KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. TAMMIE JONES SIVALLS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
Q
AT
.Alurf of
,;VuVr:emt V
2005-SC-0216-KB
AtL-"] I
DQATFP--,
Z
I
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
COMPLAINANT
IN SUPREME COURT
TAMMIE JONES SIVALLS
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 14, 2005, the Kentucky Bar Association Board of Governors
reviewed fifteen files regarding Respondent, Tammie Jones Sivalls, whose bar roster
address is 1101 Oriole Avenue, Mount Sterling, Kentucky. While a full recitation of the
facts of all fifteen files is unnecessary, a brief summary of the charges is worthwhile .
Thirteen of the files arise from Respondent's mishandling of thirteen separate clients . A
common thread of misconduct is apparent : each arises initially from Respondent's lack
of diligence and her failure to communicate with her clients . Because she has not
responded to any of the fifteen complaints issued by the Inquiry Commission, each file
also contains a violation of SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b), failure to respond to a disciplinary
authority. Many of the files also involve Respondent's failure to notify clients of
termination of representation, her failure to protect her clients' interests, and conduct
reflecting adversely on Respondent's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an
attorney .
~--
The remaining two files involve the most egregious conduct. The first involves
Respondent's representation in a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of two clients ; she
served as local co-counsel in the matter with William Driscoll. The representation came
to a close when a settlement was reached with Allstate Insurance Company, who later
issued checks and sent them to Mr. Driscoll . Mr. Driscoll forwarded the checks to
Respondent for endorsement by the clients, with the intention that Respondent would
return the checks for deposit into Mr. Driscoll's escrow account . For some two months
thereafter, Mr. Driscoll was unable to contact Respondent. Through correspondence
with the insurance company, Mr. Driscoll learned that one of the settlement checks had
cleared the bank and that his own signature had been forged (and misspelled) on the
back of that check. In the meantime, Respondent returned the funds with respect to
one of the clients, but retained the proceeds with respect to the other client.
Additionally, Mr. Driscoll was entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds as a
contingency fee.
A charge was issued against Respondent, who failed to respond . Thereafter,
Respondent was charged by the Inquiry Commission for violation of SCR 3 .130-1 .3
(lack of diligence) ; SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) (failure to inform a client) ; SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b)
(failure to deliver funds to a client) ; SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) (failure to notify client of
termination of representation and to protect client's interest) ; SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) (failure
to respond to a disciplinary authority) ; SCR 3 .130-8 .3(c) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) ; SCR 3.130-8 .3(b) (committing a
criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness of attorney).
The final complaint against Respondent was initiated based on criminal charges.
Respondent was indicted by a Montgomery County Grand Jury on two felony counts :
one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree (KRS
516 .050), and one count of theft by failure to make required disposition of property
(KRS 514.070). The charges arose when Respondent converted, for her own use, the
proceeds of a check from the U .S. Government to her client in the amount of
$26,922.40. Respondent pled guilty to these charges and was granted pretrial
diversion . After making restitution to her victim, Respondent was also ordered to
complete 120 hours of community service and to pay a fine of $1000 . A charge was
issued against Respondent by the Inquiry Commission, but again Respondent failed to
respond . In this file, Respondent was charged with violations of SCR 3 .130-8 .3(b)
(committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as
a lawyer); SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) (failure to respond to a disciplinary authority) ; and SCR
3.130-8.3(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation) .
The following is a summation of the charges against Respondent in all fifteen
files:
(1) SCR 3 .130-1 .3 (lack of diligence) : thirteen counts ;
(2) SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) (failure to inform client) : thirteen counts;
(3) SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) (failure to respond to disciplinary authority) : fifteen
counts ;
(4) SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) (failure to notify client of termination of
representation and failure to protect client's interests): twelve counts;
(5) SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation) : eight counts ;
(6) SCR 3.130-8 .3(b) (committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of attorney): two counts;
(7) SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b) (failure to deliver funds to a client) : four counts;
(8) SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c) (knowingly or intentionally disobeying an obligation
under rules of a tribunal) : one count ; and
(9) SCR 3.130-1 .15(a) (failure to separate client's property from lawyer's
own property) : one count .
Because Respondent failed to appear or respond to any of the multiple
allegations levied against her, the Board of Governors considered the matters as
default files pursuant to SCR 3 .210. "When an attorney fails to respond to a complaint,
the allegation of the complaint may be taken as confessed." Kentucky Bar Association
v. Roney, 862 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Ky. 1993) . The Kentucky Bar Association Board of
Governors reviewed all of the fifteen files and made findings of facts, conclusions of
law, and recommendations . The Board of Governors unanimously found her guilty of
each of the sixty-nine counts contained in the fifteen files brought before it.
Following lengthy consideration of the appropriate degree of discipline, the Board
of Governors unanimously recommended Respondent's permanent disbarment from
the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This Court has also carefully
reviewed the matter. The files, when considered together, reveal a continuous pattern
of dishonesty and unfitness as an attorney spanning over two years . Several involve
grievous acts of fraud, deceit, and criminal conduct . Also, we note Respondent's failure
to address any of the allegations against her, or to respond in any way to the Inquiry
Commission . For these reasons, we agree with the recommendation of the Board of
Governors that Respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Respondent, Tammie Jones Sivalls, be, and she is hereby permanently
disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. She shall not be
permitted to apply for reinstatement of her license to practice law. The period of
disbarment shall commence on the date of the entry of this Opinion and Order.
(2) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall notify, in writing, all courts in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in which she may have matters pending and all clients of
her inability to provide further legal services, and provide the Director of the KBA with a
copy of all such letters. Notification must be furnished within ten (10) days from the
entry of this Opinion and Order.
(3) Respondent is further ordered to pay the costs associated with this
proceeding in the amount of $2,207.72, for which execution may issue upon finality of
this Opinion and Order.
Lambert, C .J . ; Cooper, Graves, Johnstone, Scott, and Wintersheimer, JJ .,
sitting . All concur .
Entered : June 16, 2005 .
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.
