KY: RSO Registered sex offender wants permission to practice law [UPDATED]

UPDATE: Kentucky court rejects sex-offender bar exam (3/20/2014)

The Kentucky Supreme Court has turned away a request from a convicted sex offender to reconsider his bid to take the bar exam and become a practicing lawyer. The seven justices on Thursday unanimously rejected a rehearing in the case. Full Article

A University of Kentucky law school graduate who finished in the top third of his class is asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision barring him from taking the bar exam because he’s on the state sex-offender registry.

The court ruled unanimously in December that ____ ____ ____ can’t apply to take the test until he goes off the registry in 2027 — when he’s 44 years old — because he is listed for possession of child pornography, which the court described as one the most “iniquitous of crimes.”

The justices said it would put the “character and integrity of the bar itself” at risk if ____ ____ relapsed — or even if a client discovered he’s on the registry. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The state Supreme Court of Kentucky is it’s self iniquitous for supporting the trash laws they seem to hold in such high regard. It is they who are unfit to serve in their chosen capacity. The proof is overwhelming that these junk laws do not come close to doing what they are supposed to do. They protect no one and have zero effect on crime reduction, the proof is undeniable, yet they willingly deny the proof. It is they that children need protection from.

This restriction is another form of punitive measures enacted ex-post facto. Well the positive side of this is this young man’s legal training can bring more fight to the cause of ending this thing (the sex offender registry). TRUTH

Lets see; We have to make a decision on this student’s request and we should appear to sound intelligent and scholarly so let’s use a big word most people don’t use regularly. How-a-bout “iniquitous”? Yep! that oughta do it (smile).



The definition of iniquitous is morally wrong or grossly unfair.
A plan to steal from the church collection plate is an example of something that would be described as iniquitous.

He earned the degree and was awarded the degree because he could demonstrate an understanding of the law. He should be able to practice law – period. The practice of law has very little to do with right and wrong or morality in general. Most laws are not in place for any reason that anyone who knows the law can not use.

The vast majority of lawyers are certainly not practicing the law because they have a higher moral character but actually usually it is quite the opposite. A conviction should actually be a benefit for a person to practice law. Most lawyer are criminals who have simply not been caught.

I do not mean to be a wet blanket here, but are there not a whole list of criminal convictions that would prohibit one from practicing law? As absurd as I think it is to keep this guy from getting a law license, I would think there are many many others with non sex convictions in this boat, and it is possible that he is not being picked on.

There was, on this site, a recent decision by the CA Supreme Court to disbar an active attorney from Orange County – who had been practicing for years – for the same thing.

It is ironic, that this profession often viewed as slimy and borderline unethical is held to this highest moral standard.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – An Arkansas doctor convicted of possessing child pornography 13 years ago is suing the state over a new law that bars giving Medicaid money to convicted sex offenders.

Dr. …… filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday and asked a judge to block enforcement of the new restriction, which took effect Aug. 16. The law prohibits any registered sex offender from providing Medicaid services in the state.

This man paid for his crime, was still allowed his medical license, now they want to take his money.

So some states allow you to be a doctor but you cannot be a lawyer, this country is so screwed up,, there are no second chances in America unless you are the lawmakers.