Court Opinion

ID: 9371513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 16:04:46.902798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.931509
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2016-SC-0082-KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                                MOVANT

V.                            IN SUPREME COURT

JEFFREY OWENS MOORE                                                RESPONDENT

                             OPINION AND ORDER

      On August 25, 2016, this Court indefinitely suspended Jeffrey Owens

Moore from the practice of law. Since that date, Moore has failed to seek

reinstatement. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), pursuant to Supreme

Court Rule (SCR) 3.167(5), now moves for his permanent disbarment. Moore

initially failed to respond to the KBA’s motion. After this Court entered an

Order for Moore to show cause why he should not be permanently disbarred,

Moore moved for an enlargement of time to respond which this Court granted.

However, Moore failed to respond within the enlarged timeframe. For the

reasons stated below, this Court permanently disbars Moore.

                               I. BACKGROUND

      This Court has issued three previous orders sanctioning Moore. The first

of this Court’s three orders was entered on August 25, 2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v.

Moore, 493 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. 2016). In that order, this Court indefinitely
suspended Moore for his failure to respond to the charge in an underlying

disciplinary case. Id. at 359. This suspension followed another order from this

Court, entered on June 16, 2016, extending Moore’s initial time to respond by

twenty days, after which Moore still failed to answer to the charges. Id.

      Following the indefinite suspension, this Court considered the

disciplinary case underlying the August 25 order. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 498

S.W.3d 786 (Ky. 2016). The charge in that case spanned four counts of

misconduct all stemming from Moore’s mismanagement of a client relationship.

Id. at 787. Moore represented a couple who paid him a $4,100 retainer. Id.

Moore also borrowed $2,000 from the clients. Id. Moore tried the clients’ case

in circuit court. Id.

      When he lost the case in the circuit court, Moore appealed to the Court

of Appeals, but he failed to file a prehearing statement or any pleadings in the

appellate court. Id. Moore missed several deadlines and attempted to withdraw

as counsel. Id. During this time, the couple also hired separate counsel. Id.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied Moore’s motion to withdraw and

granted opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss. Id. Following the dismissal, the

couple’s new attorney requested the couple’s files, an accounting of the $4,100

paid for his representation, and repayment of the $2,000 loan. Id. Although

Moore initially agreed to repay the loan, he ultimately attempted to have the

loan discharged in bankruptcy. Id. The bankruptcy court denied the discharge,

but Moore still failed to repay the $2,000. Id. Moore also failed to successfully

account for all $4,100 in legal fees, claiming that his records were lost in a car

accident. Id.
                                         2
      The Inquiry Commission filed a complaint against Moore. Id. Moore

responded to this initial complaint, but then failed to respond to a request for

information sent by Bar Counsel. Id. He similarly failed to respond to the four-

count charge issued against him. Id. at 788. Moore sent to Bar Counsel via

email an explanation of his elusive behavior. In that email, he detailed a series

of events that made it difficult to address the charge: his father had suffered a

stroke, and as a result, Moore became his father’s primary caretaker and the

steward of his father’s large working farm; Moore’s office had been sold and so,

because of this as well as the earlier car accident, it was difficult for him to

locate any of his records; and Moore’s knee required surgery, which was

postponed due to his father’s medical trouble, so Moore could not drive to and

from court with any ease. Id.

      This Court ultimately found Moore guilty of each of the four counts

detailed in the charge. Id. First, Moore was guilty of Count I for entering a

business transaction and acquiring a monetary interest adverse to his clients

in violation of SCR 3.130-1.8(a). Id. He did this by taking a $2,000 loan from

his clients in addition to his fee for services. Id. He was guilty of Count II for

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation

by telling the clients that he would repay the loan, but then unsuccessfully

attempting to discharge it in bankruptcy instead, violating SCR 3.130-8.4(c).

Id. Moore was similarly guilty of Count III for violating SCR 3.130-1.15(b) when

he failed to return his clients’ funds or promptly account for them. Id. On

Count IV, Moore was found guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1.16(d) for failing to

                                          3
return his clients’ papers or property, as well as for failing to return the

unearned portion of his fee after the clients terminated the representation. Id.

      For these instances of misconduct, this Court ordered that Moore be

suspended for one year with sixty-one days to serve, then probated the

remainder for one year. Id. at 789. This suspension was to run concurrently

with his indefinite suspension. Id. Moore was also ordered to repay the $2,000

loan and attend and successfully complete an Ethics and Professionalism

Enhancement Program (EPEP) within one year of the order. Id.

      The Court entered its third order sanctioning Moore on October 20,

2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 499 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2016). That case regarded

rule violations across two KBA files. The underlying facts of the first KBA file

(No. 23041) stem from Moore’s 2014 criminal charge of public intoxication for

being under the influence of benzodiazepines and oxycodone while in a

courtroom. Id. at 281. Moore acknowledged that he had struggled with an

addiction since being treated for a heart attack in 2011. Id. Criminal

prosecution was deferred, and the Inquiry Commission privately admonished

Moore conditioned upon his compliance with the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance

Program (KYLAP). Id.

      Moore was ordered to provide written updates on his participation in

KYLAP to Bar Counsel every three months. Id. When he failed to comply, the

Inquiry Commission revoked the private admonition. Id. at 282. He was then

charged with two counts: Count I charged him with violating SCR 3.130(8.4)(b)

for engaging in “a criminal act that reflects adversely” on his “honesty,

trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;” Count II charged him
                                         4
with violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) for knowingly disobeying “an obligation under

the rules of a tribunal.” Id. Moore failed to answer the charge, and this Court

found him guilty of both counts. Id.

      The second KBA file (No. 23469) addressed in our third Order related to

Moore’s failures in the course of representing a client. Id. The client, Brenda

Banks, retained Moore for a divorce action. Id. Although Moore initially filed a

responsive pleading in the action, he failed to do any work afterward on the

case. Id. Moore did, however, borrow $8,510 from Banks. Id.

      Banks eventually hired a different lawyer to finalize her divorce. Id.

Moore tried to get the loan discharged in bankruptcy, but just as with the

$2,000 loan he had taken from his other clients, the bankruptcy court denied

his motion. Id. In light of Moore’s actions, the Inquiry Commission filed a three-

count charge against Moore. Id.

      Count I alleged Moore violated SCR 3.130(1.3) by failing to “act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Id. Count II

alleged he violated SCR 3.130(1.8)(a) by entering “into a business transaction

with a client” without meeting any exceptions provided. Id. Count III alleged

that Moore violated SCR 8.130(8.4)(c) by engaging “in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Id. Moore failed to answer this

charge. Id. Accordingly, this Court found him guilty of these rule violations. We

again suspended Moore. Id. at 283. This order stipulated that he be suspended

for one year (to run consecutively to his other suspensions), ordered him to

repay the $8,510 loan that he had still failed to repay, and ordered him to

participate in KYLAP. Id.
                                        5
      Although his two one-year suspensions have ended, his indefinite

suspension is still in effect. In the last six years, Moore has failed to file for

reinstatement. Accordingly, the KBA moved for Moore’s permanent disbarment

pursuant to SCR 3.167(5). SCR 3.167(5) states that “[i]f a Respondent fails to

seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite

Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent

disbarment.” This Court issued an order for Moore to show cause why he

should not be disbarred. Moore subsequently filed a document with this Court

titled “Show Cause,” in which he wrote,

      Respondent states as his show cause why he should not be
      permanently disbarred that[] Respondent has undergone 7
      surgeries to his right knee and has been unable to answer to
      questions/summons/motions of this Honorable Court and/or
      Kentucky Bar Association. In view of this[,] Respondent’s
      numerous surgeries and subsequent recoveries, Respondent
      requests 60 days to enter a response(s) to all information
      previously requested.

This Court treated Moore’s filing as a motion for enlargement of time to file a

response to our show cause order. The KBA responded, stating that it had “no

objection to Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to

Show Cause.” We granted Moore’s request for an enlargement of time. The 60

days have passed, and Moore has failed to provide any further information in

accordance with his initial response.

                                    II. ANALYSIS

      As noted above, SCR 3.167(5) provides that “[i]f a Respondent fails to

seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite

Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent

                                           6
disbarment.” (Emphasis added). In the six years since his indefinite suspension

was ordered, Moore has not sought reinstatement. Thus, the KBA acted

appropriately in moving for Moore’s disbarment. Because the language of his

only response to this Court’s order to show cause is ambiguous, we may

consider it either as merely a motion for enlargement, or as an attempt to show

cause. In either case, we grant the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment.

      If Moore’s response titled “show cause” was, as this Court and the KBA

have understood it, a motion for additional time to file an actual response, then

he has failed to respond to these proceedings. The KBA was under an

obligation to move for Moore’s disbarment under SCR 3.167(5). Moore initially

failed to make any filings regarding the KBA’s motion, and only did so to

request more time to respond to this Court’s Order to show cause. In the

absence of any material response from Moore as to why he should not be

disbarred and given the KBA’s outstanding motion, this Court permanently

disbars Moore from the practice of law.

      Even if we were to consider Moore’s filing as a statement showing cause,

we still would not be persuaded against permanent disbarment. The reason

Moore alleges he should not be disbarred is that he “has undergone 7 surgeries

. . . and has been unable to answer questions/summons/motions.” Moore

submitted this statement without proof of his procedures, their chronology, or

any further explanation as to his unavailability or the extent of his need for

accommodation. The one accommodation he requested—60 days to file a

response—went unused. Unfortunately, what Moore has provided is

insufficient to show good cause why he should not be disbarred.
                                          7
   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Respondent, Jeffrey Owens Moore, is permanently disbarred from the

   practice of law.

(2) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Moore shall, if he has not already done so in

   accordance with his suspension, within ten (10) days from the entry of

   this Opinion and Order, notify all clients, in writing, of his inability to

   represent them; notify, in writing, all courts in which he has matters

   pending of his disbarment from the practice of law; and furnish copies of

   all letters of notice to the Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar

   Association. Furthermore, to the extent possible, Moore shall

   immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is

   engaged.

   All sitting. All concur.

   ENTERED: February 16, 2023.

                                   ______________________________________
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER

                                      8