Kentucky Bar Association v. William Perry McCall ( 2014 )

TO BE PUBLISHED
$5uptrtur Gurt Ifirtifurku
2013-SC-000792-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
WILLIAM PERRY MCCALL RESPONDENT
KBA Member No. 82777
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) petitions this Court to impose
reciprocal discipline on William Perry McCall (McCall) pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 3.435. McCall was admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 26, 1988. His bar roster address is
332 Spring Street, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130, and his KBA number is
82777.
On October 24, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order
approving a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for
Discipline (the Agreement) between McCall and the Indiana Supreme Court
Disciplinary Commission (the Commission). Pursuant to the agreement,
.
McCall admitted that he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b)
by receiving two class A misdemeanor convictions - public intoxication on July
1, 2011, and "operating while intoxicated endangering a person" on March 23,
2012. The Indiana ethical rule violated by McCall is substantially comparable
to the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, SCR 3.130-8.4(b) (committing a
criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness).
In recommending discipline, the parties to the Agreement cited the
following mitigating factors: McCall had no disciplinary history; McCall
cooperated with the Commission; and McCall had been successfully involved
with the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) since early
2012.
The Indiana Supreme Court suspended McCall from the practice of law
for ninety (90) days beginning on October 24, 2013. However, the Court stayed
that suspension "subject to completion of at least 24 months of probation with
JLAP monitoring." Furthermore the Court imposed the following conditions on
McCall's probation:
(1) [McCall] shall have no violations of the JLAP agreement, the
law, or the Rules of Professional Conduct during his probation[;]
(2) During his probation, [McCall] shall refrain totally from the
use of alcohol and mind-altering substances[; and]
(3) If [McCall] violates his probation, the stay of his suspension
may be vacated and he may be required to actively serve the
suspension with or without automatic reinstatement. If [McCall] is
suspended without automatic reinstatement, [McCall] may be
reinstated only through the procedures of Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(4) and (18).
Finally, the Court stated that McCall's "probation shall remain in effect until it
is terminated pursuant to a petition to terminate probation filed under
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17.1)."
2
On February 20, 2014, we sua sponte entered an order requiring McCall
to show cause why we should not impose reciprocal discipline consistent with
that imposed by the Supreme Court of Indiana. McCall has not responded to
that order.'
Pursuant to SCR 3.3435(4), McCall is subject to identical reciprocal
discipline in the Commonwealth of Kentucky unless he proves by substantial
evidence: (a) a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the Indiana disciplinary action; or
(b) that his misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this
Commonwealth. We have no grounds to find a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in
the Indiana disciplinary action. Furthermore, we do not, at this time, find any
reason to impose substantially different discipline in Kentucky. However,
pursuant to SCR 3.345(3), "[i]n the event the discipline imposed in [another]
jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal discipline imposed in this
State shall be deferred until such stay expires." Because the disciplinary
action in Indiana has been stayed pending the satisfactory completion of
conditions imposed by that state's Supreme Court, this matter must be
deferred pending McCall's satisfactory completion of those conditions. See
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Trainor, 145 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Ky. 2004).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter is hereby placed in abeyance pending McCall's satisfactory
completion of the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court of Indiana.
I McCall's response was due on March 12, 2014.
3
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: April 17, 2014.