Supreme Court
No. 2016-75-M.P.
In the Matter of Keven A. McKenna.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a petition for reinstatement filed by Keven A.
McKenna (petitioner). On February 27, 2015, this Court issued its opinion suspending the
petitioner from the practice of law in this state for a period of one year, commencing March 29,
2015. Our opinion also provided that at the conclusion of that one-year period of suspension
“the respondent must apply to this Court for reinstatement pursuant to Article III, Rule 16 of the
Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.” In re McKenna, 110 A.3d 1126, 1151 (R.I.
2015).
On March 23, 2016, the petitioner filed his reinstatement petition. However, the
petitioner has not met all of the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Article III of the
Supreme Court Rules. Accordingly, his petition is not ripe for review by this Court.
We also note that there are several disciplinary matters currently pending before the
Supreme Court Disciplinary Board regarding conduct of the petitioner that occurred both before
and after our order of suspension. Pursuant to Rule 16(c), on a petition for reinstatement the
petitioner “shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he or
she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to
practice law in this State and that his or her resumption of the practice of law within the State
will be neither detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or the administration of justice
-1-
nor subversive of the public interest.” Those pending matters must be brought to a conclusion
prior to our consideration of this reinstatement petition.
Furthermore, we note that on March 6, 2015, a justice of the Superior Court issued
sanctions against the petitioner pursuant to Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure in a number of different cases based, in part, upon findings that the petitioner made
misrepresentations to the court. The total amount of the sanctions imposed is $19,267.06. The
petitioner filed an appeal in only one of those cases in which the sanction was $1,000. We
affirmed that sanctions’ order when that appeal was before us. Wells v. Blanchard, No. 2015-
138-M.P. (April 15, 2016). The petitioner did not appeal from the remaining sanction orders,
and they have become final orders of the court. The sanctions remain unsatisfied.
Based upon all of these reasons the petition for reinstatement is denied.
Chief Justice Suttell did not participate.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 16th the day of June, 2016.
By Order,
______________/s/________________
Clerk
-2-
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: In the Matter of Keven A. McKenna.
CASE NO: No. 2016-75-M.P.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: June 17, 2016
JUSTICES: Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
N/A
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Petitioner: Keven A. McKenna, Pro Se
For Office of Disciplinary Counsel: David D. Curtin, Esq.