 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Horn v. Kentucky Bar Association12/19/2002
nvested $1,000 in it.
7. Horn could have paid the $100 per month payment or made another agreement to reduce his payment obligation.
Based on these facts the Committee reasoned that Horn did not evidence fiscal responsibility since his suspension; that he did not follow rules and regulations since his suspension and that his conduct since his suspension has not been exemplary. It concluded that Horn failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he has so rehabilitated himself that he is again worthy of public trust and confidence. The Board of Governors concluded otherwise and recommended that Horn be reinstated. However, other than citing to our decisions in Hubbard, supra, and Faust, the Board expressed no significant grounds for its recommendation that Horn be reinstated.
We must observe that in Hubbard, this Court stated that the Character and Fitness Committee had the responsibility of determining good moral character and that the Committee had conducted an extensive background investigation and had recommended reinstatement. The majority opinion and the concurring opinion also noted the absence of any proof by the Board of Governors to rebut the recommendations of the Committee.
Under all the circumstances, we are persuaded by the comprehensive report of the Character and Fitness Committee that Horn has not met his burden for reinstatement. Accordingly, the application of Jerry Horn to be reinstated to the practice of law is denied. Horn shall pay the costs incurred by the Kentucky Bar Association in the amount of $672.93.
Cooper, Graves, Johnstone, Stumbo and Wintersheimer, JJ., concur. Lambert, C.J., would grant reinstatement. Keller, J., did not sit.
|