False Positive

The Kentucky Supreme Court has rejected a proposed public reprimand for a false statement to a tribunal

On April 4, 2024, Zachary Turner was charged with first-degree wanton endangerment and possession of drug paraphernalia in Fayette County after he pointed a loaded firearm at his girlfriend, Kyra Pennington. Turner was arraigned and a bond was set at $5,000 cash. Public Defender Michael Joseph Beattie was appointed to represent Turner.

A few days later Beattie met with Turner while he was incarcerated at the Fayette County Detention Center. While discussing Turner’s bond and the possibility of a bond reduction, Beattie asked Turner if he had a girlfriend and if that girlfriend was pregnant. Turner told Beattie that he had a girlfriend, but she was not pregnant. Beattie then told Turner that for purposes of a favorable bond outcome, it would be better if his girlfriend was pregnant. Turner then told Beattie “maybe she is pregnant.”

Bond was granted but the prosecutor sought revocation

The motion for bond revocation included an affidavit from [girlfriend] Pennington confirming that when she talked with Turner over the phone, he said he met with his attorney and that she should say she was pregnant to help with his bond. Pennington further declared that she was not pregnant and had never been pregnant with Turner’s child. The court immediately revoked the previous bond and set a new bond, issued a violation of conditions of release warrant, and docketed the case for a preliminary hearing on June 27, 2024. On that date, Beattie admitted to the Fayette District Court his previous misrepresentation that Pennington was pregnant. The court held Beattie in contempt and imposed a $500 fine, which Beattie paid on November 13, 2024. The Inquiry Commission issued a two-count Charge against Beattie.

The stipulated sanction that the Bar had agreed to was rejected

Michael Joseph Beattie’s motion for this Court to impose a public reprimand is denied.

LAMBERT, C.J.; DISSENTS:

Because the recommended sanction is consistent with our precedent in similar cases, I would grant Beattie’s requested sanction of a public reprimand and thus, dissent. The majority distinguishes Kentucky Bar Association v. Rye, 336 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2011) from the case at bar due to the ramifications of Beattie’s dishonesty—namely, that due to Beattie’s misrepresentation to the district court, Mr. Turner was released on reduced bond and subsequently acquired new charges of strangulation and domestic violence involving his girlfriend.

However, I believe that the facts in Rye support granting Beattie’s requested sanction. Rye was an attorney who was representing his client, Plank, in a child custody case involving her daughter. Id. at 463. While the custody case was still pending, Plank asked Rye multiple times about moving out of state with her daughter. Id. Rye advised Plank that the move would not pose any problems in her pending custody case. Id.

Following [Rye’s] advice, still before any formal adjudication of custody, Plank moved with her daughter to Iowa. Soon thereafter, Plank’s ex-husband filed an emergency motion for temporary custody due to Plank’s removing their daughter from the state without any notice. Ultimately, the court granted not only temporary, but permanent custody to the ex-husband. Id.

Plank’s custody case was appealed through to this Court, where it was ultimately determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held that Plank’s relocation “weighed in favor of vesting custody in her former husband.” Id. at 464.

Rye was reprimanded

In the present case, Beattie has only committed one act of misconduct— he purposely misrepresented Pennington’s pregnancy status to the court in order to obtain a favorable bond reduction for his client. However, the majority notes several aggravating factors in support of its denial of Beattie’s requested sanction of a public reprimand. It specifically points to Beattie’s dishonest motive, his violation of multiple professional conduct rules, and the false statements he presented to the court. But those same aggravating factors were present in Rye when the attorney violated multiple professional rules of conduct and made multiple misrepresentations to the court and Office of Bar Counsel. Id. at 463-64.

(Mike Frisch)