Sanction For Allegations In Motions To Disqualify
The Kentucky Supreme Court has accepted and imposed a negotiated sanction of a stayed 30-day suspension and probation for an attorney’s actions in a domestic relations matter
The basis for these proceedings, OBC File No. 21-DIS-0049, is related to Barrett’s representation of Benjamin Dusing in a child custody matter in Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division, against the child’s mother Jill Bakker. Barrett’s co-counsel in the matter were Jeffery Otis and Dusing himself, who appeared pro se.
After a number of delays
On February 19, 2021, two days before the trial was set to begin, Barrett filed a motion to disqualify Bakker’s attorney, Stephanie Dietz. Dusing and Otis also signed the motion. In addition to representing Bakker against Dusing, Dietz also represented Barrett’s estranged husband in an unrelated personal domestic relations case. Barrett’s motion to disqualify Dietz stated: “To the extent Dietz has a defense to the charge that her actions did not constitute a crime, the very best that can be said about such a defense is that such as a defense is an uphill battle for her[,]” and “[i]t is observed that Dietz may well have to undertake that uphill fight, given that the incident has been reported to law enforcement.”
The motion to disqualify was denied and the matter proceeded to trial
On May 3, 2021, Barrett filed a “(Fifth) Motion for Disqualification of Presiding Judge and Transfer of Companion Cases to Special Judge on Grounds of Serious Misconduct Involving Court Staff Member Alice Keys.” Alice Keys was Judge Mehling’s staff attorney.
Among the assertions
“Rank corruption has occurred, and that is now plain here. The presiding Judge needs to disqualify himself, the April 5, 2021 Order (that defies physics in its timing) must be vacated, and a Special Judge appointed to sort out this mess. What has occurred is extremely serious business and was long ago reported to the FBI.”
Two further motions made additional misconduct allegations including
Again, Barret and Dusing signed this motion. It contained the statement: “Very clearly now, the Bakker v. Dusing trial was, as suspected all along, decided in advance.”
Respondent admitted misconduct
She recognizes that she should not have relied upon Dusing’s conclusions and that she had an independent responsibility to produce proof of Keys’ alleged misconduct beyond the mere coincidence in the timing of the court’s rulings during the course of the litigation. She admits it was wrong for her to have signed the May 3, May 11, and May 12 motions.
Barrett asserts in mitigation that she was influenced by Dusing, who was an older and more experienced attorney with whom she was associated in the practice of law. Although she further recognizes that “irrespective of whether she drafted all or portions of these documents, or whether she took the lead or followed Dusing’s lead, she is responsible for her actions in so doing.” We further note that Barrett has only one prior discipline: a private admonition with conditions issued on November 13, 2024. OBC has not directed this Court to any further mitigating or aggravating factors to consider, and requests that we impose the negotiated sanction of a thirty-day suspension, probated for one year with conditions. OBC offers the cases of Blum, supra, and Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Waller, 929 S.W.2d 181 (Ky. 1996) in support of the sanction.
The court
In this case, Barrett has acknowledged her guilt of violating two counts of SCR 3.130(3.4)(f) and one count of SCR 3.130(8.2)(a) and recognizes the wrongfulness of her actions. Given her contrition, in conjunction with her limited disciplinary history, we hereby approve the parties’ negotiated sanction and decline to remand for further proceedings.
(Mike Frisch)