He Had A Dream

The Kentucky Supreme Court has conditionally reinstated a suspended attorney

On April 19, 2012, Tejeda was involved in a fatal motor vehicle collision in Monticello, Kentucky. He had consumed “a lot” of vodka at approximately 6:30 a.m. after drinking on and off the entire night before. Around 9:00 a.m., Tejeda was driving under the influence of alcohol at an excessive rate of speed and struck another vehicle. The collision resulted in the death of the other driver, Jarus Helen Neal.

Tejeda was indicted for vehicular homicide. He filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, which the trial court granted. The Commonwealth’s appeal from the suppression order was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as untimely. Under a subsequent agreement with the Commonwealth, Tejeda pled guilty to an amended charge of reckless homicide, a class D felony, and entered pre-trial diversion. Pursuant to SCR 3.166, Tejeda was automatically suspended from the practice of law on September 11, 2013, the day after the entry of his guilty plea.

He was suspended for four years

While on probation, Tejeda completed a six-month impatient treatment program at The Healing Place. He became a  peer mentor and eventually a peer mentor supervisor, helping other patients who entered the program. While receiving in-patient treatment, Tejeda also took advantage of vocational training and obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and ultimately obtained employment as a truck driver.

While continuing his work as a truck driver, Tejeda also received training to become a certified drug and alcohol counselor. He is licensed to practice counseling in Kentucky and Georgia. Tejeda also received specific training and became a DUI education instructor. From the time of his suspension until the present, Tejeda has been continuously employed as a certified alcohol and drug counselor or as a commercial truck driver.

He applied for reinstatement in 2018 but

While the investigation into Tejeda’s application was pending, Tejeda experienced a relapse in October 2019. He attributed the relapse to a personal financial crisis and academic difficulties. By his own words, Tejeda’s addiction to alcohol was “immediately . . . back out of control.” Tejeda was drinking approximately twelve beers a day for the duration of the relapse. He denied driving while intoxicated during the period of relapse.

In December 2019, Tejeda attended the Kentucky Law Update (KLU) in Lexington where he saw KYLAP Director Yvette Hourigan. Hourigan subsequently requested a meeting with Tejeda and Tejeda’s KYLAP monitor. At the meeting, Hourigan indicated she smelled alcohol on Tejeda at the KLU. Tejeda lied and denied consuming alcohol. Following this incident, Tejeda recommitted himself to participation in AA and has remained sober. However, Tejeda did not disclose his relapse to anyone in his support system.

Approximately eighteen months later, on July 31, 2021, after retaining counsel to represent him in the pending reinstatement proceedings, Tejeda apologized to Hourigan and disclosed the circumstances of the relapse to the Character and Fitness Committee

The court

While reinstatement is available, the severity of Tejeda’s initial misconduct continues to weigh heavily against his application. SCR 2.300(7). Further, Tejeda failed to exhibit the necessary candor concerning relapse in the fall of 2019 and that fact alone would be sufficient cause to deny his application. See SCR 2.300(6). Tejeda did not inform anyone of his ongoing and excessive alcohol use until it was discovered by chance at a KLU event and then he lied about it. This lie directly related to a primary object of the reinstatement inquiry—Tejeda’s management of his addiction to alcohol.

The court nonetheless reinstated with conditions.

Justice Nickell dissented

During the pendency of the present application, Tejeda experienced a prolonged relapse. When he was confronted with publicly being under the influence of alcohol, Tejeda lied to the KYLAP director because he subjectively associated the program with the disciplinary authorities. He continued abusing alcohol on a daily basis for several weeks thereafter until he had a dream where he was threatened with arrest for drinking. While Tejeda returned to AA in the aftermath of the fear instilled by this dream, there is no indication he ever disclosed the circumstances of his relapse to anyone in his
support system. Neither does the record reveal the reason Tejeda waited oneand-a-half years to disclose the relapse to the Committee. I cannot conceive an adequate justification for such delay given the crucial significance of this information.

Two justices joined the dissent. (Mike Frbisch)