TIMOTHY WOODARD V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
Auprme (gourf of
2004-SC-0821-TG
TIMOTHY WOODARD
QA7
ON TRANSFER FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1770-MR
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO . 2004-CI-0745
V.
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a motion to transfer by the Court of
Appeals .
Woodard, a pro se inmate, filed a complaint against three members of the
Kentucky Bar Association . That complaint was considered by bar counsel not to state
an ethical violation and its recommendation was forwarded to the Chair of the Inquiry
Commission, who in turn declined, without investigation, to entertain it. Upon the,
direction of the inquiry Commission, the bar counsel returned the complaint to Woodard
explaining that if he disagreed with the decision of the Inquiry Commission, he could
resubmit his information on a new complaint form . He was advised that he must supply
additional information indicating that the attorney engaged in unethical conduct.
Instead of supplying additional information, Woodard chose to file an "appeal" to
the Franklin Circuit Court pursuant to KRS 136.140-160 . The circuit court dismissed
the appeal . Neither the KBA nor the Inquiry Commission is an administrative agency of
the Commonwealth as contemplated by KRS 13B .140-160 . Thereafter, Woodard filed a
notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals which, in turn, recommended transfer to this
Court. Woodard complains of several attorneys . He states that two assistant
Commonwealth attorneys engaged in a conspiracy to encourage a police detective to
provide false information at his indictment. Additionally, he complains that his defense
attorney violated SCR 3.130(1 .1) by not objecting at some points in the trial as well as
saying to the trial judge that "he wasn't sure about" a certain area of law that arose in
the criminal case.
Section 116 of the Kentucky Constitution gives exclusive authority to the
Supreme Court to discipline members of the legal profession pursuant to an appropriate
rule. See also Ratterman v. Stapleton, Ky., 371 S .W .2d 939 (1963). The Inquiry
Commission has the responsibility to consider charges against members of the legal
profession who have violated the rules of professional conduct. That Commission also
has the authority to dismiss complaints. Bar counsel has the responsibility for
investigating and prosecuting all disciplinary matters . SCR 3.155.
In this case, the Inquiry Commission, on the recommendation of bar counsel,
declined, without investigation, to consider the complaint as filed .
A bar complaint by an individual is the means by which the attention of the Inquiry
Commission is brought to a possible violation of the rules of professional conduct and
not a method of individual relief or remedy for a specific complaint . A disciplinary matter
is one involving the investigative process between the KBA and the lawyer, not an
adversarial proceeding . In re: Stump , Ky., 114 S .W.2d 1094 (1938). Here, the
Commission declined to authorize an investigation and dismissed the complaint. There
is no rule permitting an appeal of that decision . Consequently, Woodard has no
standing to appeal to this Court .
We are persuaded by the decisions of similar matters in other jurisdictions which
have dismissed similar complaints because of a lack of standing in the absence of a
specific rule allowing an appeal . See Scanlon v. State Bar of Georgia , 443 S .E.2d 830
(Ga . 1994), accord Binns v. Bd . of Bar Overseers, 343 N.Ed .2d 868 (Mass. 1976) .
Here, Woodard sought redress of his alleged grievances in the wrong forum . He
can still proceed in the proper forum if he so chooses .
It is the decision of this Court to accept transfer, but decline review.
All concur .
Entered : November 18, 2004
Appellant :
Timothy Woodard, pro se
Green River Correctional Complex
P .O. Box 9300
Central City, KY 42330-9300
Counsel for Appellee :
Jay R. Garrett
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.