INQUIRY COMMISSION V NICHOLAS G . HAWKINS KBA MEMBER NO . 87412
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrPntP (~ourf of
2004-SC-0753-KB
LJ
INQUIRY COMMISSION
V
IN SUPREME COURT
NICHOLAS G . HAWKINS
KBA MEMBER NO. 87412
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant to SCR 3 .165(1), the Inquiry Commission has petitioned this Court to
enter an order temporarily suspending Respondent, Nicholas G . Hawkins, from the
practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Inquiry Commission asserts that
there is probable cause to believe that: (1) Respondent has misappropriated funds held
for others to his own use or has been otherwise improperly dealing with said funds; and
(2) Respondent is addicted to intoxicants or drugs such that probable cause exists to
believe that he does not have the physical or mental fitness to continue to practice law.
In its petition, the Inquiry Commission states that it received information from
Max J . Goldsmith, the managing member of Respondent's former law firm, accusing
Respondent of receiving and negotiating several settlement checks made payable to
Respondent's clients and/or the law firm . The Inquiry Commission has submitted a
sworn affidavit from Goldsmith detailing three such incidents. Goldsmith stated that on
June 29, 2004, Respondent admitted to him that after procuring a client's endorsement
on a settlement check, Respondent personally cashed the check and retained all of the
proceeds . Goldsmith also stated that on July 22, 2004, Respondent admitted to
personally cashing a series of checks and retaining the proceeds from a settlement for a
second client . Further, Goldsmith stated that Respondent received a settlement check
for a prior client on July 31, 2003, that Respondent personally cashed the check, and
that the client never received its portion of the settlement proceeds . Along with his
affidavit, Goldsmith submitted supporting documentation, including the cancelled checks
endorsed by Respondent and agreements providing the details of the above
settlements . In his answer, Respondent claims that temporary suspension based on
these allegations is unwarranted, but he submits no facts or documentation in support of
this claim, other than the statement that he does not currently possess client funds and
the vague assertion that "any monies owed, due or belonging to any existing or former
client, in connection with Respondent's representation of that client has [sic] been
turned over, paid, or otherwise conveyed to [said clients] ."
In support of its second assertion, the Inquiry Commission has set forth three
incidents in which Respondent appeared to be publicly intoxicated . First, on June 20,
2004, Respondent was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol/drugs . According to the uniform citation, Respondent told the
arresting officer that he had taken the prescription drug Hydrocodone and that he had
consumed a few cocktails . The arresting officer found an empty prescription bottle in
Respondent's car. Results from a breathalyzer test showed Respondent's blood alcohol
level as .240. Second, on June 26, 2004, Respondent was again arrested and charged
with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol/drugs . According to the
uniform citation and court records, Respondent refused a breathalyzer and field sobriety
test, but the arresting officer noted that Respondent smelled of alcohol, was unsteady
on his feet, and told the officer that he had consumed five beers. The record does not
reflect whether Respondent was convicted of either of the above charges. Third, the
Inquiry Commission has submitted an affidavit from Nick Nasier, a Jefferson County
Sheriffs Deputy . Nasier states that on July 8, 2004, while Nasier was serving as a
bailiff in Jefferson District Court, Respondent appeared on behalf of a client while
exhibiting a strong smell of alcohol .
For his part, Respondent denies that he is addicted to intoxicants or drugs and
states his willingness to submit to a physical or mental examination by a Courtappointed physician . Respondent avers that on July 22, 2004, he admitted himself to a
six-week treatment program for alcohol abuse at Baptist Hospital East (BHE), and that
he has successfully completed this program . According to Respondent, he also
continues to participate in a post-treatment program at BHE, attends over six meetings
of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) per week, works with an AA sponsor weekly, and has
abstained and continues to abstain from all intoxicants .
Accordingly, upon an examination of the Inquiry Commission's petition, the
supporting documents attached to said petition, and the response, this Court finds
probable cause, as set forth in SCR 3.165(1)(a), to believe that Respondent has
misappropriated client funds to his own use or has otherwise improperly dealt with such
funds. This Court also finds probable cause, under SCR 3 .165(1)(b), to believe that
Respondent's prior misappropriations pose "a substantial threat of harm to his clients or
to the public." Because of Respondent's rehabilitation efforts, however, this Court
makes no finding with regard to the charge that he lacks the mental fitness to continue
to practice law due to a drug or alcohol addiction .
It is hereby ordered that:
1 . Respondent, Nicholas G. Hawkins, is temporarily suspended from the practice
of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky effective the date of this order and until
superseded by subsequent order of this Court .
2. The Inquiry Commission shall commence disciplinary proceedings against
Respondent pursuant to SCR 3.160, unless already begun or unless Respondent
resigns under terms of disbarment.
3 . Pursuant to SCR 3.165(5), Respondent shall, within twenty days from the
date of the entry of this order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to continue to
represent them and shall furnish copies of such notification letters to the Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association .
4. Pursuant to SCR 3.165(6), Respondent shall immediately, to the extent
reasonably possible, cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is
engaged .
All concur.
ENTERED : November 18, 2004.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
