Misty

The Kentucky Supreme Court has dissolved a temporary suspension, concluding that the attorney’s removal from public office was sufficient to negate the suggestion of ongoing public harm

Goldy was the Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 21st Judicial Circuit beginning January 1, 2013. In 2015 or 2016, he met Misty Helton when she was incarcerated in the Rowan County Detention Center. Goldy and Helton began a relationship. Goldy would communicate with Helton directly through text messages and social media, frequently requesting and receiving nude images and videos of Helton. In return, Goldy intervened on Helton’s behalf in several criminal cases throughout his jurisdiction, and attempted to use his position to influence a criminal case in Clark County. Specifically, Goldy had multiple bench warrants recalled on Helton’s behalf and agreed to change hearing dates.

Findings

The Special Commissioner found that for a “period up to seven years” this conduct occurred, and that “Mr. Goldy abused his power by using his official position as Commonwealth’s Attorney to provide Ms. Helton with assistance in criminal matters for her benefit while he expected and requested actions of a sexual nature from her for his benefit.”

Based upon the Special Commissioner’s findings and conclusion that probable cause existed to believe that “Mr. Goldy’s professional misconduct poses a substantial threat of harm to the public pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(b),” we ordered him temporarily suspended from the practice of law during the pendency of the Inquiry Commission’s investigation.

Since that time, Goldy has been formally charged with one count of violation of SCR 3.130(4.2)

At present

In this case, Goldy was the Commonwealth’s Attorney. He had no clients but was the representative of the public-at-large. He has denied the charge against him and refused to resign from his office. Goldy’s tenure in office is now no longer in question. He has been impeached and is removed. Manifestly, there is no longer probable cause to believe he poses a substantial threat to the public by abusing the power of an office he no longer holds. But is there probable cause to believe his practice of law as a private attorney poses a substantial threat to his clients or the public? There simply are no facts in the record to support that conclusion. There is no public record of Goldy having ever been previously disciplined by this Court before our order of temporary suspension. Moreover, nothing in the Special Commissioner’s report this Court adopted as its own to support the order of temporary suspension mentioned, much less relied upon, prior disciplinary history. Nothing in the Special Commissioner’s report suggests that Goldy’s conduct towards Helton was part of a general pattern with multiple persons. The pending charge of one count of violating SCR 3.130(4.2) is predicated on Goldy’s conduct towards Helton. In short, the facts in this record only support the conclusion that Goldy’s conduct, while occurring over a seven-year period, was isolated to just one person; and this conduct was bound up with Goldy’s position as a Commonwealth’s Attorney.

Two justices dissented without a written opinion. (Mike Frisch)