Timothy Poole v. Valetta Browne ( 2022 )

RENDERED: JUNE 24, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0805-MR
TIMOTHY POOLE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE ERNESTO M. SCORSONE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 21-CI-01047
VALETTA BROWNE APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, TAYLOR, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: Timothy Poole (“Appellant”) appeals from an order of
the Fayette Circuit Court granting a motion to dismiss filed by Valetta Browne.
Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that the Kentucky
Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate his action alleging the
negligent scoring of the Kentucky bar examination and the reporting of its results.
For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the circuit court has jurisdiction in
this matter; therefore, we reverse the order on appeal and remand the matter to the
circuit court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts are not in controversy. On October 5 and 6, 2020, Appellant
took the Kentucky bar examination which was conducted remotely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The examination was administered by the Kentucky Board
of Bar Examiners (“KBBE”).
On November 30, 2020, the KBBE reported via email to Appellant
that he received a passing score on the examination. Three days later he was
informed that a mistake had been made in tabulating the examination scores, and
that he actually had not received a passing score. The mistake occurred due to
inaccurate data entry on an Excel spreadsheet. Appellant was advised that he
would have to retake the bar examination the next time it was offered.
In April 2021, Appellant filed the instant negligence action in Fayette
Circuit Court against KBBE employee Valetta Browne (“Appellee”), who he
alleged was directly responsible for the scoring of the bar examination and the
dissemination of the results.1 Appellant asserted that Appellee violated a duty of
1
Pursuant to Kentucky Supreme Court Rule (“SCR”) 2.000, the Kentucky Supreme Court
created the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions (“KYOBA”), which is comprised of the KBBE
-2-
reasonable care to him which proximately resulted in Appellant suffering
emotional and economic damages.
The matter proceeded in Fayette Circuit Court, whereupon Appellee
filed a motion to dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds. In support of the
motion, Appellee argued that the Kentucky Constitution vests exclusive
jurisdiction over Kentucky bar admission with the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Persuaded by Appellee’s argument, the Fayette Circuit Court entered an order in
July 2021, granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss. The court found in relevant part
that Appellant’s negligence action related to bar admission, and that the Kentucky
Constitution and supportive case law demonstrated that jurisdiction over bar
admission was found solely with the Kentucky Supreme Court. This appeal
followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Issues of subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law which are
reviewed de novo. Biggs v. Biggs, 301 S.W.3d 32, 33 (Ky. App. 2009) (citation
omitted).
(see SCR 2.020) and the Character and Fitness Committee (“C&F”) (see SCR 2.040). Appellee
was the director and general counsel of the KYOBA, KBBE, and C&F.
-3-
ARGUMENTS
Appellant argues that the Fayette Circuit Court erred in granting
Appellee’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. He asserts that his
negligence action does not involve admission to the bar nor supervision of bar
members. Appellant maintains that he has not argued that he was improperly
denied admission to the bar, and has not sought any relief related to the admission
to practice law. As such, Appellant contends that he is prosecuting a common
negligence action over which the circuit court may properly exercise jurisdiction.
The action, he asserts, is not related to bar admission over which the Kentucky
Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. He also argues that Appellee is not
shielded by quasi-judicial immunity. He seeks an opinion reversing the order on
appeal and remanding the matter for further proceedings in the circuit court.
ANALYSIS
The primary issue before us is whether the Fayette Circuit Court
properly determined that a negligence action against the director and general
counsel of the KBBE alleging a failure to properly grade a bar examination and
disseminate its results falls within the Kentucky Supreme Court’s exclusive
jurisdiction. In support of his argument that the Fayette Circuit Court rather than
the Kentucky Supreme Court has jurisdiction in this matter, Appellant asserts that
his action does not involve admission to the bar and therefore does not fall within
-4-
the high Court’s authority to govern admission to the bar. We are not persuaded
by this contention, as bar admission is predicated on bar examination. The scoring
of the bar examination and the dissemination of results to bar applicants are
integral to the Kentucky Supreme Court’s process of admitting persons to the
bar. See SCR 2.020 (responsibilities of the Kentucky Board of Bar Examiners);
SCR 2.080 (bar examinations, scoring, and procedures). Appellant’s action
implicates the Kentucky Supreme Court’s duty to govern bar admission. The
salient question, though, is whether the high Court has original jurisdiction to serve
as a trial court in an action alleging the negligent execution of that duty.
In dismissing Appellant’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Fayette Circuit Court relied on Kentucky Constitution § 116,
which states,
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe . . .
rules of practice and procedure for the Court of Justice.
The Supreme Court shall, by rule, govern admission to
the bar and the discipline of members of the bar.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has sole authority to designate who is authorized to
practice law in the Commonwealth. May v. Coleman, 945 S.W.2d 426, 428 (Ky.
1997). This constitutional authority supersedes any inherent power of the circuit
courts. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Shewmaker, 842 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Ky. 1992)
(citation omitted).
-5-
As to the scope of the high Court’s jurisdiction, Kentucky
Constitution § 110(2)(a) provides,
The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction
only, except it shall have the power to issue all writs
necessary in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or the
complete determination of any cause, or as may be
required to exercise control of the Court of Justice.
(Emphasis added.) The express language of Kentucky Constitution § 110(2)(a)
disposes of the issue before us. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only,
subject to the limited exceptions set out in § 110(2)(a). Those exceptions are not
implicated in the matter before us, as Appellant is not seeking a writ to aid the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, the Court’s complete determination of any cause, nor
its exercise of control over the Court of Justice.2 Id.
Kentucky’s circuit courts have “original jurisdiction of all justiciable
causes not vested in some other court.” KY. CONST. § 112(5). While § 116 sets
out the Supreme Court’s duty to govern admission to the bar, it does not grant to
the high Court the jurisdiction to adjudicate a negligence action arising from the
execution of that duty. The duty to govern bar admission is wholly separate from
2
The phrase “or the complete determination of any cause” is somewhat ambiguous. An
analogous provision is set out at Kentucky Constitution § 111(2), which establishes the
jurisdiction of the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Kentucky Constitution § 111(2) employs the
same phrase as Kentucky Constitution § 116 but with the additional language “within its
appellate jurisdiction.” Because these provisions were amended simultaneously in 1976 with the
creation of the Kentucky Supreme Court, we interpret the phrase “or the complete determination
of any cause” in Kentucky Constitution § 116 to mean “within its appellate jurisdiction.” See
Mischler v. Thompson, 436 S.W.3d 498, 501-02 (Ky. 2014).
-6-
the jurisdiction to adjudicate a negligence action arising from the execution of that
duty. See Francis v. Taylor, 593 S.W.2d 514, 515 (Ky. 1980), recognizing that the
Kentucky Supreme Court has “only appellate jurisdiction,” the jurisdiction to issue
writs “to implement that jurisdiction,” and the authority to supervise the entire
Court of Justice.
CONCLUSION
Though the Kentucky Supreme Court has the duty to govern
admission to the bar, it does not have original jurisdiction to consider a negligence
action arising from the exercise of that duty. The Fayette Circuit Court has
original jurisdiction over Appellant’s action per Kentucky Constitution § 112(5), as
such jurisdiction is not vested with any other court. For these reasons, we reverse
the order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and remand the matter to the Fayette Circuit
Court for further proceedings. Appellant’s argument as to quasi-immunity is moot.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Sam Aguiar Mitchel T. Denham
Louisville, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky
-7-