The Bench & Bar magazine is published to provide members of the KBA with information that will increase their knowledge of the law, improve the practice of law, and assist in improving the quality of legal services for the citizenry.
Issue link: https://kentuckybenchandbar.epubxp.com/i/546018
any actual impropriety on the part of MGM. Instead, the trial judge c oncluded that disqualification of MGM was required based on the appearance of impropriety standard set forth in Lovell. A writ action was then filed in the Court of Appeals, which denied the writ be- c ause irreparable injury had not been shown. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Writing for the Court this year, Justice Mary Noble noted that the trial judge was simply following the precedent of Lovell. Nonethe- less, the Court concluded that a disqualification based on an ap- pearance of impropriety was inappropriate under the existing rules of professional conduct and rejected outright the appearance of impropriety standard in disqualification cases. The court wrote "dis- qualification under that standard is 'little more than a question of subjective judgment by the former client.' " Impropriety is unde- fined, the Court stated, and appearance of impropriety begs the question. There should be something more substantive than just a possible conflict before disqualification takes place. The Court went on to state: "Before any lawyer is disqualified based on a relation- ship with a former client or existing clients, the complaining party should be required to show an actual conflict, not just a vague and possibly deceiving appearance of impropriety. And that conflict should be established with facts, not just vague assertions of dis- comfort with the representation." Striking another lethal wound to the "appearance of impropriety" standard, the Court noted that it is no longer part of the rules of professional conduct and is simply inadequate to address the inter- ests involved in a conflict analysis. "To the extent that Lovell and the other cases have approved the appearance of impropriety stan- dard, they are overruled." Trial courts were directed to find an actu- al conflict of interest according to the rules before disqualifying counsel. Trial courts must hold an evidentiary hearing and find that an actual conflict exists, stating on the record what the conflict is, before disqualifying counsel. The Supreme Court issued a writ stay- ing the disqualification and sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether or not an actual conflict existed. Marcum v. Scorsone, 457 S.W. 3d 710 (Ky. 2015). The Kentucky Supreme Court has finally retired the concept of the "appearance of impropriety" in disqualification matters based on perceived conflicts of interest. The "appearance of impropriety" should no longer be used in any way as a standard of attorney con- duct in the context of attorney discipline matters. But does the ap- pearance standard still have some use after Marcum? The Rules of Professional Conduct define what is minimally accept- able conduct by Kentucky attorneys. Given the fact that fewer than one percent of licensed Kentucky attorneys at any given time are faced with allegations of misconduct, it is safe to conclude that most do not practice around the edges of acceptable behavior. There is a difference between what attorneys are permitted to do and what attorneys should do in given situations. What is legal is not always right and what is right is not always legal. Certainly the "appearance of impropriety" is a tool that attorneys can use in de- ciding for themselves whether or not to take a particular action or to get involved in a particular situation. It is useful in that as a part of jurisprudence, there are older recorded cases that can be used to assist counsel in making difficult decisions that don't necessarily approach a rules violation. Cautious counsel would be wise to keep this concept in the back of the head for use when necessary. To reduce the "appearance of impropriety" concept to its simplest terms, when in doubt, don't. Thomas L. Rouse maintains a solo practice in Er- langer, Ky., and was admitted to the Kentucky Bar in 1978. He served as president of the KBA in 2013-2014, on the Board of Governors for 10 years, Aand was an original member of the KBA Ethics Hotline, serving for 15 years. He is a member of the KY Supreme Court Rules Committee. Rouse graduated from the University of Kentucky College of Law and the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science. He also served as Erlanger's mayor for eight years and 13 years on its City Council. 33 B&B; • 7.15