Kentucky Bar Association v. Jeffrey Owens Moore ( 2023 )

TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2016-SC-0082-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
JEFFREY OWENS MOORE RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 25, 2016, this Court indefinitely suspended Jeffrey Owens
Moore from the practice of law. Since that date, Moore has failed to seek
reinstatement. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 3.167(5), now moves for his permanent disbarment. Moore
initially failed to respond to the KBA’s motion. After this Court entered an
Order for Moore to show cause why he should not be permanently disbarred,
Moore moved for an enlargement of time to respond which this Court granted.
However, Moore failed to respond within the enlarged timeframe. For the
reasons stated below, this Court permanently disbars Moore.
I. BACKGROUND
This Court has issued three previous orders sanctioning Moore. The first
of this Court’s three orders was entered on August 25, 2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v.
Moore, 493 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. 2016). In that order, this Court indefinitely
suspended Moore for his failure to respond to the charge in an underlying
disciplinary case. Id. at 359. This suspension followed another order from this
Court, entered on June 16, 2016, extending Moore’s initial time to respond by
twenty days, after which Moore still failed to answer to the charges. Id.Following the indefinite suspension, this Court considered the
disciplinary case underlying the August 25 order. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 498
S.W.3d 786 (Ky. 2016). The charge in that case spanned four counts of
misconduct all stemming from Moore’s mismanagement of a client relationship.
Id. at 787. Moore represented a couple who paid him a $4,100 retainer. Id.
Moore also borrowed $2,000 from the clients. Id. Moore tried the clients’ case
in circuit court. Id.
When he lost the case in the circuit court, Moore appealed to the Court
of Appeals, but he failed to file a prehearing statement or any pleadings in the
appellate court. Id. Moore missed several deadlines and attempted to withdraw
as counsel. Id. During this time, the couple also hired separate counsel. Id.
Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals denied Moore’s motion to withdraw and
granted opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss. Id. Following the dismissal, the
couple’s new attorney requested the couple’s files, an accounting of the $4,100
paid for his representation, and repayment of the $2,000 loan. Id. Although
Moore initially agreed to repay the loan, he ultimately attempted to have the
loan discharged in bankruptcy. Id. The bankruptcy court denied the discharge,
but Moore still failed to repay the $2,000. Id. Moore also failed to successfully
account for all $4,100 in legal fees, claiming that his records were lost in a car
accident. Id.
2
The Inquiry Commission filed a complaint against Moore. Id. Moore
responded to this initial complaint, but then failed to respond to a request for
information sent by Bar Counsel. Id. He similarly failed to respond to the four-
count charge issued against him. Id. at 788. Moore sent to Bar Counsel via
email an explanation of his elusive behavior. In that email, he detailed a series
of events that made it difficult to address the charge: his father had suffered a
stroke, and as a result, Moore became his father’s primary caretaker and the
steward of his father’s large working farm; Moore’s office had been sold and so,
because of this as well as the earlier car accident, it was difficult for him to
locate any of his records; and Moore’s knee required surgery, which was
postponed due to his father’s medical trouble, so Moore could not drive to and
from court with any ease. Id.
This Court ultimately found Moore guilty of each of the four counts
detailed in the charge. Id. First, Moore was guilty of Count I for entering a
business transaction and acquiring a monetary interest adverse to his clients
in violation of SCR 3.130-1.8(a). Id. He did this by taking a $2,000 loan from
his clients in addition to his fee for services. Id. He was guilty of Count II for
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
by telling the clients that he would repay the loan, but then unsuccessfully
attempting to discharge it in bankruptcy instead, violating SCR 3.130-8.4(c).
Id. Moore was similarly guilty of Count III for violating SCR 3.130-1.15(b) when
he failed to return his clients’ funds or promptly account for them. Id. On
Count IV, Moore was found guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1.16(d) for failing to
3
return his clients’ papers or property, as well as for failing to return the
unearned portion of his fee after the clients terminated the representation. Id.
For these instances of misconduct, this Court ordered that Moore be
suspended for one year with sixty-one days to serve, then probated the
remainder for one year. Id. at 789. This suspension was to run concurrently
with his indefinite suspension. Id. Moore was also ordered to repay the $2,000
loan and attend and successfully complete an Ethics and Professionalism
Enhancement Program (EPEP) within one year of the order. Id.
The Court entered its third order sanctioning Moore on October 20,
2016. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 499 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2016). That case regarded
rule violations across two KBA files. The underlying facts of the first KBA file
(No. 23041) stem from Moore’s 2014 criminal charge of public intoxication for
being under the influence of benzodiazepines and oxycodone while in a
courtroom. Id. at 281. Moore acknowledged that he had struggled with an
addiction since being treated for a heart attack in 2011. Id. Criminal
prosecution was deferred, and the Inquiry Commission privately admonished
Moore conditioned upon his compliance with the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance
Program (KYLAP). Id.
Moore was ordered to provide written updates on his participation in
KYLAP to Bar Counsel every three months. Id. When he failed to comply, the
Inquiry Commission revoked the private admonition. Id. at 282. He was then
charged with two counts: Count I charged him with violating SCR 3.130(8.4)(b)
for engaging in “a criminal act that reflects adversely” on his “honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;” Count II charged him
4
with violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) for knowingly disobeying “an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal.” Id. Moore failed to answer the charge, and this Court
found him guilty of both counts. Id.
The second KBA file (No. 23469) addressed in our third Order related to
Moore’s failures in the course of representing a client. Id. The client, Brenda
Banks, retained Moore for a divorce action. Id. Although Moore initially filed a
responsive pleading in the action, he failed to do any work afterward on the
case. Id. Moore did, however, borrow $8,510 from Banks. Id.
Banks eventually hired a different lawyer to finalize her divorce. Id.
Moore tried to get the loan discharged in bankruptcy, but just as with the
$2,000 loan he had taken from his other clients, the bankruptcy court denied
his motion. Id. In light of Moore’s actions, the Inquiry Commission filed a three-
count charge against Moore. Id.
Count I alleged Moore violated SCR 3.130(1.3) by failing to “act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Id. Count II
alleged he violated SCR 3.130(1.8)(a) by entering “into a business transaction
with a client” without meeting any exceptions provided. Id. Count III alleged
that Moore violated SCR 8.130(8.4)(c) by engaging “in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Id. Moore failed to answer this
charge. Id. Accordingly, this Court found him guilty of these rule violations. We
again suspended Moore. Id. at 283. This order stipulated that he be suspended
for one year (to run consecutively to his other suspensions), ordered him to
repay the $8,510 loan that he had still failed to repay, and ordered him to
participate in KYLAP. Id.
5
Although his two one-year suspensions have ended, his indefinite
suspension is still in effect. In the last six years, Moore has failed to file for
reinstatement. Accordingly, the KBA moved for Moore’s permanent disbarment
pursuant to SCR 3.167(5). SCR 3.167(5) states that “[i]f a Respondent fails to
seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite
Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent
disbarment.” This Court issued an order for Moore to show cause why he
should not be disbarred. Moore subsequently filed a document with this Court
titled “Show Cause,” in which he wrote,
Respondent states as his show cause why he should not be
permanently disbarred that[] Respondent has undergone 7
surgeries to his right knee and has been unable to answer to
questions/summons/motions of this Honorable Court and/or
Kentucky Bar Association. In view of this[,] Respondent’s
numerous surgeries and subsequent recoveries, Respondent
requests 60 days to enter a response(s) to all information
previously requested.
This Court treated Moore’s filing as a motion for enlargement of time to file a
response to our show cause order. The KBA responded, stating that it had “no
objection to Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to
Show Cause.” We granted Moore’s request for an enlargement of time. The 60
days have passed, and Moore has failed to provide any further information in
accordance with his initial response.
II. ANALYSIS
As noted above, SCR 3.167(5) provides that “[i]f a Respondent fails to
seek reinstatement within five (5) years after entry of an Order of Indefinite
Suspension, the Office of Bar Counsel shall move the Court for permanent
6
disbarment.” (Emphasis added). In the six years since his indefinite suspension
was ordered, Moore has not sought reinstatement. Thus, the KBA acted
appropriately in moving for Moore’s disbarment. Because the language of his
only response to this Court’s order to show cause is ambiguous, we may
consider it either as merely a motion for enlargement, or as an attempt to show
cause. In either case, we grant the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment.
If Moore’s response titled “show cause” was, as this Court and the KBA
have understood it, a motion for additional time to file an actual response, then
he has failed to respond to these proceedings. The KBA was under an
obligation to move for Moore’s disbarment under SCR 3.167(5). Moore initially
failed to make any filings regarding the KBA’s motion, and only did so to
request more time to respond to this Court’s Order to show cause. In the
absence of any material response from Moore as to why he should not be
disbarred and given the KBA’s outstanding motion, this Court permanently
disbars Moore from the practice of law.
Even if we were to consider Moore’s filing as a statement showing cause,
we still would not be persuaded against permanent disbarment. The reason
Moore alleges he should not be disbarred is that he “has undergone 7 surgeries
. . . and has been unable to answer questions/summons/motions.” Moore
submitted this statement without proof of his procedures, their chronology, or
any further explanation as to his unavailability or the extent of his need for
accommodation. The one accommodation he requested—60 days to file a
response—went unused. Unfortunately, what Moore has provided is
insufficient to show good cause why he should not be disbarred.
7
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Respondent, Jeffrey Owens Moore, is permanently disbarred from the
practice of law.
(2) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Moore shall, if he has not already done so in
accordance with his suspension, within ten (10) days from the entry of
this Opinion and Order, notify all clients, in writing, of his inability to
represent them; notify, in writing, all courts in which he has matters
pending of his disbarment from the practice of law; and furnish copies of
all letters of notice to the Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar
Association. Furthermore, to the extent possible, Moore shall
immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is
engaged.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: February 16, 2023.
______________________________________
CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER
8