TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2023-SC-0555-KB
NICHOLAS SCOTT CALMES MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT V.
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
AND
2025-SC-0313-KB
IN RE: NICHOLAS SCOTT CALMES
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Nicholas Scott Calmes 1 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. Calmes proposes a 181-day suspension,
with 50 days to serve and the balance probated for two years, subject to
conditions. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no objection. After
1 Calmes, KBA Member Number 96187, was admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth on October 17, 2014. His bar roster address is 181 General Cleburne Drive, Richmond, Kentucky 40475. review, we conclude that the proposed sanction is adequate, however the
sanction will run consecutively to the sanction hereby imposed for Calmes’
violation of a probation condition in a separate 2024 disciplinary matter.
BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2024, Calmes filed a motion in two Jackson County
Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse (DNA) cases on behalf of his client, the mother
of the two children involved. Calmes noticed the motion to be heard less than
twenty-four hours later in a different county, Clay County. The Bar
Complainants, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for both children
and the Jackson County Attorney whose office was prosecuting the two DNA
cases, reported never having received the motion in the mail, despite Calmes’
certificate of service attesting to such. Calmes did not email the motion to
counsel or other relevant parties, nor were the pleadings successfully delivered
by e-filing. Instead, Complainants reported that they only became aware of the
filing because Calmes’ client notified the children’s case workers they had court
the next day. This news then made its way to the attorney for the Cabinet for
Health and Family Services, the GAL, and the County Attorney.
In addition to the problems relevant to serving the parties, Calmes’
motion included a declaration that “the Commonwealth and the Defense have
reached an agreed order of dismissal.” Though Calmes was hopeful the parties
were near reaching an agreement, he knew at the time of submitting the
motion that no formal agreement had been reached. Calmes also tendered an
Agreed Order of Dismissal with his motion that was only signed by him and
2 included very specific terms related to the ongoing litigation. The Jackson
County Attorney’s office was adamant that they did not have a formal
agreement with Calmes or his client, and certainly not with the variety of terms
and conditions outlined in the tendered Agreed Order of Dismissal.
After Calmes responded to the initial Bar Complaint, on March 6, 2025,
the Inquiry Commission issued a three-count Charge containing the following
allegations: Count I alleged violation of SCR3.130(1.1) concerning lack of
competent representation related to the problems Calmes had in getting his
motion successfully served to the relevant parties; Count II alleged violation of
SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), claiming Calmes violated this rule when his motion
contained a false statement that the parties involved had agreed to a
resolution, and tendering an Agreed Order of Dismissal memorializing that
resolution; and Count III alleged violation of SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) for Calmes’
dishonest and misrepresented statements made in conjunction with his motion
and the tendered Agreed Order of Dismissal.
Calmes admits the violations in Counts II and III, but denies the
allegations in Count I. As to Count II, Calmes asserts that he believed he and
the County Attorney involved in the litigation had meaningful discussions and
were very close to terms of an agreement to resolve the matters. Nonetheless,
he acknowledges that tendering the Agreed Order of Dismissal was premature,
as the parties had not yet finalized any type of formal agreement, rendering his
statement to the court declaring such an agreement false. In acknowledging
his violation as to Count III of the Charge, Calmes states he misrepresented to
3 the court the true nature of any sort of agreement between the parties. Calmes
asserts that he was doing what he believed was in the best interest of his client
but is remorseful for the problems his motion caused.
To resolve this disciplinary matter, Calmes proposes a 181-day
suspension, with 50 days to serve, with the balance of the suspension probated
for two years with conditions. The KBA has no objection to this proposed
sanction.
Calmes also specifically requests that this suspension run concurrent to
any discipline imposed in a separate 2024 disciplinary matter. On February
15, 2024, this Court accepted a proposed negotiated sanction to resolve two
pending disciplinary matters against Calmes. Calmes v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 686
S.W.3d 189 (Ky. 2024). The Court imposed a thirty-day suspension, probated
for two years, with conditions. Id. at 192. One of the conditions was that
Calmes would not have any other disciplinary charges filed against him. Id.
Because the misconduct precipitating the present complaint occurred on
October 30, 2024, with the Charge filed by the Inquiry Commission on March
6, 2025, Calmes violated a condition of his probated suspension in the 2024
disciplinary matter.
As a result of the current pending disciplinary matter, the KBA filed a
Motion to Show Cause in this Court because Calmes failed to comply with the
terms of his probation. This Court issued a Show Cause Order on July 14,
2025, directing Calmes to show cause as to why his disciplinary probation
should not be revoked and his thirty-day suspension imposed. In response to
4 that Order, Calmes admitted that he made honest mistakes in handling the
custody matter, and recognized the higher standards he is held to as an
attorney. In accepting responsibility for violating the terms of his February
2024 suspension, Calmes requested that the thirty-day suspension run
concurrently to the proposed fifty-day suspension in the present disciplinary
matter. We consider both the proposed sanction in the current disciplinary
matter as well as Calmes’ request that any imposed suspension be served
concurrently to any suspension imposed in the 2024 disciplinary matter.
ANALYSIS
The negotiated sanction rule provides that “[t]he Court may consider
negotiated sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges” if
the parties agree. SCR 3.480(2). Upon receiving a motion under this Rule,
“[t]he 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.
Thus, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction falls within the
discretion of this Court.
Case law supports the imposition of the sanction Calmes proposes. In
Sullivan v. Kentucky Bar Association, 635 S.W.3d 543 (Ky. 2021), attorney
Sullivan was charged with multiple counts of violating her duty of diligence,
making a false statement to a tribunal, failing to respond to a disciplinary
authority, and failing to communicate with her client. These charges spanned
three disciplinary case files, and attorney Sullivan had a lengthy disciplinary
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2023-SC-0555-KB
NICHOLAS SCOTT CALMES MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT V.
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
AND
2025-SC-0313-KB
IN RE: NICHOLAS SCOTT CALMES
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Nicholas Scott Calmes 1 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. Calmes proposes a 181-day suspension,
with 50 days to serve and the balance probated for two years, subject to
conditions. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no objection. After
1 Calmes, KBA Member Number 96187, was admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth on October 17, 2014. His bar roster address is 181 General Cleburne Drive, Richmond, Kentucky 40475. review, we conclude that the proposed sanction is adequate, however the
sanction will run consecutively to the sanction hereby imposed for Calmes’
violation of a probation condition in a separate 2024 disciplinary matter.
BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2024, Calmes filed a motion in two Jackson County
Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse (DNA) cases on behalf of his client, the mother
of the two children involved. Calmes noticed the motion to be heard less than
twenty-four hours later in a different county, Clay County. The Bar
Complainants, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for both children
and the Jackson County Attorney whose office was prosecuting the two DNA
cases, reported never having received the motion in the mail, despite Calmes’
certificate of service attesting to such. Calmes did not email the motion to
counsel or other relevant parties, nor were the pleadings successfully delivered
by e-filing. Instead, Complainants reported that they only became aware of the
filing because Calmes’ client notified the children’s case workers they had court
the next day. This news then made its way to the attorney for the Cabinet for
Health and Family Services, the GAL, and the County Attorney.
In addition to the problems relevant to serving the parties, Calmes’
motion included a declaration that “the Commonwealth and the Defense have
reached an agreed order of dismissal.” Though Calmes was hopeful the parties
were near reaching an agreement, he knew at the time of submitting the
motion that no formal agreement had been reached. Calmes also tendered an
Agreed Order of Dismissal with his motion that was only signed by him and
2 included very specific terms related to the ongoing litigation. The Jackson
County Attorney’s office was adamant that they did not have a formal
agreement with Calmes or his client, and certainly not with the variety of terms
and conditions outlined in the tendered Agreed Order of Dismissal.
After Calmes responded to the initial Bar Complaint, on March 6, 2025,
the Inquiry Commission issued a three-count Charge containing the following
allegations: Count I alleged violation of SCR3.130(1.1) concerning lack of
competent representation related to the problems Calmes had in getting his
motion successfully served to the relevant parties; Count II alleged violation of
SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), claiming Calmes violated this rule when his motion
contained a false statement that the parties involved had agreed to a
resolution, and tendering an Agreed Order of Dismissal memorializing that
resolution; and Count III alleged violation of SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) for Calmes’
dishonest and misrepresented statements made in conjunction with his motion
and the tendered Agreed Order of Dismissal.
Calmes admits the violations in Counts II and III, but denies the
allegations in Count I. As to Count II, Calmes asserts that he believed he and
the County Attorney involved in the litigation had meaningful discussions and
were very close to terms of an agreement to resolve the matters. Nonetheless,
he acknowledges that tendering the Agreed Order of Dismissal was premature,
as the parties had not yet finalized any type of formal agreement, rendering his
statement to the court declaring such an agreement false. In acknowledging
his violation as to Count III of the Charge, Calmes states he misrepresented to
3 the court the true nature of any sort of agreement between the parties. Calmes
asserts that he was doing what he believed was in the best interest of his client
but is remorseful for the problems his motion caused.
To resolve this disciplinary matter, Calmes proposes a 181-day
suspension, with 50 days to serve, with the balance of the suspension probated
for two years with conditions. The KBA has no objection to this proposed
sanction.
Calmes also specifically requests that this suspension run concurrent to
any discipline imposed in a separate 2024 disciplinary matter. On February
15, 2024, this Court accepted a proposed negotiated sanction to resolve two
pending disciplinary matters against Calmes. Calmes v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 686
S.W.3d 189 (Ky. 2024). The Court imposed a thirty-day suspension, probated
for two years, with conditions. Id. at 192. One of the conditions was that
Calmes would not have any other disciplinary charges filed against him. Id.
Because the misconduct precipitating the present complaint occurred on
October 30, 2024, with the Charge filed by the Inquiry Commission on March
6, 2025, Calmes violated a condition of his probated suspension in the 2024
disciplinary matter.
As a result of the current pending disciplinary matter, the KBA filed a
Motion to Show Cause in this Court because Calmes failed to comply with the
terms of his probation. This Court issued a Show Cause Order on July 14,
2025, directing Calmes to show cause as to why his disciplinary probation
should not be revoked and his thirty-day suspension imposed. In response to
4 that Order, Calmes admitted that he made honest mistakes in handling the
custody matter, and recognized the higher standards he is held to as an
attorney. In accepting responsibility for violating the terms of his February
2024 suspension, Calmes requested that the thirty-day suspension run
concurrently to the proposed fifty-day suspension in the present disciplinary
matter. We consider both the proposed sanction in the current disciplinary
matter as well as Calmes’ request that any imposed suspension be served
concurrently to any suspension imposed in the 2024 disciplinary matter.
ANALYSIS
The negotiated sanction rule provides that “[t]he Court may consider
negotiated sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges” if
the parties agree. SCR 3.480(2). Upon receiving a motion under this Rule,
“[t]he 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.
Thus, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction falls within the
discretion of this Court.
Case law supports the imposition of the sanction Calmes proposes. In
Sullivan v. Kentucky Bar Association, 635 S.W.3d 543 (Ky. 2021), attorney
Sullivan was charged with multiple counts of violating her duty of diligence,
making a false statement to a tribunal, failing to respond to a disciplinary
authority, and failing to communicate with her client. These charges spanned
three disciplinary case files, and attorney Sullivan had a lengthy disciplinary
history prior to the allegations giving rise to the 2021 case. Id. at 545. The
5 Court imposed a 181-day suspension, with 90 days to serve and 91 days
probated, with conditions. Id. at 546.
In Dutra v. Kentucky Bar Association, 440 S.W.3d 374 (Ky. 2014), an
attorney was suspended for 181 days, with 61 days to be served and the
remainder probated for 2 years. The attorney was charged with three counts of
professional misconduct, which included failure to respond to requests for
information, failing to consult with his client, and withdrawing funds from a
trust account for purposes other than to benefit his client. Id. at 376. To
resolve the disciplinary matter, Dutra and the KBA agreed to a 181-day
suspension, with 61 days to be served and the balance probated for 2 years,
which this Court accepted and imposed. Id.
Kentucky Bar Association v. Collins, 2 S.W.3d 102 (Ky. 1999), involved a
similar suspension imposed on an attorney for his actions in representing his
ex-wife in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attorney Collins tendered an order to the
bankruptcy court showing that his ex-wife had fully released a judgment lien
against Collins’ property when, in fact, she had only partially released the lien.
Id. at 103. In the disciplinary case, Collins contended he did not have
knowledge of the partial release. Id. A trial commissioner determined that
Collins had personally filed the partial release with the Fayette County Clerk’s
Office prior to the bankruptcy filing. Id. Ultimately this Court held that Collins
violated two Supreme Court Rules by failing to reveal to the bankruptcy court
that the agreement with his former spouse only provided a partial release, and
by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. Id. at 104.
6 Given Collins’ forty-seven-year history of legal practice with no prior
disciplinary actions, the Court accepted the KBA’s proposed fifty-nine day
suspension. Id.
These cases are like Calmes’ case in that they involved multiple charges
for multiple rule violations and the attorneys admitted to violating the rules of
professional conduct. Collins specifically involved the attorney making a
misrepresentation to a tribunal and misconduct that involved dishonesty and
deceit, like Calmes. While Calmes committed multiple offenses and
demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, he also admitted that he genuinely
believed the parties were near reaching an agreement and acted in what he
believed was the best interest of his client. Further, Calmes acknowledged he
fell short of what the rules of professional conduct require and takes
responsibility for his behavior, acknowledging the issues his motion caused for
the responding parties, the Cabinet, and the GAL. The proposed sanction of a
181-day suspension, with 50 days to serve and the balance probated for 2
years, is consistent with the sanctions this Court outlined herein for similar
conduct.
Additionally, American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions 2 suggest that a suspension is generally an appropriate penalty when
a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the
court. § 6.12. According to the Standards, the following aggravating factors
2 American Bar Association, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed.
2019). 7 are present here: (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2) a pattern of misconduct;
and (3) submission of false statements. §9.2. In mitigation, Calmes has
maintained a cooperative attitude toward these disciplinary proceedings and
has demonstrated remorse for his actions.
After reviewing the allegations, Calmes’ disciplinary record, and the
relevant caselaw, we conclude that the discipline proposed in this matter is
adequate. However, we decline Calmes’ request to run the present suspension
concurrently with the suspension imposed for violating the terms of his
disciplinary probation period in the 2024 KBA matter. Allowing the
suspensions to run concurrently provides an unwarranted benefit, effectively
resulting in no separate sanction for not only committing misconduct in the
2024 matter, but also no sanction for violating the express terms of the
probated suspension. In the 2024 matter, Calmes agreed to receive no new
disciplinary cases against him and clearly violated that condition by
committing the actions which lead to the present disciplinary matter. These
cases constitute separate violations of our Supreme Court Rules, for which we
believe separate punishments must be imposed. As such, the thirty-day
suspension for violation of the disciplinary probation condition shall run
consecutively to the proposed fifty-day suspension in this matter.
CONCLUSION
After review, we agree that a 181 day suspension, with fifty days to serve
and the balance probated for two years, is appropriate discipline. This
8 suspension shall run consecutively to the thirty-day suspension imposed in
2023-SC-0555-KB for violation of the disciplinary probation conditions.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Nicholas Scott Calmes, KBA Member Number 96187, is hereby
suspended for 181 days, with 50 days to serve and the remaining
131-day balance to be probated for two years, for his violation of SCR
3.130(3.3)(a)(1) and 3.130(8.4)(c) in 2024-DIS-0352. As of the date of
entry of this Order, the two-year probationary period, with the
conditions stated below, shall begin.
2. The suspension is probated for two years on the following terms and
conditions:
a. Calmes shall have no more disciplinary charges filed against
him.
b. Calmes shall timely pay his KBA membership dues.
c. Calmes shall timely satisfy all continuing legal education
requirements.
3. If Calmes violates the terms of probation within two years from the
date of this Order, the Kentucky Bar Association may file a motion
with the Supreme Court requesting the issuance of a show cause
order directing Calmes to show cause, if any, why the balance of the
suspension, 131 days, should not be imposed.
4. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Calmes is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum
9 being $74.87, for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
5. In addition, because Calmes violated the disciplinary probation
conditions set forth in this Court’s February 15, 2024 Order, we
hereby impose a thirty-day suspension in disciplinary matters 22-
DIS-0182 and 23-DIS-0055. This thirty-day suspension shall run
consecutively to the fifty-day suspension imposed in 2024-DIS-0352,
resulting in a total of eighty days’ suspension to serve.
ENTERED: October 23, 2025
All sitting. All concur.
__________________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE