In Re: Darren Craig Lamb

• Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 2025-SC-0039
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky 2025-SC-0039-KB

IN RE: DARREN CRAIG LAMB

IN SUPREME COURT

OPINION & ORDER

This case is before the Court upon the Office of Bar Counsel’s (OBC)

Motion for Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.435.

Darren Craig Lamb has been publicly censured by the Supreme Court of

Tennessee. His bar number in Kentucky is 99443, and his listed address is

2655 Butterworth Road, Murray, KY 42071. In February 2025, this Court

issued a show cause order to Lamb, requiring him to file a response within

twenty days of receiving said order and explaining why reciprocal discipline

should not be imposed. Lamb has not responded. SCR 3.435(4) requires

reciprocal discipline be imposed unless the attorney can demonstrate either

lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state proceeding, or the misconduct

warrants substantially different punishment in Kentucky. Lamb having failed

to do either, OBC’s motion is granted.

“SCR 3.435 applies to those situations where members of the KBA have

been sanctioned for ethical violations in other states.” Kentucky Bar Ass’n v.

Calloway, 224 S.W.3d 585, 586 (Ky. 2007). “[T]he rule requires us to recognize

that a final adjudication of misconduct in another jurisdiction establishes conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in

Kentucky.” Id.

On January 8, 2025, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the

Supreme Court of Tennessee imposed a public censure upon Lamb for

violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to

others), 8.4(b) (criminal conduct), 8.4(c) (dishonesty), 8.4(d) (conduct

prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (violation of a court

order). The underlying facts are that a former romantic partner of Lamb ended

their relationship and obtained a temporary order of protection from him. Lamb

repeatedly made contact with the complainant despite the protective order. In

one instance, Lamb downloaded a civil warrant form from the General Sessions

Court (a court in Tennessee analogous to our District Court) and posted it to

the complainant’s door. Lamb filled out the civil warrant form, including the

portion reserved for the court clerk and listing an initial court hearing date, to

give the false impression that he had filed suit against the complainant for

repayment of a personal loan. Lamb was then charged for harassment,

stalking, and contempt. He pleaded no contest and was granted judicial

diversion.

Tennessee’s rule 4.1 has its counterpart in SCR 3.130(4.1)(a). 1 This rule

is applicable as Lamb, in posting the false civil warrant, made it appear as if he

was representing himself in a civil matter against the complainant. Tennessee’s

1 “In the course of representing a client a lawyer: (a) shall not knowingly make a

false statement of material fact or law to a third person[.]”

2 8.4(b) and (c) are mirrored in SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) 2 and (c). 3 These rules are

applicable as Lamb pleaded no contest to several criminal charges including

harassment, stalking, and contempt. A plea of no contest is the equivalent of a

conviction under our Rules. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Taylor, 549 S.W.2d 508, 509

n.1 (Ky. 1976). There is no counterpart in Kentucky to Tennessee’s rule 8.4(d).

Finally, OBC contends the counterpart to Tennessee’s rule 8.4(g) is SCR

3.130(3.4)(c). 4

We are not so sure that is the appropriate rule in this context. SCR

3.130(3.4)(c) is oriented to trial conduct. Despite this, the rule has been used to

justify discipline for non-trial conduct. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 499

S.W.3d 280, 281-82 (Ky. 2016) (sustaining violation for failure to comply with

KYLAP conditions); Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. James, 575 S.W.3d 687, 692 (Ky.

2019) (sustaining violation for failure to comply with provisions of

reinstatement to the practice of law in Indiana). Typically, however, violations

of protective orders are criminal offenses. KRS 403.763. Thus, violations of

protective orders are better treated under our rules as violations of SCR

3.130(8.4)(b). Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Colston, 54 S.W.3d 158, 158-59 (Ky. 2001)

(public reprimand and suspended six-month probation for convictions of

2 It is professional misconduct to “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely

on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects[.]” 3 It is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]” 4 “A lawyer shall not: knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a

tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists[.]”

3 sending harassing communications and violation of a protective order); 5 see

also Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Davis, 819 S.W.2d 317 (Ky. 1991) (public reprimand

for lawyer convicted of Class B misdemeanor of sending harassing

communications).

Given Lamb’s failure to respond to our show cause order, and based on

Colston and Davis, we conclude public reprimand is a suitable discipline in this

case.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Darren Craig Lamb is adjudicated guilty of unprofessional conduct

based on the facts set out above.

2. Darren Craig Lamb is Publicly Reprimanded for his conduct.

3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Darren Craig Lamb shall pay all costs

associated with these disciplinary proceedings, for which execution may issue

from this Court upon finality of this Order.

All sitting. All concur.

ENTERED: September 18, 2025

__________________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE

5 Colston is the only case we can find imposing discipline specifically for

violation of a protective order. 4