On Thursday, September 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of Kentucky publicly reprimanded attorney James Edward Davis for violating ethical rules during a client meeting.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of James Edward Davis,” with case no. 2024-SC-0227-KB.
The case stems from a September 2022 hearing held by a Special Commissioner reviewing accusations against Ronnie Goldy, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 21st Judicial Circuit. Goldy was accused of improper communications with a woman, Misty Helton, in exchange for prosecutorial assistance.
During the hearing, testimony revealed that while Helton was in custody on other charges, Davis visited her in July 2022 on behalf of his client Goldy. Davis brought an affidavit for Helton to sign containing numerous statements purporting to come from Helto. However, Helton did not sign the affidavit. Davis visited Helton at the Rowan County Detention Center to discuss the affidavit.
During their conversation, Davis did not make clear that he was representing Goldy’s interests rather than Helton’s. He also suggested Helton could face liability depending on what she signed. Davis recorded the conversation without Helton’s knowledge or consent.
The Inquiry Commission later filed a three-count charge against Davis. Count One accused him of violating Rule 3.130(4.3) by providing potential legal advice to an unrepresented person during their discussion of the affidavit. Count two alleged a violation of Rule 3.130(8.4)(c) through Davis’ secret recording of Helton. Count three charged a violation of Rule 3.130(4.4)(a) which provides that a lawyer shall not use methods of obtaining evidence that violates the legal rights of a person.
Davis acknowledged violating Rule 4.3 but denied the allegations in Count Two. The KBA did not object to dismissing Count Two and the Court agreed. Davis also admitted to violating Rule 4.4(a). However, the Court dismissed Count Three as well, finding Davis’ recording was permitted by state law and thus did not violate that rule.
The Court analyzed precedents from Kentucky and Ohio to determine the appropriate sanction. It noted Davis’ violations were much less severe than those in the only prior Kentucky case involving Rule 4.3. A similar Ohio case resulted in a public reprimand.
Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court found Davis’ years of experience in practice to be an aggravator, while his clean record prior was a mitigator. It concluded a public reprimand was warranted. However, Chief Justice VanMeter dissented in part, believing Davis’ secret recording did violate another rule.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Kentucky publicly reprimanded Davis and ordered him to pay costs. It directed him to attend ethics training separate from other requirements. But it dismissed two of the charges, finding no rules violations from Davis’ recording.
According to kybar.org, Mr. Davis acquired his law license in Kentucky in 2004.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
