Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawyercompliance
lawyerpatentrespondent

Related Cases

Sexton v. Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, 299 Ark. 439, 774 S.W.2d 114, 9 A.L.R.5th 1032
View Case »
U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
Turner v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 555 (Mem), 205 L.Ed.2d 355
View Case »
United States v. Hubbell, 667 Fed.Appx. 887 (Mem)
View Case »
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1, 38 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,396, 53 USLW 4903, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1297
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Character and Fitness Committee Office of Bar Admissions v. Jones, 62 S.W.3d 28

Facts

Lincoln Humphrey Jones applied to take the Kentucky Bar Examination and entered into a Consent Agreement allowing him conditional admission to practice law, contingent upon making payments on his student loans. Over several months, he submitted letters to the Character and Fitness Committee stating that he had not made any payments, claiming his loan was in forbearance or deferment. The Committee later recommended revocation of his license, asserting that he failed to comply with the agreement's terms.

On October 1, 1997, Respondent, Lincoln Humphrey Jones, applied to sit for the February 1998 Kentucky Bar Examination. While processing his application, the Committee became concerned with Respondent's existing student debt status, and, on April 22, 1998, Respondent entered into a Consent Agreement which would allow him the conditional privilege to practice law in the Commonwealth once he passed the Kentucky Bar Examination.

Issue

Did Lincoln Humphrey Jones fail to comply with the terms of his Conditional Admission Agreement, warranting the revocation of his law license?

Did Lincoln Humphrey Jones fail to comply with the terms of his Conditional Admission Agreement, warranting the revocation of his law license?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a lawyer must not knowingly fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal, and that compliance with the terms of a conditional admission agreement is mandatory.

SCR 3.3(a)(2) provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose a material fact to the tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid a fraud being perpetuated upon the tribunal.

Analysis

The court found that Jones's repeated claims of compliance with the loan program were misleading, as he had not made any actual payments. The court interpreted the agreement as requiring him to make twelve payments, which he failed to do. His attempts to manipulate the language of the agreement to suggest compliance were viewed as evasive and indicative of a lack of integrity.

Respondent's actions were patently evasive and clearly demonstrate that Respondent had no intention of making actual payments on his debts.

Conclusion

The court revoked Lincoln Humphrey Jones's law license due to his failure to comply with the Conditional Admission Agreement, citing his dishonest representations and lack of candor.

For these reasons, Respondent's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is revoked.

Who won?

The Character and Fitness Committee prevailed in the case, as the court agreed with their recommendation to revoke Jones's license based on his failure to meet the conditions of his admission.

The Character and Fitness Committee recommends, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 2.042, that this Court revoke Respondent's license to practice law because it alleges that Respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a conditional admission agreement.

You must be