JACQUELINE L. CHAUVIN V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2007-SC-000399-KB
JACQUELINE L. CHAUVIN
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, Jacqueline L. Chauvin, pursuant to SCR 3 .480(2), moves this Court to
enter an Order suspending her license to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for sixty-one days, with thirty days to serve and thirty-one days probated for
two years, subject to certain conditions . Movant was admitted to the practice of law in
October of 1993. Her KBA Member Number is 85883 and her Bar Roster Address is
4023 Elmwood Ave, Louisville, Kentucky 40207 . The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA)
states that it has no objection to the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is
granted .
The Charge brought against Movant stems from her representation of Dennis
Dempsey. In 1997, Dempsey was indicted by a federal grand jury in Illinois . He was
arrested in Louisville, Kentucky in early 1998. At that time, he hired Scott Cox to
represent him in proceedings related to the criminal case in Louisville . To cover the
cost of the representation, Dempsey had $10,000 in cash delivered to Cox by a friend
named Cynthia Lega. Cox ultimately took a $4,000 fee from the cash that had been
entrusted to him .
Movant's first contact with Dempsey occurred around the time that Scott Cox's
representation ended .
Movant had been representing Cynthia Lega, who referred
Dempsey to Movant and communicated with Movant on his behalf. Movant claims she
was asked to obtain and hold the remaining $6,000 in cash from Scott Cox and then to
suggest the name of an attorney in Illinois to represent him in the remaining criminal
proceedings . Movant collected the money and recommended an attorney from
Chicago . Dempsey asked that Movant not forward the money to the recommended
attorney, apparently having opted not to employ him, and that she continue holding the
cash . Movant did so, keeping the cash in her office safe. Dempsey eventually entered
into a plea agreement and was sentenced to twenty years in prison in 1999.
On January 4, 2002, Dempsey contacted Movant by letter asking that she
represent him in a real estate dispute . She conducted some preliminary legal research
on the matter and attempted to contact Dempsey's brother, who had called on behalf of
Dempsey . The record contains a letter sent by Movant to Dempsey in March 2002 in
which she stated, "I regret the misunderstanding which caused you to file a complaint
with the Kentucky Bar Association ." It is not clear from the record that a bar complaint
was actually filed, or if one was, whether it was the one that eventually led to the current
Charge against Movant . From the content of the letter, it appears that any complaint
stemmed from Movant's lack of contact with Dempsey or his brother. The letter also
indicated that Movant was willing to continue representing Dempsey in the real estate
dispute . Dempsey replied with a letter of his own in which he stated, "I too regret our
misunderstanding." The letter also included the following: "Shall we call the $6,000 a
retainer and proceed from there?"
Movant subsequently asked Dempsey to provide documents related to the real
estate matter, which he did. By late summer 2002, Movant was ready to file a civil
complaint concerning the real estate . On August 12, 2002, she sent Dempsey a letter
in which she outlined the nature of her proposed continuing representation, including
the filing of the suit, and her fee, which was to be a flat $6,000 . In the letter, she asked
Dempsey to sign and return a copy to memorialize their agreement about the
representation . Dempsey, however, did not respond to the letter, and Movant did no
further work on the real estate matter .
In April 2003, Dempsey sent Movant a letter expressing dissatisfaction over the
fact that it had been over a year since Movant had said she would proceed with the real
estate matter. He also stated, "I realize it was rather naive of me to expect much from
someone I had to file a complaint on just to receive a response to my letters and calls ."
He ended the letter by requesting the return of his $6,000 plus interest for the five years
in which Movant held the money.
Movant did not respond directly to Dempsey's letter . Instead, she had her own
attorney send a letter indicating that her lack of further action on the real estate matter
was the result of Dempsey's failure to respond to the August 12 letter. The letter also
stated that if Dempsey felt he was entitled to reimbursement of any of the $6,000, then
Movant would be willing to participate in the KBA's Fee Arbitration process to resolve
the matter.
This sequence of events led to the issuance of a Charge (and subsequent
Amended Charge) against Movant. The Charge as amended alleged four counts of
professional misconduct by Movant: (1) a violation of SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) for failing to
return the unearned fee to the client ; (2) a violation of SCR 3.130-1 .15(a) for keeping
property belonging to a client in an office safe rather than a separate bank account; (3)
a violation of SCR 3.130-1 .15(b), also for failing to return the unearned fee to the client
upon request ; and (4) a violation of SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) for obtaining the $6,000 in cash
from Scott Cox without Dempsey's authorization .
Movant responded to the Charge and Amended Charge essentially by arguing
that it did not accurately reflect the entirety of the events that transpired . She
specifically objected to the fourth count, claiming that she acted with express
authorization from Dempsey when she obtained the cash from Scott Cox.
The Charge was assigned to a trial commissioner, who proceeded with pre-trial
matters and set trial for October 30, 2006. It is not clear from the record whether the
trial was held . However, it appears that Movant entered into, and successfully
completed, negotiations with Bar Counsel to dispose of the Charge because she
subsequently filed a Verified Motion for Consensual Discipline pursuant to SCR
3.480(2).
In the motion, Movant admits that her conduct concerning the cash and her
representation of Dempsey constituted misconduct. Based on this admission, she
admits the ethical violations described in Counts I - III in the Amended charge .
However, Movant continues to deny that she acted without authorization in obtaining the
cash as described in Count IV. The motion requests that Movant's license to practice
law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky be suspended for sixty-one days, with thirty days
to serve and thirty-one days probated for two years . The probation is conditioned upon
return of the funds to Dempsey, Movant's attendance at remedial ethics education
(which do not count toward her CLE requirements), and periodic reports to the KBA on
Movant's progress in completing the remedial ethics education . Movant also asks that
Count IV of the Amended Charge be dismissed .
The negotiated sanction rule provides that the KBA may "objectp to the terms
proposed . . . ." SCR 3.480(2) . Upon receiving such objection, "if the Court determines
good cause exists, [it] shall remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified
in the order of remand ." Id . However, the KBA has stated that it has no objection to the
sanction proposed by Movant.
Nevertheless, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction still falls within the
discretion of the Court: "The Court may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties,
or may remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of
remand ." Id . The discipline proposed by Movant being adequate, the Court hereby
approves it and therefore declines further review of the matter.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Jacqueline L. Chauvin is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for sixty-one days, thirty days of which is to be served and
thirty-one days of which is probated for two years subject to the following conditions :
(a) Return of the $6,000 .00 in client funds to Dennis Dempsey within sixty
days.
(b) Completion of ten hours of remedial ethics education within the twoyear probation period .
(c) The remedial ethics education requirement must be satisfied by
Movant's personal attendance at live continuing legal education or adult
education programs approved by the KBA Office of Bar Counsel, or such
formal ethics and professional enhancement program as may be established
by the Office of Bar Counsel at the KBA; if so directed by that office, and must
be appropriate for the remedial education of Movant regarding her ethical
obligation to clients, third parties, and the public.
(d) Movant will not apply for CLE credit of any kind for the remedial
hours, even if the courses she attends are approved for CLE in Kentucky.
Movant will furnish a release and waiver to the Office of Bar Counsel to
review her records in the CLE department that might otherwise be
confidential, with such release to continue in effect until one year after she
completes her remedial education, to allow the Office of Bar Counsel to verify
that she has not reported any hours to the CLE Commission that are taken as
remedial education .
(e) Movant will report to the KBA every ninety days concerning her
progress in satisfying her remedial ethics education obligation . In the event
that Movant fails to comply with any of the terms of discipline contained
herein, upon motion by the KBA Office of Bar Counsel, the Court may issue
an order imposing the remainder of Movant's suspension .
(2) Count IV of the Amended Charge is dismissed .
(3) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Movant is directed to pay all costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings against her, said sum being $138.99, for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting . Lambert, C.J . ; Cunningham, Minton, Noble, Schroder and Scott, JJ.,
concur.
ENTERED: August 23, 2007.
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.