Judge Suspended
The Kentucky Supreme Court imposed a partially-probated suspension of a judge for client-related misconduct that took place prior to assuming his judicial duties.
This case is before the Court upon Judge David Curlin’s Motion for Consensual Discipline. Judge Curlin currently sits on the bench for Henderson Family Court. His KBA number is 92885. The underlying misconduct largely occurred prior to his taking the bench. The Judicial Conduct Commission is holding its proceedings against Judge Curlin in abeyance pending resolution of these disciplinary proceedings. The discipline Judge Curlin has negotiated with the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) is a one-year suspension of his law license, with ninety days to serve, retroactive to September 29, 2023, the balance to be probated for one year on condition that Judge Curlin not receive any further disciplinary charges and that he enters a Monitoring Agreement with KYLAP regarding his ADHD treatment.
On September 29, 2023, this Court entered an Order indefinitely suspending Judge Curlin from the practice of law due to his repeated failures to respond to multiple KBA complaints and charges, as well as the orders of this Court.
Impairment explanation for misconduct in several client matters
ADHD is certainly an “impairment” under SCR 3.900(1). Inability to take prescribed medication at normal frequency or altogether would also certainly exacerbate the condition. Nonetheless, we cannot help but note that Judge Curlin was able to successfully campaign for election to the judicial bench in 2023. He was obviously not severely impacted by the medication shortage. Neither do we credit the assertion that Judge Curlin’s failure to respond to the bar complaints is excusable because he did not understand the disciplinary process. “An attorney’s ignorance is not good cause” to excuse the failure to adhere to professional standards and Rules of the Supreme Court. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Towles, 786 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Ky. 1990). Having to undergo the disciplinary process may be a foreboding experience, but the process itself is not byzantine. Any lawyer, especially a sitting judge, can reasonably ascertain by perusal of the pertinent rules that he must participate in the disciplinary process and respond to complaints and charges filed against him. Additionally, there can be no doubt that Judge Curlin knew he had to respond to these charges once this Court ordered him to do so, yet and still he failed to respond.
The KBA, in its response to Judge Curlin’s motion, asserts there is no prior case on-point for the underlying conduct here. But the three cases cited by Judge Curlin and the KBA are readily distinguishable. First, Judge Curlin cites only one case: Hansen v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 155 S.W.3d 721 (Ky. 2005). In Hansen, we issued a public reprimand to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Perry County based on conduct which occurred prior to his election. Id. at 721. The underlying charges were related to a failure to inform his clients of the statute of limitations regarding their personal injury claim for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Tennessee and failure to inform his clients he was not licensed to practice in Tennessee. Id. at 722. He also failed to inform them he could not represent them after assuming office. Id. Although Hansen involved three charges, they all stemmed from one case whereas here we have multiple violations of multiple rules from four different cases. Hansen is not applicable.
Sanction
we find the proposed sanction of a one-year suspension of Judge Curlin’s license, with ninety days to serve, retroactive to September 12, 2023, the balance to be probated for one year, consistent with our prior cases involving multiple underlying disciplinary cases and multiple rules violations.
(Mike Frisch)