500, and later

paid another $12,500 because the case was ultimately federally prosecuted.

Wells acknowledged that she did not deposit the additional $12,500 into a

trust account in violation of SCR 3.130(1.15)(a). In January 2018, Beau was

charged with wanton endangerment, possession of marijuana, and several

      2  Under the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio,
Section 18(A)(1)(a), an attorney is subject to an interim suspension when convicted of
a felony.

                                           4
traffic-related offenses. Downs also hired Wells for the 2018 case and paid

Wells an additional $7,000. Wells admits she did not place the $7,000 into a

trust account.

      Wells eventually withdrew as counsel in the federal case but continued to

represent Downs in the state case. The court held a pretrial conference on

September 4, 2019 and Wells failed to appear. Another attorney that Wells

worked with at the time appeared on her behalf and informed the court she

would not be present. Wells did not inform her client that she would not be at

the pretrial conference and failed to return her client’s calls. Wells did not

complete representation on the state case and Downs eventually retained new

counsel.

      In her response to the KBA Complaint, Wells states that the preparation

of Beau’s defense began immediately, despite the Boone County case

proceeding slowly given the anticipation of federal charges. Beau was also

facing criminal charges in Illinois. Wells outlines the work she performed in

Beau’s cases. Wells asserts that there is dispute as to whether she earned the

total fee paid and agrees to submit this matter to fee arbitration at the

conclusion of this disciplinary matter.

                             KBA File 19-DIS-0229

      Jason Kuhn retained Wells to assist him in the fall of 2017 in a juvenile

court matter. Kuhn also retained Wells to represent him in a criminal

investigation that originated from the same course of conduct. The Boone

County Commonwealth’s Attorney ultimately decided not to prosecute Kuhn.

                                          5
In April 2019, Kuhn faced criminal charges, retained Wells, and paid her

$50,000 due to the serious nature of the charges and the time Wells

anticipated the case would require. In August and September 2019, Wells

failed to appear at hearings and failed to respond to requests for information.

In his bar complaint, Kuhn asserts that Wells failed to communicate or

respond to requests. Once Kuhn learned of Wells’s personal and legal issues,

he realized she would be unable to fulfill her obligations to him and

unsuccessfully attempted to contact Wells on numerous occasions. Kuhn’s

mother and power of attorney sent a letter to Wells requesting her withdrawal

from the case and a refund of the fee paid. Kuhn also submitted a claim to the

Clients’ Security Fund.

      In her response to the KBA Complaint, Wells asserts that she spent

hundreds of hours working on the case and acknowledges that she should

have formally withdrawn as Kuhn’s counsel. She states that, ultimately, Kuhn

pled to the deal she negotiated for him. Kuhn asserts that Wells deposited his

fee payment checks into her personal account. Wells acknowledges that the

funds were not deposited into a trust account but states that, at the time the

checks were deposited, she had already earned the fees paid. She deposited

the checks on June 7, 2019 ($10,000) and July 3, 2019 ($5,000 and $30,000).

      Wells notes that Kuhn requested a refund of the fee paid and that she

has not provided a refund, nor did she provide a statement showing that the

fee had been earned. Wells agrees to submit this matter to fee arbitration at

                                        6
the conclusion of this disciplinary matter to discern what portion of the fee was

earned and whether a refund is necessary.

                    PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SANCTION

      Based on the admissions made and in light of Wells’s ongoing efforts to

maintain a commitment to her sobriety, Wells asks this Court to impose a

probated two-year suspension with the following conditions:

      1. Submission of binding fee arbitration petitions pursuant to SCR

         3.810 in both disciplinary matters within 30 days of entry of

         this Court’s Order;

      2. Continued participation in the OLAP program and compliance

         with her existing supervision agreement, with Movant providing

         the Kentucky Office of Bar Counsel quarterly reports

         demonstrating her ongoing compliance;

      3. Participation in, and successful completion of, the Ethics and

         Professionalism Enhancement Program and the Trust Account

         Management Program; and

      4. No additional criminal or disciplinary charges.

      The KBA has no objection to the proposed discipline.

                                   ANALYSIS

      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). Upon receiving a motion under this Rule,

“[t]he Court may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or may remand

                                        7
the case for hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of remand.” Id.

Thus, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction falls within the

discretion of this Court.

      To support its position, the KBA cites three cases. In Kentucky Bar

Association v. Mulliken, 353 S.W.3d 614, 615 (Ky. 2011), following Mulliken’s

felony convictions for promoting contraband in the first degree and conspiracy

to trafficking in a controlled substance, Mulliken was sentenced to five years on

each count, to run consecutively. He was temporarily suspended from the

practice of law on June 23, 2004. Id. Mulliken acknowledged his conduct

constituted violations of the relevant rules but noted the substance abuse and

addiction issues he experienced at the time of his misconduct. Id. The Court

suspended Mulliken until he was released from probation and parole, and then

for another five years thereafter. Id. The Court ordered that once Mulliken

completed requirements suggested by an appropriate substance abuse

professional and followed his Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (KYLAP)

contract, the remaining period of his suspension would be probated so long as

Mulliken remained illegal drug and alcohol free. Id. at 616.

      In Wickersham v. Kentucky Bar Association, 585 S.W.3d 766 (Ky. 2019),

Wickersham, while intoxicated, picked up his minor son from school and fell

asleep while driving his son on a local interstate. The son contacted his

mother, who then contacted law enforcement. Id. The criminal case, in which

Wickersham was charged with first-degree wanton endangerment, alcohol

intoxication, and DUI, was resolved by a plea agreement on March 8, 2018 and

                                       8
provided for pretrial diversion for three years. Id. at 767. Wickersham was

temporarily suspended from the practice of law upon entering the guilty plea.

Id. After the incident, Wickersham entered an in-patient treatment program

and made plans to enter a KYLAP agreement thereafter. Id at 767-68. He also

acknowledged his conduct violated the rules. Id at 767. The Court accepted

Wickersham’s proposed negotiated sanction and imposed a three-year

suspension, retroactive from March 8, 2018 (the date Wickersham entered the

plea agreement), or until Wickersham satisfied the conditions of his pretrial

diversion in the criminal proceedings, whichever occurred first. Id. at 768.

      In Fink v. Kentucky Bar Association, 568 S.W.3d 354, 355 (Ky. 2019),

Fink was charged in Indiana with dealing methamphetamine, maintaining a

common nuisance, and five other drug-related possession charges. She was

sentenced to eight years in prison on August 20, 2015 and, as a result, this

Court temporarily suspended her from the practice of law. Id. at 355-56. In

December 2016 the court modified Fink’s sentence so she could serve the

remaining sentence on home detention. Id. at 355. While awaiting trial, Fink

was indicted for drug-related offenses, ultimately entered a guilty plea, and was

sentenced to one and one-half years in prison, which was later modified to nine

months of home incarceration set to conclude November 2018. Id. at 356.

      Based on the two instances of misconduct, this Court ultimately ordered

a five-year suspension, retroactive from August 20, 2015, or until she satisfied

the conditions of the criminal proceedings. Id. The Court also ordered Fink to

continue participation in KYLAP and stated that if Fink violated the terms of

                                       9
her criminal probation, the Office of Bar Counsel could seek to revoke the

suspension and seek permanent disbarment. Id. at 357. In March 2020, Fink

completed her sentence and satisfied all conditions of her criminal proceedings.

Fink v. Kentucky Bar Association, 636 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Ky. 2021, modified on

denial of reh’g, Dec. 6, 2021).

      Like Mulliken, Wickersham, and Fink, Wells acknowledged her violating of

the rules and similarly suffered from drug-related issues which resulted in

criminal prosecution. Additionally, like Mulliken, Wickersham and Fink, Wells

was automatically suspended from the practice of law pursuant to SCR

3.166(1) and has remained suspended since March 26, 2020. Wells also has

displayed a commitment to her sobriety by completing an outpatient treatment

program, completing an OLAP contract, and entering another OLAP contract.

      We find a two-year probated sentence appropriate. In the above-

referenced cases, each suspension was either probated or applied retroactively,

effectively resulting in suspension periods of one and one-half years for

Wickersham, four and one-half years for Fink, and a probated five-year

suspension for Mulliken upon completion of certain KYLAP requirements.

Wells has been suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for nearly three

years. Further, the Ohio court never ordered Wells to serve jail time, and

instead granted Intervention in Lieu of Conviction and Community Control. A

probated two-year suspension with numerous conditions, including that Wells

take affirmative action in rectifying the financial disputes with Downs and

                                       10
Kuhn, is appropriate when paired with what has effectively been a three-year

suspension.

      Wells also requests that this Court order binding legal fee arbitration

pursuant to SCR 3.810 in both the Downs and Kuhn matters. That rule

establishes “a procedure whereby fee disputes arising from attorney and client

relationships may be resolved by submission to binding arbitration.” SCR

3.810(1). Legal fee arbitration is available when the amount in controversy

exceeds the jurisdictional maximum pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute

(KRS) 24A.230, “and all parties to the dispute agree in writing to submit the

dispute to these Rules and further agree in writing that they shall be fully

bound by the decision and Award of the Panel.” SCR 3.810(3)(A) (emphasis

added). Proceedings under this rule are initiated by filing a petition with the

KBA. SCR 3.810(4)(A). When the Court refers a disciplinary matter to legal fee

arbitration, the Director of the KBA must accept jurisdiction. SCR 3.810(4)(F).

The Director must forward a copy of the petition for legal fee arbitration and

the arbitration agreement signed by the petitioner (Wells) to the other parties to

the disputes to sign and return to the Director with the answer to the petition.

SCR 3.810(4)(D). We interpret this rule to mean that, while we can, and

ultimately do, order Wells to petition for arbitration, the clients she wronged

can choose whether to agree to submit the dispute to binding legal fee

arbitration. SCR 3.810(4)(E).

      After reviewing the allegations, Wells’s previous disciplinary record, her

willingness to cooperate with her OLAP agreement and transmit relevant

                                        11
information to the Office of Bar Counsel, her demonstrated dedication to

continuing her sobriety, and the cases cited by the KBA, this Court concludes

that the discipline proposed by Wells, and agreed to by the KBA, is appropriate.

      ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

      1. Wells is suspended for two years from the date of this Order, with the

         suspension probated for a period of two years on the following terms

         and conditions:

            a. Wells shall petition the Kentucky Bar Association for legal fee

               arbitration in both the Downs and the Kuhn matters in

               accordance with SCR 3.810 within 30 days of the date of entry

               of this Opinion and Order or show cause why such proceedings

               are not applicable. Pursuant to SCR 3.810(3)(A), the amount in

               controversy must exceed “the jurisdictional maximum specified

               in KRS 24A.230 and all parties to the dispute agree in writing to

               submit the dispute to these Rules and further agree in writing

               that they shall be fully bound by the decision and Award of the

               Panel.” If either or both clients decline to participate in legal fee

               arbitration, Wells must immediately notify the KBA. For any

               client that declines, the KBA shall proceed through the

               disciplinary process as it deems appropriate regarding that

               client’s underlying matter.

            b. Wells shall attend, at her expense, the next scheduled Ethics

               and Professionalism Enhancement Program offered by the Office

                                        12
         of Bar Counsel, separate and apart from her fulfillment of any

         other continuing legal education requirement, within twelve

         months after entry of this Court’s order. Wells must pass the

         test given at the end of the program.

      c. Wells shall attend, at her expense, the next scheduled Trust

         Account Management Program offered by the Office of Bar

         Counsel, separate and apart from her fulfillment of any other

         continuing education requirement, within twelve months after

         entry of this Order.

      d. Wells must continue participation in the OLAP program and

         comply with her existing supervision agreement. Wells must

         provide the Kentucky Office of Bar Counsel quarterly reports

         demonstrating her ongoing compliance.

      e. Wells must not receive any additional criminal or disciplinary

         charges.

2. If Wells violates the terms of probation within two years from the date

   of this Order, the Kentucky Bar Association may file a motion with the

   Supreme Court requesting the issuance of a show cause order

   directing Wells to show cause, if any, why the two-year suspension

   should not be imposed.

                                 13
3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Wells is directed to pay all costs

   associated with these disciplinary proceedings against her, said sum

   being $115.35, for which execution may issue from this Court upon

   finality of this Opinion and Order.

All sitting. All concur.

ENTERED: February 16, 2023.

                                      _____________________________________
                                      CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER

                                 14