Court Opinion

ID: 9690361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:08:55.850847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:13.733627
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Dissenting Justice.
I join Chief Justice Lambert’s dissent; however, I write separately to suggest that the application of SCR 3.652 be revisited at this time. In this matter, and perhaps others, the rule is conceivably being applied selectively and unfairly.
Pertinent parts of the rule state as follows: “Within twelve (12) months following the date of admission as set forth on the certificate of admission, each person admitted to membership to the Kentucky Bar Association shall complete the New Lawyer Skills Program.” SCR 3.652(5). “Failure to complete and certify attendance for the New Lawyer Skills Program pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (6) of this Rule shall be grounds for suspension from the practice of law in the Commonwealth or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the Court.” SCR 3.652(9). Finally, the rule only requires the CLE Commission to provide this program once each educational year. SCR 3.652(1).
The most striking and unusual aspect of this rule is that violation of the requirement is a strict liability infraction. It provides no leeway for first year attorneys who might have mitigating and extenuating circumstances on the day scheduled for the class. It is dubious whether persons could take refuge under SCR 3.667 which states “[t]he time requirements associated with completion of continuing legal education and certification thereof, as set forth in Rule 3.661(1) and (8), may be extended by the Commission in case of hardship or other good cause clearly warranting relief.” Individuals facing insuperable circumstances arising on the day of the program are generally unable to apply for an extension prior to the time expiration. SCR 3.661(8) mandates that all extensions be received before the end of the twelve month period. In this case (and most, I presume), the twelve month period for completion of the program expired prior to the date when respondent was scheduled to complete the program.
Once time has actually expired, it is unclear whether the Commission could or would even accept an application for extension of time. And even if the Commission chooses to accept an untimely application, it would be left to the discretion of the Commission to determine whether the person was nonetheless worthy of the extension. The rule should be amended at this time to allow individuals such as the respondent to at least apply for an extension. Such an amendment would prevent the rule being applied in a mechanical and draconian manner.
No other requirement in the CLE rules is nearly as merciless as SCR 3.652. Attorneys who fail to complete any other CLE requirement for any reason whatsoever must simply “submit a plan for mak-*430mg up his or her delinquency” and pay a filing fee of $250. SCR 3.667(2). I fail to understand why attending the New Lawyer Skills Program within one year of a person’s admittance to the bar demands a stricter and less forgiving standard. We should not presume that new lawyers are ignorant of legal ethics and professional responsibility. Professional responsibility is in the modern law school curriculum, and the MPRE singles out legal ethics for separate testing. In many respects the program is duplicative of law school.
Indeed, it appears absolutely preposterous that such minor infractions are being submitted to this Court for our review. Peccadillos belong in the district court.
The purpose behind the New Lawyers Skills Program is not to snare hapless new lawyers with a covered snake pit, but rather it is to ensure that these attorneys attain the initial training which the Bar finds important. When such training is delayed due to unforeseeable circumstances, there is no reason to mar their professional careers with an ethics violation.
Such citations which must be disclosed on applications would impede, if not prevent, receiving a commission in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and perhaps admission to the bar in other jurisdictions as well as surviving a judicial nomination commission. It could be perceived as a scarlet letter having the functional equivalent of a felony conviction remaining after a pardon from the governor.
Rather, noncompliant attorneys should be held to the same standards that all other attorneys in this Commonwealth (and most other states) are held to under the same or similar circumstances — a late fee and completion in a timely fashion. This is simple common sense. This Court’s purpose is to ensure the quality standards of our profession, and punishing the unlucky will do nothing to further that goal.
This case demonstrates that our treatment of new lawyers for CLE violations is analogous to the treatment of newly initiated fraternity members. Initially, new members are subject to overly strict rules of behavior. However, once we have determined that they have “paid their dues” so to speak, they become fully recognized members of the organization, always worthy of a second chance.
If strict compliance against all reason is necessary under SCR 3.652, then possibly 100 or more others should also be subject to sanctions and an ethics violation on their record. SCR 3.652(9) provides; “[njinety (90) days prior to the end of the twelve (12) month period all individuals not certifying completion of the New Lawyer Skills Program shall be notified in writing that the program must be completed before the end of the twelve (12) month period, indicating the date [that the twelve (12) month period expires for each individual].” It is my understanding that the CLE Commission offered its second and final class for the October 2004 inductees on October 25, 2005. However, most of those inductees were sworn in at the formal induction ceremony held at the Capitol on October 15, 2004. As the second class was clearly held more than one year after the bulk of the October 2004 inductees were sworn in, each and every one of those inductees attending the October 25, 2005, class (over 100) is noncompliant and, under the strict liability standard utilized in this case currently before us, should be subject to sanctions and an ethics violation on their permanent record.
Such a clearly grotesque result is indicative of the truly unfair and harsh application of SCR 3.652 in this case. I would simply allow the respondent an extension *431of time to complete the requirements of SCR 3.652. Another alternative would be to allow satisfaction of the requirement by testing on the subjects covered in the program.
LAMBERT, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.