TO BE PUBLISHED
°Smarm= Court of kt
2015-SC-000383-KB
‘.4.
DAT S6 t •t. - - EN•Cgcour#4 ?*<-
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
RODGER WILLIAM MOORE RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association has petitioned this Court to impose
reciprocal discipline against Rodger William Moores under Kentucky Supreme
Court Rules (SCR) 3.435(4) because he has been disciplined in Ohio. Moore
was admitted to practice law in Kentucky in August 2007 and in Ohio in 2001.
In June 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court entered an Order on Certified
Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 2 of the
Supreme Court, suspending from the practice of law indefinitely. The facts and
rules violations were not in dispute in the Ohio proceeding because the parties
filed an agreed stipulation of facts and violations.
1 KBA member number 91860; bar roster address Post Office Box 176007 Fort
Mitchell, Kentucky 41017.
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline has been renamed the Board of Professional Conduct. See Gov.Bar.R.
V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. At the time of Moore's hearing, however, the Board was
operating under its former name.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
In November 2001, Moore was arrested in Atlanta, Georgia, after
attempting to leave a Kroger store with twelve bottles of wine, totaling $152 in
value, without paying for them. Moore was able to avoid prosecution for this
offense by entering into an agreement that required him to complete 65 hours
of community service.
Moore was charged with theft by shoplifting in March 2012 after he
scanned UPC codes that he had carried into a Kroger store in Cincinnati to
purchase three bottles of expensive wine and a bottle of olive oil at a self-scan
checkout register. This deception reduced the price of the items purchased by
$359.10. Moore pleaded guilty to the charges and was permitted to enter a
diversion program. Later, Moore admitted that he had used this method to
steal expensive bottles of wine from the same store on five separate occasions
before his arrest.
After this arrest, in July 2012, Moore sent a letter to the Cincinnati Bar
Association (CBA) to report the March 2012 shoplifting arrest. In that letter,
however, Moore made false statements regarding the March 2012 arrest, failed
to disclose that he had used the same subterfuge a number of times in the
months before that incident, and failed to disclose to the CBA that he had been
charged with a similar crime in 2001. Upon receiving the letter, the CBA
interviewed Moore under oath in January 2013, during which Moore made
further false statements. Likewise, Moore made false statements regarding his
criminal conduct in his initial and supplemental responses—in June and July
2014—to the CBA's requests for admissions.
II. VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
In its report, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
determined that Moore violated the following the Ohio Rules of Professional
Conduct:
• Moore's 2001 conduct violated:
o DR 1-102(A)(3), which prohibits an attorney from engaging in
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude (akin to Kentucky
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.130(8.4)(b));
o DR 1-103(A)(4), prohibiting conduct involving fraud,
dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation (akin to SCR
3.130(8.4)(c));
• Moore's 2012 conduct violated:
o Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a), which prohibits knowingly making a
false statement of fact in a disciplinary matter (akin to SCR
3.130(8.1)(a));
o Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), which prohibits an attorney from
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the
attorney's honesty or trustworthiness (akin to SCR
3.130(8.4)(b));
3
o Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), which prohibits an attorney from
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation (akin to SCR 3.130(8.4)(c));
o Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G) [now V(9)(G)], which prohibits an
attorney from neglecting or refusing to assist in a
disciplinary investigation (akin to SCR 3.130(8.1)(b)).
The Ohio Supreme Court suspended Moore for two years, with the
second year stayed on the following conditions: (1) that Moore comply with the
terms of his contract with OLAP (similar to Kentucky's KYLAP); (2) that Moore
provide the CBA and OLAP with evidence of regular counseling visits with his
psychologist and periodic reports from that psychologist; and (3) that Moore
commit no further misconduct. Any future reinstatement was conditioned
upon Moore requesting reinstatement (via a process similar to Kentucky's SCR
3.350) and file documentation from a qualified medical professional—other
than his treating psychologist—selected by the CBA, stating that Moore is
capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.
In July 2015, the KBA moved this Court to issue an order requiring
Moore to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed
under SCR 3.435. A show-cause order issued from this Court on October 29,
2015. Moore filed a response to this Court's order, but that response does not
establish legally sufficient grounds to prevent the imposition of identical
reciprocal discipline.
4
Under SCR 3.435(4), Moore is subject to identical discipline within this
Commonwealth unless he "proves by substantial evidence: (a) a lack of
jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or
(b) that [the] misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline
in this State." We further note that under SCR 3.435(4)(c), "In all other
respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has been
guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes
of a disciplinary proceeding in this State."
Moore's response to this Court references "mitigating factors . . . that
may weigh in favor of a shorter disciplinary period than the suspension given
in Ohio." But Moore's vague reference to mitigating factors does not, as SCR
3.435(4) requires, establish "by substantial evidence" that his previous
misconduct warrants substantially different discipline than that imposed by
Ohio.
Seeing no legal reason why Moore should not be subjected to identical
discipline in this state under SCR 3.435, this Court ORDERS that:
1. The Kentucky Bar Association's petition for reciprocal discipline is
GRANTED. Respondent, Rodger William Moore, is suspended from
the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of
two years commencing June 25, 2015, with the second year stayed
subject to the conditions outlined in the Supreme Court of Ohio's
June 25, 2015 Order (Case No. 2014-1737).
5
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay any
costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him,
should there be any, and execution for such costs may issue from this
Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
3. Should Respondent currently have any clients, under SCR 3.390, he
shall, within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify
all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the
practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Office
of Bar Counsel. Furthermore, to the extent possible and necessary,
Respondent shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising
activities in which he is engaged.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: February 18, 2016
IEF JUSTICE
6