Court Opinion

ID: 9772267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:12:41.982998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.181818
License: Public Domain

STUMBO, Justice,
dissenting.
While I have sympathy for Respondent and understand that he has suffered greatly already for his failure to reveal his Alford plea to the Bar Association, I cannot but protest the leniency with which he is treated *590herein. My concern is with the complete lack of candor involved in the concealment of this matter from the Bar Association. As was stated in In re Taylor, 309 Ky. 388, 217 S.W.2d 954, 956 (1949), “[i]t is the duty of the applicant for a license to disclose facts pertaining to his qualifications, and all facts that would put the Board or the court on notice of any disqualifications.”
As noted by the Bar Association in its brief, the issue before us is not whether Respondent would have passed an examination by the Character and Fitness Committee had this information been revealed, but rather, whether the failure to disclose his Alford plea, which would have been the subject of the investigation, is itself unethical. An application of the reasoning set forth in Taylor leads to the conclusion that it is an unethical act, meriting punishment.
In determining the appropriate penalty for Respondent, I would look to a similar ease in Indiana, In re Charos, 585 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind.1992). In that case, Charos failed to disclose that his application to take the bar exam in Rhode Island was rejected because he did not attend a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, and because he failed to disclose three prior arrests. He had not been convicted of any charge. The Indiana Supreme Court found Charos’s omissions to be deceitful conduct and observed that “[a]t his very first encounter with a situation calling for sound professional ethics, this Respondent embarked upon a path of deception.” Id. at 1335. The court then suspended Charos for one year. In my opinion, Respondent’s acts herein are equally deceptive.
Similarly, in In re Lane, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 19 (1956), the predecessor to this Court imposed a two-year suspension on a respondent who previously had been convicted of a felony and had served a sentence in the federal system, none of which was revealed on his application for admission to the bar. Therein, the Court made a distinction between swearing falsely about one’s past and committing an actual fraud in obtaining a license. The Court noted that in In re Taylor, 309 Ky. 388, 217 S.W.2d 954 (1949),’the disciplined attorney was admitted to the Kentucky Bar based upon a representation that he was a member in good standing of the Illinois Bar. In fact, he had been disbarred in Illinois some seven years prior to his application. Thus, his Kentucky license was obtained by fraud and he was disbarred. In contrast, here, as in Lane, the Respondent concealed a prior conviction, and made a false statement as to his past character to enable him to take the bar. As in Lane, I am “not willing to say that [Respondent] after recovering his place in society since his ... conviction must forever be damned because he made false statements in attempting to conceal his past.” In re Lane, 291 S.W.2d at 21. However, to impose only a thirty-day suspension under conditions, in my opinion unduly depreciates the seriousness of the charge to which he entered a plea and the seriousness of his deception in an application to become a member of the legal profession in this state.
In writing this dissent, I do not ignore the testimony of Respondent’s former employer, the Kenton County Attorney, who spoke glowingly of Respondent’s work for his office and the innovative programs Respondent set in effect. Nor do I disregard the evidence of Respondent’s struggle with the issue of whether to report his conviction on the admission forms and the length to which he went to obtain appropriate advice. However, the fact that he had to struggle with the decision at all should have indicated to Respondent that the issue was a serious one which should have been revealed. I would have imposed a suspension of one year, with reinstatement to be contingent upon a favorable evaluation by the Character and Fitness Committee. In doing less, I believe we do a disservice to the reputation of our profession and denigrate the responsibility of its members to hold themselves to the highest of standards.
STEPHENS, C.J., and LAMBERT, J., join.