Background
Thomas Duane Juanso, admitted to the Kentucky bar in 2010, was charged in 2020 with six counts of professional misconduct. After he did not answer the charge, the court indefinitely suspended him in June 2021 under the rule governing a respondent’s failure to answer disciplinary charges.
The Board of Governors later proceeded by default and found Juanso guilty of five counts, including lack of diligence, inadequate client communication, failure to return a client file and unearned fee, improper efforts to limit liability, and failure to respond to a bar complaint. The court rejected the Board’s recommended 90-day suspension and, in March 2022, imposed a 180-day suspension with conditions. Juanso did not seek reinstatement within five years of the earlier indefinite-suspension order, prompting the Kentucky Bar Association to seek permanent disbarment.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the motion for permanent disbarment. Although SCR 3.167(5) requires the KBA to seek disbarment when a respondent has not sought reinstatement within five years of an indefinite suspension, that rule did not apply here because Juanso’s indefinite suspension was no longer active.
The 2022 order imposing a definite 180-day suspension superseded the interim indefinite suspension and finally adjudicated the underlying disciplinary charge. Because Juanso’s suspension exceeded 181 days, any future reinstatement application must proceed under SCR 3.502, and the KBA may oppose that application.
Key Takeaways
- An indefinite suspension for failing to answer a disciplinary charge is an interim procedural sanction, not discipline for the underlying misconduct.
- A later final disciplinary order imposing a definite suspension supersedes the earlier indefinite suspension.
- The five-year disbarment mechanism for an unaddressed indefinite suspension does not apply after the court has finally adjudicated the charge and imposed definite discipline.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an interim default-based suspension from final attorney discipline. It confirms that the KBA cannot obtain permanent disbarment under SCR 3.167(5) based on an indefinite suspension that has been superseded by a final order.
For suspended lawyers, the applicable path forward is the ordinary reinstatement process tied to the final suspension—not automatic disbarment based on the earlier procedural suspension.