TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2021-SC-0330-KB
JONATHAN RICHARD MCCARRICK MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Jonathan Richard McCarrick (McCarrick), whose bar roster address is
5800 Weatherburn Court, Prospect, KY 40059, KBA Member Number 88484,
moves this Court to impose the sanction of a Public Reprimand for his
violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. The
Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no objection to McCarrick’s request. For
the following reasons, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
McCarrick ceased performing legal work around 2005 when he began
working for a software company in a non-attorney role. In 2008, McCarrick was
suspended from practicing law in Kentucky for failing to complete his
continuing legal education requirements. He did not seek to be restored to
practice. Instead, he continued his work in the software industry outside of
Kentucky, living in various states and moving frequently. He currently works
for a software company located in Massachusetts.
After McCarrick returned to Kentucky, his daughter was charged with
Theft by Unlawful Taking, Shoplifting in Jefferson District Court Case No. 19-
M-13898. Despite being suspended from the practice of law, McCarrick
knowingly entered an appearance and appeared in court for his daughter at
her arraignment. While there, he told the prosecutor that he was an attorney.
After the arraignment, McCarrick appeared again at his daughter’s
pretrial conference. He represented her in front of the court as the attorney of
record. At this hearing, his daughter received diversion, and her case was
dismissed. Representing his daughter in these two instances related to her
shoplifting charge are the only instances in which he has engaged in the
practice of law since 2005. McCarrick does not intend to resume legal practice.
The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) attempted to serve McCarrick with
the Inquiry Commission complaint at his Bar Roster address (201 E. Jefferson
St., Suite 202, Louisville, KY) once by certified mail and once by Sheriff.
Because McCarrick had moved away and the suite was then vacant, neither
service attempt could be completed. On October 20, 2020, the KBA completed
service on McCarrick via service on the Executive Director pursuant to SCR
3.035(2). McCarrick failed to respond to the complaint despite being warned by
the Inquiry Commission that a failure to respond could result in additional
charges under SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) (stating that a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail
to respond to a lawful demand for information from . . . a disciplinary
2
authority.”). The Sheriff eventually also personally served McCarrick on
January 8, 2021 at 5800 Weatherburn Court, Prospect, KY 40059. He has
since updated his bar roster address to this address.
Because of these events, McCarrick admits to four violations of the
Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. SCR 3.130(5.5)(a), for “practic[ing] law in a jurisdiction in violation of the
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction” by representing his
daughter;
2. SCR 3.130(5.5)(b)(2), for “hold[ing] out . . . that [he] is admitted to
practice law in the jurisdiction” by telling the prosecutor and the court
that he was his daughter’s attorney;
3. SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), for “knowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under the
rules of a tribunal” by violating the Order of his own suspension by
representing his daughter; and
4. SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), for “knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand
for information” by not responding to the Complaint issued against him.
McCarrick admits to all four violations. He expresses remorse and has
provided two statements from mental health providers attesting to the
“debilitating mental setbacks” he has experienced during the pendency of these
disciplinary proceedings. The KBA and McCarrick agree that the appropriate
discipline on the above facts is a public reprimand and direction to pay all
costs of these proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.450.
3
II. ANALYSIS
McCarrick admits that he violated SCR 3.130(5.5)(a), SCR
3.130(5.5)(b)(2), SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b). He requests a public
reprimand as the appropriate sanction. The KBA has no objection to the
imposition of a public reprimand and direction to pay all costs of these
proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.450.
Our Rules permit the KBA and a member of the bar to agree to a
negotiated sanction.
Any member who is under investigation pursuant to SCR 3.160(2)
or who has a complaint or charge pending in this jurisdiction, and
who desires to terminate such investigation or disciplinary
proceedings at any stage of it may request Bar Counsel to consider
a negotiated sanction. If the member and Bar Counsel agree upon
the specifics of the facts, the rules violated, and the appropriate
sanction, the member shall file a motion with the Court which
states such agreement, and serve a copy upon Bar Counsel, who
shall, within 10 days of the Clerk’s notice that the motion has been
docketed, respond to its merits and confirm its agreement . . . . The
Court may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or may
remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified in the
order of remand.
SCR 3.480(2).
The KBA consents to a public reprimand and cites to three similar cases
to justify its imposition. First, it cites to Hoff v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 537 S.W.3d
817 (Ky. 2018), in which this Court granted a public reprimand where an
attorney continued to practice law after his license was suspended for failing to
pay dues. Hoff did not know his license was suspended because the KBA did
not have accurate contact information for him. Id. at 818. The KBA then cites
Wright v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 169 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. 2005). There, Wright was
4
suspended for failing to complete continuing legal education requirements;
even so, she continued to practice law and received a public reprimand. Id. at
859–60. Finally, the KBA cites Smith v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 599 S.W.3d 868
(Ky. 2020). There, Smith also had a suspended license for failure to complete
continuing legal education requirements but continued to appear as counsel in
several cases. Id. at 869. This Court issued a public reprimand conditioned
upon completing the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program. Id. at
870.
The KBA cites these cases to demonstrate that a public reprimand is an
appropriate sanction. After reviewing the facts and relevant caselaw, we agree
with McCarrick and the KBA that a public reprimand with direction to pay
costs is warranted.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Movant, Jonathan Richard McCarrick, is publicly reprimanded for the
above described and admitted violations of SCR 3.130(5.5)(a), SCR
3.130(5.5)(b)(2), SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, McCarrick is directed to pay the costs of
this action in the amount of $154.45, for which execution may issue
from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: October 28, 2021.
______________________________________
CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
5