Elapsed Time Alone Does Not Trigger SCR 3.503(6) Bar‑Exam Requirement: Conditional Reinstatement Granted in In re Eric Shane Grinnell

Introduction

In a published opinion and order entered October 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted the conditional reinstatement of attorney Eric Shane Grinnell to the practice of law, notwithstanding that his suspension had been in effect for more than five years. The decision applies the character-and-fitness framework of SCR 3.503 and imposes robust post-reinstatement mentorship and monitoring conditions. Of particular doctrinal interest, the Court proceeded without requiring Grinnell to retake and pass a bar examination under SCR 3.503(6), despite Justice Bisig’s dissent arguing that the rule’s plain text compels such an exam whenever the period of suspension has “prevailed for more than five (5) years.”

The case centers on whether, and on what terms, a lawyer suspended for serious and extensive misconduct—but who later effectuates restitution, participates in remedial programs, and demonstrates rehabilitation—may be restored to practice when the elapsed period of suspension exceeds five years due to extensions and administrative passage of time. The Court’s opinion, while concise, addresses each factor specified in SCR 3.503(1) and adopts the unanimous recommendation of the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions’ Character and Fitness Committee (KYOBA Committee) for conditional reinstatement, with structured oversight by mentors and the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC).

Summary of the Opinion

The Court recounts that in 2020 it sanctioned Grinnell for fifty-three violations across fourteen consolidated disciplinary matters, imposing a two-year suspension (one year to serve and one year conditionally probated for two years) with detailed conditions, including restitution of $26,440 in unearned fees, completion of an Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP), enrollment in KYLAP, a law office management course, payment of costs, and no new misconduct. In 2022 the Court extended the suspension to July 2022 after an additional misconduct charge (later withdrawn with a private admonition) and an initial failure to attend the management course. Thereafter, Grinnell completed the course, remitted all unearned fees and costs, completed EPEP, engaged in KYLAP, apologized to affected clients, and incurred no further misconduct.

After an OBC investigation and a unanimous KYOBA Committee vote, the Court granted reinstatement subject to conditions:

Two named mentors (Attorneys Pete Roush and Kash Stilz) will mentor, monitor, and oversee Grinnell for 24 months; substitutes may be used if necessary.
Quarterly written mentorship status reports will be submitted to OBC and KYOBA General Counsel during the conditional admission period.
If Grinnell fails to cooperate, or if concerns arise in the reports, OBC may extend the conditional period, add conditions, or move to revoke his license pursuant to SCR 3.503.

Applying SCR 3.503(1)’s factors, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Grinnell presently has the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications, appreciates the wrongfulness of his prior misconduct, has rehabilitated himself, and possesses adequate professional capability to serve the public, especially in light of the structured mentorship. The Court acknowledged two earlier violations of the suspension conditions, but deemed that he has since fully complied with the terms of the extension order and demonstrated rehabilitation.

Justice Bisig dissented, construing SCR 3.503(6) to mandate that any applicant whose suspension has “prevailed for more than five (5) years” must pass a bar examination before reinstatement. The majority granted reinstatement without imposing that prerequisite, implicitly adopting a different understanding of the rule or its application in these circumstances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Procedural History

Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association, 602 S.W.3d 784 (Ky. 2020). In this earlier opinion, the Court approved a negotiated sanction for extensive misconduct: a two-year suspension with one year to serve, followed by a conditionally probated year, and compliance conditions including restitution, EPEP, KYLAP, a management course, and costs. This decision set the baseline conditions for reinstatement.
Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association, 638 S.W.3d 429 (Ky. 2022). The Court extended the suspension to July 2022 after learning Grinnell failed to complete the management course and faced an additional misconduct charge. The charge was later withdrawn with a private admonition; Grinnell completed the outstanding course requirement.

These prior decisions framed the compliance benchmarks the Court evaluated under SCR 3.503 in the present reinstatement proceeding. The 2022 extension, while adverse to Grinnell at the time, also provided a clear corrective roadmap, which he ultimately followed.

Legal Reasoning Under SCR 3.503

SCR 3.503(1) requires an applicant for reinstatement to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they possess the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications. The Court walked through the rule’s non-exhaustive factors:

Nature of the misconduct (SCR 3.503(1)(a)). The misconduct involved failures to perform work after accepting fees, poor client communication, and failure to return unearned fees—serious and multi-matter derelictions. The Court did not minimize these facts but assessed them in light of subsequent restitution, remedial education, and rehabilitation.
Compliance with “every term” of the suspension orders (SCR 3.503(1)(b)). The Court candidly acknowledged earlier noncompliance (a new charge and failure to attend the management course), but emphasized that after the 2022 extension Grinnell fully complied with the extension order: he completed EPEP, the law office management course, KYLAP participation, restitution, costs, and avoided further misconduct. The Court’s phrasing is noteworthy:
“Thus, although Grinnell violated two conditions in his initial suspension order, he has since fully complied with ‘every term’ of his subsequent extension order.”
This indicates a pragmatic, cure-oriented reading of factor (b): initial failures do not permanently foreclose reinstatement if the applicant later achieves full compliance with the governing operative order and demonstrates rehabilitation.
Conduct under suspension and public trust (SCR 3.503(1)(c)). The Court credited Grinnell’s efforts to address mental and physical health and relied on mentors’ observations of conscientious, client-focused work in a paralegal capacity. The Committee found his conduct under suspension satisfactory; the Court agreed.
Professional capability (SCR 3.503(1)(d)). The Court stressed the two-year, structured mentorship and monitoring commitment by experienced attorneys who pledged to alert OBC if concerns arise. This scaffolding persuaded the Court that Grinnell can capably serve clients while being appropriately overseen.
Moral character (SCR 3.503(1)(e)). Multiple references supported present good character; the Court found this factor satisfied.
Appreciation of wrongfulness and rehabilitation (SCR 3.503(1)(f)). Restitution to all affected clients, apologies, remedial courses, KYLAP participation, and an agreement to close mentorship showed insight and reform.
Prior and subsequent attitude, length of suspension, and candor (SCR 3.503(1)(g)-(i)). Grinnell has not practiced for five years—longer than the original suspension term—and fully cooperated and responded during reinstatement. The Court emphasized his candor about past misconduct and responsiveness to information requests.

The Court ultimately adopted the KYOBA Committee’s unanimous recommendation for conditional reinstatement, coupling admission with detailed guardrails: named mentors, quarterly reporting, and OBC authority to extend conditions or seek revocation under SCR 3.503 if issues arise. This approach advances the twin goals of public protection and measured professional redemption.

The Five-Year Bar-Exam Question: Majority’s Implicit Approach vs. the Dissent’s Textual Reading

Justice Bisig’s dissent squarely tees up SCR 3.503(6): where a suspension “has prevailed for more than five (5) years,” reinstatement may be granted only if the applicant first passes an examination administered by the Board of Bar Examiners. Bisig reads the rule to focus on the fact of elapsed time, not the originally imposed term. On that basis, because Grinnell’s suspension began July 9, 2020 and exceeded five years by the time of decision, she would require a bar exam before reinstatement.

The majority, while not expressly parsing subsection (6), granted reinstatement without requiring an exam. Two features of the opinion shed light on the majority’s approach:

The Court noted the OBC investigation “for whatever reason… took nearly one year,” and the overall process included multiple administrative stages. This recognition of administrative passage of time suggests the majority was disinclined to make bar-exam eligibility turn on elapsed time that was not wholly within the applicant’s control.
The opinion emphasized the original two-year suspension and subsequent extension to July 2022, after which Grinnell consistently complied and remained charge-free. The Court grounded its decision in current character and fitness, remediation, and a prospective monitoring structure—factors that can mitigate concerns the exam requirement is designed to address (competency and currency).

Doctrinally, the upshot is that the Court has now permitted reinstatement without a bar exam after more than five years of suspension having “prevailed.” Whether the majority views subsection (6) as inapplicable to originally short suspensions that merely exceed five years in effect, or as permitting case-specific discretion (e.g., where delay is attributable in part to the system), the operative rule from this case is that the five-year bar-exam prerequisite is not automatic in every instance of elapsed time beyond five years.

Impact and Prospective Significance

The opinion is likely to have several practical and doctrinal effects:

Clarifying SCR 3.503(6)’s operation. By granting reinstatement without an exam, the Court signals that elapsed time over five years does not invariably trigger a mandatory bar-exam prerequisite. Future applicants whose original suspensions were short but whose reinstatement timelines extend past five years—particularly due to extensions cured by compliance or administrative delays—will cite this case.
Emphasis on rehabilitation and monitoring. The Court’s heavy reliance on restitution, apologies, remedial education, health support via KYLAP, and structured mentorship suggests a reinstatement model grounded in rehabilitation and public protection via ongoing oversight rather than rigid temporal thresholds.
Curing earlier noncompliance. The Court’s acceptance that violations of initial conditions can be cured by subsequent full compliance with an extension order will influence how counsel advise suspended lawyers: prompt cure, documented restitution, and proactive rehabilitation can be outcome-determinative.
Role of the KYOBA Committee. The unanimous Committee recommendation, preceded by document review and an informal interview, received evident weight. Expect continued strong deference to Character and Fitness assessments where the record reflects candor, thorough remediation, and well-designed monitoring.
Expanded use of conditional admissions. The opinion underscores OBC’s authority during conditional periods to extend conditions, add new safeguards, or move to revoke upon noncooperation or emerging concerns. That architecture may be increasingly utilized to balance second chances with public protection.
Possible rulemaking or clarifying opinions. Justice Bisig’s dissent highlights an interpretive tension in SCR 3.503(6). The Bar and Court may consider clarifying the provision’s scope—e.g., whether it applies to any suspension exceeding five years in effect, only to sanctions imposing more than five years, or with equitable exceptions where delay is not applicant-driven.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Suspension vs. disbarment: Suspension temporarily removes the right to practice law, often with conditions for reinstatement. Disbarment is more final and typically requires reapplication as a new admittee, often with a higher burden.
Conditional probation vs. conditional admission: A sanction may include a period of probation with conditions. Upon reinstatement, the Court can also impose a conditional admission—allowing practice subject to ongoing conditions and oversight, as occurred here.
Clear and convincing evidence: A heightened proof standard. The evidence must show that the claim (here, current character and fitness) is highly probable, though it need not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt criminal standard.
SCR 3.503 factors: A non-exhaustive checklist the Court uses to evaluate reinstatement, including nature of prior misconduct, compliance with orders, conduct under suspension, professional competence, moral character, insight and rehabilitation, attitude toward the courts, length of suspension, and candor in the process.
KYLAP: The Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program supports lawyers with mental health, substance use, and related challenges. Participation signals commitment to wellness, a key component of sustained ethical practice.
EPEP and management courses: Remedial educational programs aimed at ethics, professionalism, and practical office management—tools to prevent recurrence of the specific problems that precipitated discipline.
Role of OBC and KYOBA: The Office of Bar Counsel investigates and prosecutes disciplinary matters and oversees conditional compliance; the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions and its Character and Fitness Committee assess current qualifications for admission or reinstatement. Their recommendations carry significant persuasive weight with the Court.
Bar-exam prerequisite issue: SCR 3.503(6), as quoted by the dissent, contemplates a bar exam before reinstatement when a suspension has “prevailed” more than five years. This opinion shows the Court may not treat that temporal trigger as automatically controlling in all contexts.

Conclusion

In re Eric Shane Grinnell reaffirms that Kentucky’s reinstatement decisions are holistic, rehabilitation-centered, and tethered to present character, fitness, and structured safeguards for the public. The Court’s analysis emphasizes restitution, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, participation in KYLAP, completion of remedial education, and a rigorous mentorship-and-reporting regime. At the same time, by granting reinstatement without requiring a bar exam after more than five years have elapsed, the Court implicitly holds that SCR 3.503(6) is not an inexorable time-clock that overrides demonstrated rehabilitation and robust monitoring—particularly where the original sanction was shorter and the extended timeline reflects both corrective extensions and administrative passage of time.

The dissent underscores a competing, text-forward reading of SCR 3.503(6) and will likely catalyze further discussion—and perhaps rule clarification—regarding when a bar exam is required. Until then, the operative guidance from this case is clear: elapsed time beyond five years does not, without more, foreclose conditional reinstatement for a rehabilitated attorney who proves present character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence and accepts meaningful oversight to protect the public and the profession.