TO BE PUBLISHED
,Suprrittr (Court of rtifildiV
2016-SC-000335-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
JEFFREY OWENS MOORE RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey Owens Moore was admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on May 1, 2008. His Kentucky Bar Association
(KBA) number is 92333, and his bar roster address is 3265 Paris Pike, Mount
Sterling, Kentucky, 40353. The KBA's Board of Governors considered a four-
count charge against Moore. The case came before the Board as a default case
pursuant to SCR 3.210 after Moore failed to respond to the charge. With three
members recusing, the remaining members of the Board found Moore guilty of
two of the charged counts unanimously and found him guilty of the remaining
two counts by a vote of thirteen to two. The Board recommends this Court
suspend Moore from the practice of law for one year, with sixty-one days to
serve and the remainder probated for one year with conditions.
Pursuant to SCR 3.370(7), after the Board of. Governors files its decision
with the Disciplinary Clerk, either Bar Counsel or the Respondent may file a
notice of review with this Court. If neither party files a notice of review (as is
the case here), this Court has two options: 1) under SCR 3.370(8) we may
inform Bar Counsel and Respondent that we will review the decision and order
the parties to file briefs or 2) under SCR 3.370(9) we may enter an order
adopting the decision of the Board. In the case at bar, we exercise our
authority under SCR 3.370(9) and adopt the recommendation of the Board.
This Court recently indefinitely suspended Moore from the practice of law
pursuant to SCR 3.380(2) for his failure to respond to the charges herein.
However, this Court had not issued Moore's indefinite suspension at the time
the KBA submitted the current matter to the Court. Therefore, the Board of
Governors did not take the indefinite suspension into account in its
recommendation. We adopt the Board's recommended suspension and impose
it concurrently with Moore's current indefinite suspension.
I. BACKGROUND
Moore represented a couple who paid him $4,100 for legal services.
During the course of the representation, Moore also borrowed $2,000 from his
clients. Moore did provide some legal services for his clients, ultimately losing
at the circuit court and filing an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moore failed
to file a prehearing statement as ordered by the Court of Appeals and failed to
file pleadings even after that court gave him a time extension. After missing
several deadlines, Moore eventually filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The
Court of Appeals denied Moore's motion to withdraw and granted the opposing
counsel's motion to dismiss the appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, Moore's clients became dissatisfied
with his representation and hired separate counsel. The new counsel wrote to
2
Moore seeking his new clients' file, an account of the money Moore received for
legal services, and repayment of the $2,000 loan. It appears that Moore
initially agreed to repay the loan, but did not honor his agreement—instead,
attempting to discharge the debt in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court denied
the discharge.
The Inquiry Commission filed a complaint, to which Moore responded. In
his response, Moore acknowledged obtaining the personal loan from his clients,
agreeing to repay them, failing to do so, and, instead, filing for bankruptcy.
Moore also stated that he had received $4,100 in payments from his clients for
legal services, but that he had encountered difficulty in obtaining records to
account for the services, as some of his files were lost in a car accident.
Following this initial response, Moore failed to respond to a request for
information sent by bar counsel. He later claimed a family medical emergency
had overwhelmed him and led to the oversight. Ultimately, a four-count charge
issued, and, again, Moore failed to respond.
Count I of Moore's charge alleges he violated SCR 3.130-1.8(a). That rule
prohibits lawyers from entering "into a business transaction with a client or
knowingly acquir[ing] . . . [a] pecuniary interest adverse to a client" unless
enumerated exceptions are met. Count II charged Moore with violating SCR
3.130-8.4(c) which states: "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to .. .
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
Count III alleges Moore violated SCR 3.130-1.15(b) which requires a lawyer to
"promptly deliver to the client any funds or other property that the client is
3
entitled to receive, and upon request by the client, shall promptly render a full
accounting regarding such property." And, finally, Count IV charged Moore
with violating SCR 3.130-1.16(d) which requires "[u]pon termination of
representation, a lawyer shall . . . surrender papers and property to which the
client is entitled and refund[] any advance payment of fee or expense that has
not been earned or incurred."
With three members recusing, the Board unanimously found Moore
guilty of Counts I and III, and found him guilty of Counts II and IV by a vote of
thirteen to two.
II. ANALYSIS
We agree with the Board's findings that Moore is guilty of all four counts.
As to Count I, Moore entered into a business transaction and acquired a
monetary interest adverse to his clients in violation of SCR 3.130-1.8(a) when
he took a loan from his clients without meeting the enumerated exceptions to
the rule. We also agree that Moore engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation pursuant to Count II when he told his
clients he would repay the loan, but attempted to have it discharged in
bankruptcy instead. This conduct amounted to a violation of SCR 3.130-8.4(c).
Further, we agree with the Board that Moore violated SCR 3.130-1.15(b) as
charged in Count III when he failed to deliver his clients' funds and likewise
failed to promptly account for them. Finally, we agree with the Board as to
Count IV, in which it found him guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1.16(d) for failing
to return his clients' papers and property and to refund any unearned portion
of their fee when they terminated his representation.
In reaching its recommended discipline in this matter, the Board
considered the fact that Moore had received two previous private admonitions—
one for failing to respond to a client's request to return the excess of a reduced
bond until the client submitted a complaint, and the other for performing a
criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
when he pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. In
addition to his prior disciplinary history, the Board also considered Moore's
dishonest or selfish motive, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding, and indifference in making restitution as aggravating factors. In
mitigation, the Board considered Moore's personal or emotional problems.
Ultimately, eleven members of the Board recommended Moore be
suspended for one year, with sixty-one days to serve and the remainder
probated for one year upon the conditions of repayment of the $2,000 loan to
his clients and completion of the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement
Program (EPEP).
After reviewing discipline this Court has imposed for similar actions, we
agree that this is the appropriate sanction and adopt the Board's
recommendation. Specifically, in Coorssen v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 266 S.W.3d
237, 240 (Ky. 2008), in addition to other acts of misconduct, Coorssen
repeatedly failed to return his client's phone calls, failed to refund the client's
fee, and failed to turn over his client's file when the client terminated
representation. This Court accepted the negotiated sanction in that case and
suspended Coorssen from the practice of law for one year, with one-hundred-
eighty-one days to serve and the remainder probated for two years conditioned
upon successfully completing EPEP. We believe Moore's conduct is
comparable to Coorssen's, apart from the fact that Coorssen's misconduct
involved multiple sets of clients. This distinction accounts for the difference
between the sixty-one day suspension to serve imposed in the current case, as
opposed to Coorssen's one-hundred-eighty-one days to serve.
III. ORDER
)
Agreeing that the Board's recommendation is appropriate, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Jeffrey Owens Moore, is found guilty of violating the Rules of
Professional Responsibility as detailed above.
2. Moore is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for one year, with sixty-one days to serve. The remainder of
the suspension is probated for one year, with conditions. The
suspension imposed by this order shall be served concurrently with
Moore's indefinite suspension.
3. The probation of Moore's suspension is conditioned upon his
repayment of the $2,000 loan he borrowed from his clients. He shall
provide proof of such payment to the Office of Bar Counsel within
sixty days of the commencement of this suspension.
6
4. Moore's probation is further conditioned upon his attendance and
successful completion of EPEP within one year of the commencement
of this suspension ("successful completion" includes receiving a
passing score on the exam given at the end of EPEP). Moore will not
apply for Continuing Legal Education credit of any kind for his
completion of EPEP. He will furnish a release and waiver to the Office
of Bar Counsel to review his records of the CLE Department that
might otherwise be confidential, such release to continue in effect
until one year after he completes his remedial education, in order to
allow the Office of Bar Counsel to verify that he has not reported any
such hours to the CLE Commission.
5. If Moore fails to comply with any of the terms of discipline as set forth
herein, the Office of Bar Counsel may petition this Court to impose
the full one-year suspension.
6. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Moore is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum
being $305.30, for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: September 22, 2016.
7