TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2025-SC-0057-KB
IN RE: MICHAEL JOSEPH BEATTIE
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Joseph Beattie moves this Court to enter a negotiated sanction
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) to resolve a pending
disciplinary proceeding against him. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has
no objection. After consideration, we conclude that the proposed sanction is
inadequate. We note preliminarily that Beattie, KBA Member Number 100200,
was admitted to the practice of law on May 1, 2023. His bar roster address is
336 American Avenue, Lexington, KY 40503.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2024, Zachary Turner was charged with first-degree wanton
endangerment and possession of drug paraphernalia in Fayette County after he
pointed a loaded firearm at his girlfriend, Kyra Pennington. Turner was
arraigned and a bond was set at $5,000 cash. Public Defender Michael Joseph
Beattie was appointed to represent Turner.
A few days later Beattie met with Turner while he was incarcerated at the
Fayette County Detention Center. While discussing Turner’s bond and the
possibility of a bond reduction, Beattie asked Turner if he had a girlfriend and if that girlfriend was pregnant. Turner told Beattie that he had a girlfriend, but
she was not pregnant. Beattie then told Turner that for purposes of a favorable
bond outcome, it would be better if his girlfriend was pregnant. Turner then
told Beattie “maybe she is pregnant.”
At the preliminary hearing on April 11, 2024, Turner stipulated to
probable cause for the felony charge and waived the Grand Jury. Also at that
preliminary hearing, Beattie made a motion to reduce Turner’s bond because
Pennington, Turner’s girlfriend and the alleged victim on the wanton
endangerment charge, was in the courtroom and wanted Turner to be released
because she was pregnant and needed his assistance in making medical
appointments and preparing for the birth of their child. But Beattie knew that
Pennington was not pregnant. The court granted the motion and reduced
Turner’s bond to $5,000 at 10% with electronic monitoring, home arrest, work
release, court appearance, and allowed Turner to attend any of his girlfriend’s
medical appointments.
On June 17, 2024, Turner was charged with second-degree strangulation
and fourth-degree assault. The alleged victim in this case was also Pennington.
The Assistant Fayette County Attorney later reviewed recorded phone calls
between Turner and Pennington and discovered that Pennington was not
pregnant. On June 25, 2024, the Assistant Fayette County Attorney filed a
motion for bond revocation because the motion for bond reduction was made
using false representations. Additionally, Turner violated the terms of his bond
by acquiring new criminal charges.
2 The motion for bond revocation included an affidavit from Pennington
confirming that when she talked with Turner over the phone, he said he met
with his attorney and that she should say she was pregnant to help with his
bond. Pennington further declared that she was not pregnant and had never
been pregnant with Turner’s child. The court immediately revoked the
previous bond and set a new bond, issued a violation of conditions of release
warrant, and docketed the case for a preliminary hearing on June 27, 2024.
On that date, Beattie admitted to the Fayette District Court his previous
misrepresentation that Pennington was pregnant. The court held Beattie in
contempt and imposed a $500 fine, which Beattie paid on November 13, 2024.
The Inquiry Commission issued a two-count Charge against Beattie.
Count 1 alleges violation of SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), which provides that a lawyer
shall not knowingly “make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Count II alleges violation of SCR 3.130(8.4)(c), which provides that it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Beattie violated these rules by
falsely representing to the court that his client’s girlfriend was pregnant when
he knew she was not.
Beattie admits that he violated both these rules and proposes that this
Court impose a public reprimand. The KBA has no objection. Finding the
proposed sanction inadequate, we remand this case for further disciplinary
proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.480(2).
3 ANALYSIS
The KBA asserts that case law supports imposing a public reprimand.
We disagree. In Kentucky Bar Association v. Rye, 336 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2011),
the Court issued a public reprimand for attorney Rye’s violations of SCR
3.130(3.3)(a)(1) and 8.1(b). Rye represented a client in a child custody case
and informed the court that he was not aware his client was moving out of
state, when in fact he knew of his client’s intentions Id. Additionally, Rye told
Bar Counsel he had requested his client’s file from his former employer when
he had not, and he failed to respond to a letter from Bar Counsel requesting
information. Id. at 464.
While Rye likewise involves an attorney’s knowing misrepresentations to
a court, the stakes were much higher in this case. Turner’s case was a
criminal matter in which he was charged with pointing a loaded firearm at his
girlfriend. Turner’s bail was originally set at $5,000 cash. Beattie helped his
allegedly violent client develop a lie about the victim and used that lie to
orchestrate Turner’s release. The court reduced the bond to $5,000 at 10%
with monitoring, home arrest, work release, court appearance, and allowed
Turner to attend any of his girlfriend’s medical appointments. Despite the
conditions placed on Turner for his release, Beattie’s misrepresentation to the
court undermined its ability to fairly consider the factors for bail, including an
accurate assessment of the defendant’s “reasonably anticipated conduct if
released . . . .” Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 4.16. Beattie’s
overwhelmingly misleading statement defrauded the court as to the very facts it
4 needed to make the bail determination and plainly prejudiced the
administration of justice.
Moreover, Beattie’s conduct not only undermined the integrity of the
judicial proceedings but also unnecessarily placed a domestic violence victim at
serious risk of further abuse. Given the terms of Turner’s release, the trial
court clearly contemplated the need for Turner to assist his girlfriend
throughout her pregnancy. Had the trial court known that Turner’s girlfriend
was not in fact pregnant, the trial court may not have granted the requested
bond reduction. The lie by omission in Rye was relevant to the family court’s
determination of the impact of the client’s relocation in a child custody
proceeding. Here, Beattie’s blatant lie to the trial court was used to secure the
release of an allegedly dangerous individual, which posed a serious risk to the
public.
The other cases cited by the KBA involve the issuance of public
reprimands for deceptive conduct, but none of the instances rise to the grave
nature of the misconduct here. See Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Watts, 190 S.W.3d
922, 923 (Ky. 2006) (involving an attorney’s failure to include a client’s sexual
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2025-SC-0057-KB
IN RE: MICHAEL JOSEPH BEATTIE
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Joseph Beattie moves this Court to enter a negotiated sanction
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) to resolve a pending
disciplinary proceeding against him. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has
no objection. After consideration, we conclude that the proposed sanction is
inadequate. We note preliminarily that Beattie, KBA Member Number 100200,
was admitted to the practice of law on May 1, 2023. His bar roster address is
336 American Avenue, Lexington, KY 40503.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2024, Zachary Turner was charged with first-degree wanton
endangerment and possession of drug paraphernalia in Fayette County after he
pointed a loaded firearm at his girlfriend, Kyra Pennington. Turner was
arraigned and a bond was set at $5,000 cash. Public Defender Michael Joseph
Beattie was appointed to represent Turner.
A few days later Beattie met with Turner while he was incarcerated at the
Fayette County Detention Center. While discussing Turner’s bond and the
possibility of a bond reduction, Beattie asked Turner if he had a girlfriend and if that girlfriend was pregnant. Turner told Beattie that he had a girlfriend, but
she was not pregnant. Beattie then told Turner that for purposes of a favorable
bond outcome, it would be better if his girlfriend was pregnant. Turner then
told Beattie “maybe she is pregnant.”
At the preliminary hearing on April 11, 2024, Turner stipulated to
probable cause for the felony charge and waived the Grand Jury. Also at that
preliminary hearing, Beattie made a motion to reduce Turner’s bond because
Pennington, Turner’s girlfriend and the alleged victim on the wanton
endangerment charge, was in the courtroom and wanted Turner to be released
because she was pregnant and needed his assistance in making medical
appointments and preparing for the birth of their child. But Beattie knew that
Pennington was not pregnant. The court granted the motion and reduced
Turner’s bond to $5,000 at 10% with electronic monitoring, home arrest, work
release, court appearance, and allowed Turner to attend any of his girlfriend’s
medical appointments.
On June 17, 2024, Turner was charged with second-degree strangulation
and fourth-degree assault. The alleged victim in this case was also Pennington.
The Assistant Fayette County Attorney later reviewed recorded phone calls
between Turner and Pennington and discovered that Pennington was not
pregnant. On June 25, 2024, the Assistant Fayette County Attorney filed a
motion for bond revocation because the motion for bond reduction was made
using false representations. Additionally, Turner violated the terms of his bond
by acquiring new criminal charges.
2 The motion for bond revocation included an affidavit from Pennington
confirming that when she talked with Turner over the phone, he said he met
with his attorney and that she should say she was pregnant to help with his
bond. Pennington further declared that she was not pregnant and had never
been pregnant with Turner’s child. The court immediately revoked the
previous bond and set a new bond, issued a violation of conditions of release
warrant, and docketed the case for a preliminary hearing on June 27, 2024.
On that date, Beattie admitted to the Fayette District Court his previous
misrepresentation that Pennington was pregnant. The court held Beattie in
contempt and imposed a $500 fine, which Beattie paid on November 13, 2024.
The Inquiry Commission issued a two-count Charge against Beattie.
Count 1 alleges violation of SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), which provides that a lawyer
shall not knowingly “make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Count II alleges violation of SCR 3.130(8.4)(c), which provides that it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Beattie violated these rules by
falsely representing to the court that his client’s girlfriend was pregnant when
he knew she was not.
Beattie admits that he violated both these rules and proposes that this
Court impose a public reprimand. The KBA has no objection. Finding the
proposed sanction inadequate, we remand this case for further disciplinary
proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.480(2).
3 ANALYSIS
The KBA asserts that case law supports imposing a public reprimand.
We disagree. In Kentucky Bar Association v. Rye, 336 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2011),
the Court issued a public reprimand for attorney Rye’s violations of SCR
3.130(3.3)(a)(1) and 8.1(b). Rye represented a client in a child custody case
and informed the court that he was not aware his client was moving out of
state, when in fact he knew of his client’s intentions Id. Additionally, Rye told
Bar Counsel he had requested his client’s file from his former employer when
he had not, and he failed to respond to a letter from Bar Counsel requesting
information. Id. at 464.
While Rye likewise involves an attorney’s knowing misrepresentations to
a court, the stakes were much higher in this case. Turner’s case was a
criminal matter in which he was charged with pointing a loaded firearm at his
girlfriend. Turner’s bail was originally set at $5,000 cash. Beattie helped his
allegedly violent client develop a lie about the victim and used that lie to
orchestrate Turner’s release. The court reduced the bond to $5,000 at 10%
with monitoring, home arrest, work release, court appearance, and allowed
Turner to attend any of his girlfriend’s medical appointments. Despite the
conditions placed on Turner for his release, Beattie’s misrepresentation to the
court undermined its ability to fairly consider the factors for bail, including an
accurate assessment of the defendant’s “reasonably anticipated conduct if
released . . . .” Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 4.16. Beattie’s
overwhelmingly misleading statement defrauded the court as to the very facts it
4 needed to make the bail determination and plainly prejudiced the
administration of justice.
Moreover, Beattie’s conduct not only undermined the integrity of the
judicial proceedings but also unnecessarily placed a domestic violence victim at
serious risk of further abuse. Given the terms of Turner’s release, the trial
court clearly contemplated the need for Turner to assist his girlfriend
throughout her pregnancy. Had the trial court known that Turner’s girlfriend
was not in fact pregnant, the trial court may not have granted the requested
bond reduction. The lie by omission in Rye was relevant to the family court’s
determination of the impact of the client’s relocation in a child custody
proceeding. Here, Beattie’s blatant lie to the trial court was used to secure the
release of an allegedly dangerous individual, which posed a serious risk to the
public.
The other cases cited by the KBA involve the issuance of public
reprimands for deceptive conduct, but none of the instances rise to the grave
nature of the misconduct here. See Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Watts, 190 S.W.3d
922, 923 (Ky. 2006) (involving an attorney’s failure to include a client’s sexual
harassment suit against a former employer and award of social security
benefits on a bankruptcy petition); Kirk v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 638 S.W.3d 412
(Ky. 2021) (involving attorney Kirk who continued to employ an attorney as a
paralegal despite that attorney having been suspended from the practice of
law).
5 The above cases involve misrepresentation by omission, which is plainly
distinct from devising a lie to present to a court. The attorneys in those cases
knew information and either disregarded it or intentionally failed to reveal that
information to a tribunal. Contrarily, Beattie invented facts in his
misrepresentation to the court. The grave and dangerous nature of Turner’s
conduct cannot be overlooked. After being released on bond for a dangerous
domestic offense against his girlfriend, Turner subsequently allegedly strangled
that same victim—crimes that may not have happened but for Beattie’s
misrepresentations that undoubtedly contributed to the court’s decision to
reduce Turner’s bond. Additionally, Beattie brought Turner’s girlfriend into his
scheme of making a misrepresentation to the court. This is especially
troublesome given the nature of Turner’s criminal cases – domestic violence –
and the dynamic that exists between many perpetrators and victims in these
kinds of instances.
The KBA points out that, in mitigation, Beattie has no prior discipline,
and had only been licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth for
approximately eleven months when his misconduct occurred. But we briefly
note that several aggravating factors are present here. 1 Beattie displayed a
dishonest motive, violated multiple rules, and made false statements to the
court. He also used deceptive practices in getting Turner’s bond reduced. We
also recognize that Pennington ultimately became a victim of Beattie’s
1 American Bar Association, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed.
2019). 6 misconduct given the subsequent abuse she allegedly suffered at the hands of
Turner.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reject the proposed discipline.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Michael Joseph Beattie’s motion for this Court to impose a public
reprimand is denied.
2. Beattie’s KBA file shall be remanded to the KBA for further
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.480(2). In the event
Beattie and Bar Counsel fail to reach a different proposal for
consensual discipline within ninety days after the date of this order,
the matter shall proceed as a contested matter in accordance with the
Supreme Court Rules and any subsequent orders of this Court.
All sitting. Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, Keller, and Nickell, JJ., concur.
Lambert, C.J.; dissents by separate opinion in which Thompson, J., joins.
LAMBERT, C.J.; DISSENTS: Because the recommended sanction is
consistent with our precedent in similar cases, I would grant Beattie’s
requested sanction of a public reprimand and thus, dissent.
The majority distinguishes Kentucky Bar Association v. Rye, 336 S.W.3d
462 (Ky. 2011) from the case at bar due to the ramifications of Beattie’s
dishonesty—namely, that due to Beattie’s misrepresentation to the district
court, Mr. Turner was released on reduced bond and subsequently acquired
new charges of strangulation and domestic violence involving his girlfriend.
7 However, I believe that the facts in Rye support granting Beattie’s requested
sanction.
Rye was an attorney who was representing his client, Plank, in a child
custody case involving her daughter. Id. at 463. While the custody case was
still pending, Plank asked Rye multiple times about moving out of state with
her daughter. Id. Rye advised Plank that the move would not pose any
problems in her pending custody case. Id.
Following [Rye’s] advice, still before any formal adjudication of custody, Plank moved with her daughter to Iowa. Soon thereafter, Plank's ex-husband filed an emergency motion for temporary custody due to Plank's removing their daughter from the state without any notice. Ultimately, the court granted not only temporary, but permanent custody to the ex-husband.
Id. Plank’s custody case was appealed through to this Court, where it was
ultimately determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
held that Plank’s relocation “weighed in favor of vesting custody in her former
husband.” Id. at 464.
The Trial Commissioner determined that had Rye committed three
different acts of misconduct throughout his representation of Plank that
resulted in violations of two rules of professional conduct: he violated SCR
3.130(3.3)(a)(1) and (2) by knowingly and falsely telling the court that he was
unaware that his client had moved back to Iowa when he was, in fact, aware;
he violated SCR 3.130(8.1)(a) when he informed the Office of Bar Counsel that
he was attempting to obtain his client’s file from his former employer, when he
had not actually taken the requisite steps to complete that action; and he
8 violated SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) when he failed to respond to a letter from the Office
of Bar Counsel informing “him of his obligation to respond to a demand for
information.” 2 Rye, 336 S.W.3d at 464. Despite committing three acts of
misconduct that resulted in violations of two professional conduct rules, this
Court adopted the Trial Commissioner’s recommended disciplinary action and
determined that a public reprimand was appropriate “in light of these
violations.” Id.
In the present case, Beattie has only committed one act of misconduct—
he purposely misrepresented Pennington’s pregnancy status to the court in
order to obtain a favorable bond reduction for his client. However, the majority
notes several aggravating factors in support of its denial of Beattie’s requested
sanction of a public reprimand. It specifically points to Beattie’s dishonest
motive, his violation of multiple professional conduct rules, and the false
statements he presented to the court. But those same aggravating factors were
present in Rye when the attorney violated multiple professional rules of
conduct and made multiple misrepresentations to the court and Office of Bar
Counsel. Id. at 463-64.
2 The Trial Commissioner also determined Rye had violated SCR 3.130(1.1)
when he advised his client that she could move out of state while having a pending custody case. Id. The Court concluded that Rye’s advice was incorrect, but it was not incompetent. Id. at 464. Rye’s advice to Plank regarding moving out of state while her custody case was still pending was supported by prior law, and only because that law was overturned did Rye’s advice become incorrect. See Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003) (overruled on the grounds that the Court had erroneously applied the serious endangerment modification of custody standard to the initial custody determination, when the best interest of the child standard should have applied).
9 The majority also distinguishes two of the cases cited by the KBA,
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Watts, 190 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2006) and Kirk v. Kentucky
Bar Ass’n, 638 S.W.3d 412 (Ky. 2021), from Beattie’s case based on the fact
that those cases involved “misrepresentation by omission.” Watts involved an
attorney who failed to include his client’s award of social security benefits and
civil lawsuit in a petition for bankruptcy. Watts, 190 S.W.3d at 923-24. Kirk
involved an attorney who continued to employ another attorney as a paralegal
after she was suspended from practicing law. Kirk, 638 S.W.3d at 413. When
questioned about the attorney’s employment status, Kirk informed the Inquiry
Commission that he no longer had a professional relationship with her. Id.
Both attorneys in Watts and Kirk received public reprimands for their deceptive
conduct.
Although the attorneys in Watts and Kirk either disregarded certain
information or failed to apprise the forum they were appearing before of
information they knew—they did not fabricate information—that does not
distinguish those attorneys from Beattie. All three attorneys acted
deceptively—a lie used to affect the outcome of a case is no worse, or better
than an omission used to affect the outcome of a case. Accordingly, neither
Watts nor Kirk is distinguishable from Beattie’s case.
Furthermore, the Office of Bar Counsel agrees with Beattie’s requested
sanction and points to several mitigating factors in support of its decision.
Beattie has only been licensed to practice law in Kentucky since May 1, 2023;
he has had no disciplinary actions prior to the current proceeding; and he has
10 been cooperative in the disciplinary process. For the foregoing reasons, I
maintain that Rye supports Beattie’s requested sanction, and I find the
mitigating factors presented by the Office of Bar Counsel to be compelling.
Therefore, I would grant Beattie’s requested sanction of a public reprimand.
Thompson, J. joins.
ENTERED: April 25, 2025
__________________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE