ASHLAND - The Kentucky Bar Association is in a "he said, she said" disagreement with a national legal watchdog agency over a recent "lawyer discipline report card" giving the association an overall grade of "D" - the third--lowest ranking in the nation.

An attorney for HALT, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that claims 50,000 members, admits that part of its data concerning the state bar association is inaccurate, but says the information came from the bar association.

The HALT attorney, Suzanne Mishkin, told The Daily Independent the group will change any inaccuracies that are verified. But Ben Cowgill, a spokesman for the bar association, claims the group has refused to make any changes. "What tells the tale is they refuse to change anything now that they admit they are wrong," said Cowgill, chief bar counsel of the state bar association. "It is obvious that HALT is much more interested in attacking the legal system than providing the public with truthful, accurate information.

"If they truly desire to disseminate accurate information, they would revise their press release and revise the information on their Web site, but refuse to do so," Cowgill said.

Cowgill and Mishkin, HALT's associate council, disagree as to how the group received the information on which its report card is based. Cowgill says the KBA has a record of a June phone call from a male who only identified himself as a curious college student conducting research about bar associations.

The person only asked general information, such as if Kentucky has a mandatory bar (all lawyers in the state are required to join), which they do, Cowgill said. "He only asked a few questions. He did not ask specific questions," said Cowgill.

The caller was an intern and did not go through all the categories on the report card, Cowgill said.

Cowgill said Frank Bumette, the director of client assistance program who took the call from the intern, would have answered the questions correctly or transferred the caller to Cowgill.

"It frankly appears they placed a call and chatted with (Bumette) so they could say they contacted the KBA, but it was in a 'hit-and-run' manner." The biggest inaccuracy on the report card, both sides admit, is an "F" given to the KBA because "non-lawyers are not allowed to serve on lawyer discipline hearing panels in Kentucky."

Cowgill calls that statement "simply false." Three non-lawyers and six lawyers appointed by the Kentucky Supreme Court sit as regular members of the KBA's Inquiry Commission, which decides if a lawyer should be charged with professional misconduct based on an investigation performed by the bar counsel, Cowgill said.

The nine are divided into three groups of two lawyers and one non-lawyer. Every month they hear complaints and allegations against lawyers and decide if there is probable cause to charge misconduct.

"It is a key step in the process because they make the decision if the initial charge should go forward as a formal charge," Cowgill said. When a formal charge is issued, evidence is gathered and presented to the KBA's Board of Governors' 21 members, four of whom are non-lawyers and appointed by the Supreme Court. After briefs are filed in the case and oral arguments are heard, the commission, by simple majority, renders a decision which is prepared as a recommendation to the Supreme Court.

"The public is well represented," Cowgill said. 'The individuals who have filled those roles have done an excellent job and proven to be very valuable contributors to the process. They ask good questions and demonstrate good judgment and common sense."

In 1998, the Supreme Court decided to add non-lawyers to the disciplinary process. "I think everyone involved would say it has been a complete success," Cowgill said.

But Mishkin says with a majority of lawyers involved in the process, it still is "lawyers policing lawyers." Iowa is the only state that has all non-lawyers in control of disciplining lawyers.

"In murder cases and cases involving multi-million-dollar decisions, it is ordinary citizens making the decisions and they should be making these decisions."

Cowgill also takes issue with other things on the state's report card, such as the "incomplete" it received for "adequacy of discipline because the Kentucky Office Bar Counsel does not keep records pertaining to the number of grievances investigated and the percentage of investigated complaints resulting in discipline," according to "the most recent (2000) statistics from the American Bar Association."

"That is simply false," Cowgill said. "HALT did not ask me for those numbers."

In the four years from Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2002, said Cowgill:

- There were 2,367 complaint files opened. - The Inquiry Commission issued 230 formal charges of formal misconduct, with 41 of those charges being withdrawn after lawyers provided additional information showing that the charges were not appropriate.

- Out of the remaining 189 charges, the Supreme Court issued 106 disciplinary orders, including 21 orders of disbarment, 69 suspensions from practice ranging from 30 days to a maximum of five years, and 16 public reprimands.

"I believe those numbers indicate our disciplinary process is very effective," Cowgill said. Another discrepancy, Cowgill says, is that HALT claims Kentucky does not provide grievants with immunity, meaning that "consumers may be sued by their attorneys for filing complaints against them.

"When individuals fear that their lawyers might sue them for defamation if they file a grievance, consumers are less likely to submit complaints," HALT reported. "In the end, the public suffers because more attorneys engage in unscrupulous conduct knowing that they will undoubtedly face no consequences," explained Mishkin.

'They are wrong," Cowgill said. "Kentucky does protect any complainant who files a good-faith complaint against a lawyer. Even if a state has a rule, it doesn't mean that a lawyer can't file a lawsuit.

"We don't have a Supreme Court rule, but have decisions from the Supreme Court that get to the same results," he said. "We have the same protection in place that HALT would like for us to have, but they don't understand that because they are not familiar with our legal system.

“We have never seen any indication at all that any complainant has hesitated to file a bar complaint or bring a matter to our attention because of any concern of being sued by a lawyer and we receive 800 complaints a year," he said. "Likewise, we have never encountered a lawyer trying to sue a complainant because they filed a bar complaint."

Mishkin said HALT sent a letter to the KBA informing the association about the data it had collected, asking if there were any inaccuracies, but it received no response. "After the report card, (Cowgill) called and we said he had every opportunity to clarify" any mistakes. Because he did not respond to the letter, "There was no way for us to know," she said.

"Our data is inaccurate as for the public (participation) part, but his office gave false information and did not take the time to say it was inacccurate, so I think that speaks to a lack of responsiveness."

Cowgill said because he did not know about Bumette's conversation with someone supposedly with HALT in June, he did not react to the letter sent in August, but did talk to another intern who called a few days after he received the letter.

He said he agreed to schedule a time to talk by telephone, but never heard from the second intern.