Post-Deadline CLE Compliance and Failure to Update Bar Roster Contact Information Do Not Constitute “Good Cause” to Revoke an SCR 3.675 Suspension

1. Introduction

Case: In Re: Charles Frederick Rogers, Jr., Supreme Court of Kentucky (June 25, 2026).
Parties: Charles Frederick Rogers, Jr. (attorney-appellant) and the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”), acting through its CLE Commission and Board of Governors (“Board”).
Context: Rogers appealed an administrative suspension imposed for failing to satisfy the minimum continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements for the 2024–2025 educational year.

Key issues:

  • Whether Rogers demonstrated “good cause” under SCR 3.675(6) sufficient for the Supreme Court to revoke his CLE-based suspension.
  • Whether alleged lack of awareness caused by outdated Bar Roster contact information, and post-suspension completion/reporting of some CLE hours, could excuse noncompliance with SCR 3.645(1).
  • Whether the KBA followed the required procedures in issuing notices and suspending Rogers.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Court denied Rogers’s appeal and held that he failed to show good cause warranting revocation of his SCR 3.675 suspension. The Court found:

  • No procedural error in the KBA/CLE Commission/Board process leading to suspension.
  • Rogers’s failure to update his official Bar Roster address was not an acceptable excuse for missing notices.
  • Rogers did not cure the delinquency before suspension and, even after suspension, reported only six hours—still short of the year’s minimum and not earned during the relevant educational year.

As a result, Rogers must pursue the restoration process under SCR 3.504 and remain suspended until restored.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Opinion relies on a single, direct precedent:

  • Hofmann v. Kentucky Bar Association, 647 S.W.3d 268 (Ky. 2022).
    How it influenced the decision: The Court quoted Hofmann for the proposition that an attorney’s failure to update the official Bar Roster address “is not a viable excuse for ignoring the notices.” By invoking Hofmann (and citing SCR 3.035(1)(a)), the Court treated maintenance of current roster contact information as a non-delegable professional obligation. This foreclosed Rogers’s implicit argument that notice problems arising from his outdated information should mitigate or constitute good cause.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) The governing rule: “Good cause” is a narrow pathway on appeal

The Court framed the appeal under SCR 3.675’s two-track structure:

  • Show-cause/suspension mechanism (SCR 3.675(4)): absent good cause shown by the return date (or extended time granted by the Board), the lawyer is suspended or otherwise sanctioned.
  • Post-suspension options:
    • Restoration through the KBA under SCR 3.675(5) and SCR 3.504 (including completion of minimum CLE requirements).
    • Appeal to the Supreme Court under SCR 3.675(6), requiring an affidavit showing good cause necessitating revocation.

The Opinion’s operative premise is that, once suspension has occurred, revocation on appeal is reserved for situations demonstrating genuine good cause—typically grounded in procedural defects, compelling circumstances, or timely corrective action showing the suspension should not have occurred.

2) Procedural regularity: the Court found no defect in notice and certification

The Court emphasized the KBA’s compliance with the SCR framework:

  • The CLE Commission certified Rogers as delinquent (SCR 3.675(2)).
  • The Board issued a Show Cause Notice of Delinquency (SCR 3.675(3)).
  • The Notice was mailed to Rogers’s official Bar Roster address “at the time.”

A notable factual wrinkle was that Rogers updated his roster information the same afternoon the Notice of Delinquency was issued, but the KBA mailed the Notice the next business day to the prior roster address. The Court still found no procedural error because the address used was the official address at the time the Board accepted certification and generated the Notice. The KBA also later resent the Notice to the updated address; Rogers signed for it the day the suspension was imposed.

3) Substantive noncompliance: post-suspension efforts did not establish good cause

Rogers asserted he believed he was compliant, had difficulty accessing the KBA website, and then—upon learning of the issue—completed and reported six CLE hours immediately (including ethics hours). The Court found these assertions insufficient because:

  • Timing mismatch: The additional hours were not obtained “during the relevant educational year.”
  • Numeric insufficiency: Even crediting the six hours, Rogers “still fell short” of the twelve-hour minimum required by SCR 3.645(1).
  • Failure to act when warned: The record showed multiple notices (mail and email) and attempted phone contact, and no timely response, no extension request under SCR 3.670, and no exemption request under SCR 3.665.

4) Roster maintenance duty: failure to update contact information is not excusing cause

The Court treated SCR 3.035 compliance as central: lawyers must keep Bar Roster contact data current. By applying Hofmann v. Kentucky Bar Association, the Court reinforced that roster neglect cannot be repurposed into “good cause” to undo the consequences of missed CLE compliance and ignored notices.

5) Restoration—not appellate revocation—was the proper remedy

The Court accepted the KBA’s position that Rogers should proceed via restoration. The Opinion also highlighted the practical restoration math: because restoration requires completing the minimum CLE requirements for each educational year, Rogers would need at least twenty-four total hours spanning 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 (SCR 3.504(2)(c); SCR 3.685), and he still lacked 3.75 hours even after reporting 20.25 hours during suspension.

The Court declined to address the KBA’s request regarding application of a check Rogers submitted (apparently corresponding to a restoration-related fee), noting the KBA provided no authority showing such an order was “permissible or necessary” at that juncture.

C. Impact

1) Reinforcement of a strict “good cause” threshold in SCR 3.675(6) appeals

The decision signals that good-cause revocation of a CLE suspension will be difficult to obtain where:

  • the KBA followed the SCR steps;
  • the attorney did not timely respond to notices or seek an extension/exemption; and
  • the attorney’s cure efforts begin only at or after suspension.

2) Operational clarity for notice disputes after roster changes

The Court’s acceptance of notice mailed to the “official Bar Roster address at the time” reduces incentives to litigate technicalities arising from last-minute roster updates—especially where the attorney’s own roster neglect created the problem and the KBA nonetheless made additional outreach attempts.

3) Practical warning: post-suspension CLE reporting may not count the way lawyers expect

The Opinion underscores two recurring pitfalls:

  • CLE completed outside the relevant educational year may not cure that year’s deficiency for purposes of avoiding suspension.
  • Once suspended, the attorney’s path is typically restoration, which may require meeting multi-year CLE totals (here, effectively two years’ worth).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “CLE educational year”: a defined reporting period in which a lawyer must earn and report a minimum number of CLE credits (here, twelve under SCR 3.645(1)).
  • “Delinquency”: failure to meet/report required CLE by the applicable deadline, triggering notice and potential suspension under SCR 3.675.
  • “Show Cause Notice of Delinquency”: a formal warning giving the lawyer a set time (typically 30 days) to explain why suspension should not occur or to certify compliance.
  • “Good cause” (in this context): a legally sufficient justification—beyond regret, misunderstanding, or self-created notice issues—showing the suspension should be revoked.
  • “Restoration” vs. “appeal”:
    • Appeal (SCR 3.675(6)) asks the Supreme Court to undo the suspension for good cause.
    • Restoration (SCR 3.504) is an administrative route requiring the lawyer to satisfy stated conditions (including CLE completion) to regain good standing.
  • Bar Roster address requirement (SCR 3.035): lawyers must keep the KBA’s official contact information current; failure to do so does not excuse missed notices.

5. Conclusion

In Re: Charles Frederick Rogers, Jr. reinforces that an SCR 3.675 CLE suspension will not be revoked on appeal absent a strong showing of “good cause.” The Court applied Hofmann v. Kentucky Bar Association to reiterate that failing to update Bar Roster contact information is not a viable excuse for missed notices, and it rejected post-suspension, partial CLE completion as inadequate—both because it did not satisfy the year’s minimum and because it was not earned within the relevant educational year. The decision channels similarly situated attorneys toward the SCR 3.504 restoration process, signaling a compliance-first approach to CLE enforcement and limited judicial willingness to unwind suspensions where the governing procedures were followed.