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

attorney

lawsuitattorneylawyercompliancerespondent

Related Cases

Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Mathews, 283 S.W.3d 741

Facts

James Kevin Mathews was hired by Jacqueline Hill and Linda and Billy Jordan to represent them in civil actions. In both cases, Mathews accepted payment but failed to file necessary documents, respond to interrogatories, or communicate with his clients. After multiple attempts to contact him, both clients filed complaints with the Kentucky Bar Association. Mathews did not respond to the complaints or the subsequent charges brought against him, leading to a default judgment against him by the Board of Governors.

On September 21, 2007, Jacqueline Hill hired Respondent to represent her in a civil action against her ex-husband. Respondent was paid a total of $1,000.00 for his representation of Ms. Hill. Ms. Hill produced medical records and pictures of her injuries requested by Respondent that formed the basis of her lawsuit. On September 24, 2007, Respondent filed the lawsuit. Thereafter, Ms. Hill made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent until she learned that he had closed his office on October 1, 2007.

Issue

Whether the suspension of attorney James Kevin Mathews from the practice of law for 181 days was warranted based on his multiple counts of misconduct.

The Board of Governors for the Kentucky Bar Association recommended that attorney be suspended from the practice of law for 181 days for multiple counts of misconduct.

Rule

The court applied the rules of professional conduct, including SCR 3.130-1.3 (diligence), SCR 3.130-1.4(a) (communication), SCR 3.130-1.16(d) (protecting client interests), SCR 3.130-3.4(c) (obeying tribunal obligations), and SCR 3.130-8.1(b) (responding to disciplinary authority).

Count I charged Respondent with violating SCR 3.130 –1.3 (requiring a lawyer to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client”). Count II charged Respondent with violating SCR 3.130 –1.4(a) (requiring a lawyer to “keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter”). Count III charged Respondent with violating SCR 3.130 –1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation). Count IV charged respondent with violating SCR 3.130 –3.4(c) (requiring that a lawyer “shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal,” through his failure to maintain current bar roster address in compliance with SCR 3.175(1) ). Lastly, Count V charged Respondent with violating SCR 3.130 –8.1(b) (forbidding a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority).

Analysis

The court found that Mathews' actions constituted a clear violation of the professional conduct rules. He failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing his clients, did not keep them informed about their cases, and neglected to respond to the disciplinary charges against him. The Board of Governors unanimously found him guilty on all counts due to his lack of response and failure to fulfill his obligations as an attorney.

Because no answer was filed, the matter went to the Board of Governors as a default case, pursuant to SCR 3.210(1) . The Board voted nineteen (19) to zero (0) to find Respondent guilty on all five (5) counts of the charge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Kentucky concluded that the suspension of James Kevin Mathews for 181 days was justified and ordered him to comply with various conditions following his suspension.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Respondent, James Kevin Mathews, is adjudged guilty on all counts and hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one hundred and eighty-one (181) days from the date of this Opinion and Order.

Who won?

The Kentucky Bar Association prevailed in this case as the court upheld the Board of Governors' recommendation for suspension due to Mathews' misconduct and failure to respond to the charges.

We agree with the Board's rulings and adopt its recommendations.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Curry v. Slansky, 637 F.Supp. 947

In re Disciplinary Action Against Lochow, 469 N.W.2d 91

U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 81 A.F.T.R.2d 98-820, 98-1 USTC P 50,230, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1189

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 47235

People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281