Restitution and Candor as Absolute Conditions for Bar Reinstatement – Supreme Court of Kentucky Defines the Outer Limits in In Re: Travis Olen Myles, Jr.

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Kentucky’s opinion in In Re: Travis Olen Myles, Jr., 2025-SC-0192-KB (Aug. 14, 2025) addresses an attorney’s petition for reinstatement after multiple disciplinary actions. Although reinstatement cases seldom create widely cited “rules,” this decision crystallises – perhaps more explicitly than prior opinions – two unyielding prerequisites to re-enter the profession:

1. Complete compliance with all prior disciplinary orders, especially restitution; and
2. Unimpeachable candor, not merely to the bar authorities but also to one’s employer and the Character and Fitness Committee (“C&F”).

Travis Olen Myles, Jr., admitted to practice in 1998, accumulated a suspension history (2009, 2012, 2014) and a public reprimand (2013). He waited nine years after the last suspension to seek reinstatement. Despite the passage of time, the Court adopted the C&F Committee’s recommendation and denied reinstatement, principally because Myles never repaid $53,220.31 (plus interest) ordered in 2009 and exhibited continuing dishonesty toward his federal employer, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Application denied: The Court holds that Myles failed to meet the clear-and-convincing burden under SCR 3.503 to prove present character and fitness.
• Adoption of C&F findings: Pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), the Court adopted the Committee’s findings in toto because neither party sought further review.
• Key shortcomings: (1) non-payment of court-ordered restitution; (2) lack of candor with the SSA and the C&F Committee; (3) inability to demonstrate public trustworthiness; and (4) failure to appreciate the wrongfulness of past and ongoing misconduct.
• Costs assessed: Myles must pay $4,396.99 in investigation and prosecution costs under SCR 3.450.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court cites three modern Kentucky reinstatement cases that form the backbone of its disposition:

1. Wade v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 605 S.W.3d 329 (Ky. 2020) – Restated that failure to prove every SCR 3.503 factor by clear and convincing evidence is fatal to reinstatement. In Re Myles relies on Wade for the proposition that the burden is singularly on the applicant, and any deficiency suffices for denial.
2. Turner v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 78 S.W.3d 134 (Ky. 2002) – Emphasised that non-compliance with a restitution order is, standing alone, a barrier to reinstatement. The Court invokes Turner verbatim to conclude that Myles’ unpaid obligation to the Hanish estate is dispositive.
3. Horn v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 92 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2002) – Echoed the absolute nature of obeying prior orders and underscored the necessity of restitution before any return to practice. Myles synthesises Horn with Turner to reinforce that statutory limitations or probate technicalities cannot neutralise the Court’s disciplinary directive.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds through the lens of SCR 3.503’s nine-factor test. A few points merit deeper exploration:

• Restitution as a jurisdictional prerequisite: The judgment treats the $53,220.31 repayment not simply as a disciplinary “condition,” but as a jurisdictional threshold: an unmet obligation instantly ends the analysis. By invoking Turner and Horn, the Court signals that restitution is non-waivable and cannot be time-barred in this context.
• Candor as an evergreen duty: Myles’ misrepresentations to SSA about his bar status, and his equivocal testimony to the Committee, violate the duty of candor owed to “tribunals, third parties, and others,” embedding the obligation far beyond courtrooms (see ABA Model Rule 8.4(c) analogue). The Court implicitly affirms that candor deficits post-suspension are weighed heavily against reinstatement because they demonstrate continuing unfitness.
• Burden of proof – “clear and convincing”: By reiterating that each factor must be satisfied to that standard, the Court positions the evidentiary burden closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt” than to “preponderance,” mirroring the gravity of readmission.
• No equitable tolling of disciplinary commands: Myles’ argument that the statute of limitations or probate waiver erased his restitution obligation was rebuffed; the disciplinary order operates independently of civil collection doctrines.
• SCR 3.370 procedure: Because neither party sought review, the Court limited itself to adoption of the C&F decision, yet it noted its inherent authority under SCR 3.370(9) to conduct plenary review sua sponte—highlighting the discretionary nature of Supreme Court oversight.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

1. Elevated Restitution Priority: Applicants cannot rely on civil-law defenses (statutes of limitation, probate oversights, laches) to bypass restitution directives. Expect tighter scrutiny and near-automatic denial where restitution remains unpaid.
2. Expanded Candor Inquiry: The decision broadens the “candor” lens to employers and administrative agencies. Future petitioners will face probing questions about every representation made during suspension, not only during application proceedings.
3. Timing No Longer a Shield: The Court’s view that the mere passage of eleven years aggravated, rather than mitigated, non-compliance undercuts any strategy of “waiting it out.” Stagnant obligations age poorly.
4. Guidance for Employers: Federal and state agencies employing suspended attorneys should verify bar status continuously; otherwise, they risk staff occupying unauthorized positions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Clear and Convincing Evidence: More persuasive than “50/50 plus a feather” (preponderance) but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The decision must leave the fact-finder with a “firm conviction” about the applicant’s fitness.
• Restitution in Disciplinary Context: Money the Court orders the lawyer to pay to make victims whole. Unlike civil judgments, disciplinary restitution is part of a lawyer’s professional obligations and survives suspension periods.
• Character & Fitness Committee: A body under the Kentucky Bar that evaluates whether applicants (including suspended lawyers seeking reinstatement) possess the honesty, integrity, and competence required to protect the public.
• Standard of Review under SCR 3.370: Absent a petition for review, the Supreme Court ordinarily adopts the Committee’s findings. However, the Court may still conduct its own review if it doubts the result.
• Duty of Candor: Lawyers must be truthful in all professional contexts—not just in court—which extends to communications with employers, bar investigators, and licensing boards.

5. Conclusion

In Re: Travis Olen Myles, Jr. reinforces a stringent message: restoration of the privilege to practice law is conditioned on (1) total compliance with prior orders, especially monetary restitution, and (2) unblemished candor throughout the suspension period and application process. By dismissing civil-law defenses to restitution and treating ongoing dishonesty as an independent ground for denial, the Supreme Court of Kentucky sets a clarified, “bright-line” expectation for suspended attorneys: Every past wrong must be fully righted, and every present statement must be impeccably truthful, before the door to readmission even cracks open.