Meehan v. Ky. Bar Ass'n
| Decision Date | 20 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2020-SC-000195-KB |
| Parties | GWEN MEEHAN MOVANT v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
The attached opinion in the above case was rendered on July 9, 2020 but was incorrectly designated as confidential. Upon motion of the parties and review of the record, the Court hereby Orders the attached opinion be published.
ENTERED: August 20, 2020.
/s/_________
CHIEF JUSTICE
CONFIDENTIAL
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDEROn May 8, 2020, Gwen Meehan moved for consensual discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) based on a negotiated sanction agreement with the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA). Meehan requests an order imposing a sanction of a sixty-day suspension, probated for two years on condition she attend and complete the next scheduled Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP), receive no new disciplinary charges during the probationary period, and pay the costs of this proceeding. The KBA filed a response stating it had no objection to the Motion for Consensual Discipline. Because Meehan and the KBA have agreed on the sanction, and we find our caselaw supports the proposed resolution in this matter, we find this sanction to be the appropriate discipline for Meehan's conduct and grant her motion.
Meehan's KBA member number is 86458 and her bar roster address is 4350 Brownsboro Road, Suite 100, Louisville, Kentucky 40207. She was admitted topractice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 18, 1996. She served as a part-time assistant county attorney in Jefferson County followed by Bullitt County between 1996 and 1999 while maintaining a part-time private practice. Since 2000, Meehan has maintained a solo private practice.
Meehan prepared several wills for Evelyn Lattis over the course of a decade, the last one being executed on January 16, 2016. The final will provided specific bequests to fifteen individuals and six charities with the remainder to pass to three sets of beneficiaries. One of the residuary beneficiaries, James Gambert, was named as executor. Lattis passed away on March 17, 2016, following which Gambert contacted Meehan seeking assistance and representation in the administration of the Lattis estate.
Meehan, knowing Gambert had previously administered another family member's estate without assistance of counsel, and believing Gambert wished to reduce the costs of administering the Lattis estate by performing a number of tasks himself, agreed to the representation at what she claims was a reduced fee. No written employment or fee agreement was executed outlining the scope and objectives of the representation.
On April 27, 2016, Meehan filed a Petition for the probate of Lattis' will and Gambert's appointment as executor. Five days later, the will was admitted to probate and Gambert was appointed as executor of the estate. An inventory of the estate, indicating a gross value of $289,038.41, was filed on October 9, 2016. In early 2017, Gambert informed Meehan he had prepared the 2016 federal income tax return for Lattis but had a question which needed to be answered before filing it. As was her custom in probate matters with taxation issues, Meehan provided Gambert with the name and contact information of a tax professional she believed could resolveGambert's concerns. She did not follow up with Gambert regarding the tax issue, his retention of a tax professional, or the filing of the appropriate tax returns.
On September 25, 2017, the Kentucky Department of Revenue sent Meehan a letter requesting completion of a form indicating the names and relationships of the beneficiaries of the Lattis estate. Based on her belief Gambert was handling all tax matters, Meehan inserted the requested information into the form, then forwarded it to Gambert. Meehan did not communicate and confirm with Gambert that he was taking responsibility for following up with the Department of Revenue. No inheritance and estate tax return was filed, leading to the assessment of $3,320.86 in interest and $49,903.50 in penalties as of July 19, 2018. On July 24, 2018, Gambert terminated Meehan's representation and acquired new counsel who was able to settle the estate and negotiate a waiver of the assessed tax penalties.
Meehan was subsequently charged by the KBA with violating SCR 3.130(1.2)(a) for failing to abide by the client's decisions regarding the objectives of the representation. The charge alleged she did not work toward completing the probate matter she was hired to perform and did not sufficiently consult with Gambert about the scope of her representation and the means by which the matter would be accomplished. Meehan was also charged with violating SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(2) which requires a lawyer to reasonably consult with clients about the means by which the objectives of the client's matter are to be accomplished, again based on her failure to adequately communicate with Gambert. Finally, she was charged with violating SCR 3.130(1.3) which requires counsel to act with diligence and promptness in representing her client because she failed to complete the probate of the estate and did not file the required estate and inheritance tax return.
Meehan was cooperative during the investigation. She acknowledged her subjective beliefs regarding the limited scope of her representation of the estate should have been confirmed with her client. She further acknowledged sufficient communication on her part could have avoided the confusion and issues which arose during her representation and the failure to do so fell below the standards...
To continue reading
Request your trial