Motion Denied
The Kentucky Supreme Court denied a motion to indefinitely suspend an attorney based on an asserted non-response to a disciplinary charge
The Charge at issue arises from a Bar Complaint filed against Lovell by a former client, Amanda Kidwell. In May 2023, Kidwell hired Lovell to assist her and her fiancé with obtaining long-term care benefits through Medicaid for her fiancé’s grandfather, Oral Zornes. Zornes had been deemed ineligible for longterm care benefits through Medicaid due to a property transfer transaction with his ex-wife that was for less than fair market value and occurred during Medicaid’s five-year look-back period.
Kidwell alleges that during the initial consultation, Lovell misrepresented to Kidwell and her fiancé that she had the requisite knowledge of Medicaid rules and eligibility to adequately represent them. After Kidwell paid Lovell a $5,000 advance fee, Kidwell asserts that Lovell displayed a complete lack of understanding of Medicaid rules and failed to obtain any of the objectives for which she was hired.
After receiving the Bar Complaint, Lovell communicated with the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) via email and twice received extensions of time to file her response. In her response, Lovell countered Kidwell’s claims and outlined the efforts she made in representing Kidwell. She also explained that during part of the representation, she was pregnant and unexpectedly hospitalized with severe pregnancy complications, which ultimately led to giving birth six weeks before her due date. After giving birth, Lovell experienced postpartum complications which lead to further medical intervention and hospitalization, and her infant child was admitted to the NICU.
After returning to work in a reduced capacity in November 2023, Lovell’s child was hospitalized for RSV for eight days. In her response, Lovell disagreed with Kidwell’s assertion that Lovell took no action other than entering her appearance in the case. In support, Lovell attached emails and messages documenting the work she performed at various stages of the representation process. Lovell maintains that she communicated with Kidwell in a timely manner and that she diligently represented Kidwell to the best of her abilities.
Response
In her response, Lovell states that she has been employed as a Staff Attorney for the Cabinet of Health and Family Services since January 2, 2025. She also explained that her previous employment as an associate attorney in private practice, which ended in June of 2024, was both professionally and emotionally destabilizing. In 2017, she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and in 2022, she was diagnosed with ADHD. She asserts that her condition is presently addressed by prescription medication. Since her last communication with Bar Counsel, Lovell has communicated with KYLAP and provided the required information and documentation for KYLAP to determine its appropriate involvement, if any. Lovell apologetically acknowledges that she was not as attentive to her mail or this disciplinary matter as she should have been. She asserts that with the help of counsel, she is fully committed to addressing this disciplinary matter.
The court
Despite failing to file an Answer to the Charge, Lovell did respond to this Court’s Order to Show Cause and has had intermittent contact with OBC throughout the process. Further, Lovell has shown cause as to why we should not indefinitely suspend her and provided sufficient information to explain her shortcomings in handling this disciplinary matter. At this time, we hereby deny the KBA’s Motion for Suspension pursuant to SCR 3.167.
(Mike Frisch)