In 2020, Lexington attorney Mary Ann Miranda represented a young woman who sued the University of Kentucky in U.S. District Court for disability discrimination.
The following year, a judge dismissed the lawsuit at UK’s request after Miranda missed key deadlines, including her chance to respond to UK’s motion to dismiss. As the case spiraled out of control, Miranda failed to respond to her client’s anxious phone calls, emails and text messages, court records say.
After the UK gained the upper hand, things only got worse for Miranda.
The judge reprimanded her in writing for her inactivity. The Kentucky Bar Association filed misconduct complaints against her over the UK lawsuit and another failed assignment, an estate case in which she took a family’s money but failed to do the work, failed to respond to the family’s concerns, and failed to return their father’s will.
On December 14, 2023, the Kentucky Supreme Court imposed a 181-day driver’s license suspension, with two years’ probation, on the condition that Miranda participate in the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program for close supervision and avoid further misconduct.
In the midst of all this, UK offered Miranda a job.
Today, she earns $150,665 a year as a trainee attorney at the university that held back her disabled client.
“My colleagues and I at the University of Kentucky have enjoyed our conversations with you and believe you would be an excellent fit for the Office of Legal Counsel. Your experience and qualifications seem like a great fit for this position and I very much look forward to having you join our team,” UK General Counsel William Throe wrote to Miranda on September 16, 2022.
Two days earlier, the Kentucky Bar Association’s investigating committee had filed four formal charges of professional misconduct against Miranda, which she later pleaded guilty to.
The charges include failing to act with reasonable care and diligence in representing a client; failing to keep her client informed of the status of a case; failing to return a client’s file when requested; and failing to respond to a lawful request for information from the Kentucky Bar Association.
Miranda, 49, did not respond to repeated phone calls and emails requesting comment for this story.
She was licensed to practice law in Kentucky in 2003. Prior to joining UK, she was an independent contractor with her own law firm in Lexington.
The United Kingdom defended its decision to adopt Miranda in a brief statement to the Herald-Leader.
“The University of Kentucky’s general counsel determined that Ms. Miranda was the most qualified person among the applicants for the open position. It is not at all unusual for a company or institution to hire an attorney who at one time opposed that company or institution on a matter,” wrote VK spokesman Jay Blanton.
“When Ms. Miranda applied for the position, the CBA had not yet begun a formal investigation,” Blanton added.
“The University was aware of her conduct in the UK case and investigated the reasons for her conduct as part of the hiring process,” Blanton wrote. “The General Counsel was satisfied that the explanation for her conduct was present and that the causes of the conduct—mental illness—were behind her. Both federal and state law prohibit the University from denying employment to someone solely because of a history of mental illness.”
Disability lawsuit dismissed
“Jane Doe,” as she is referred to in court documents, was a National Merit Scholar. She graduated from high school in Wexford, Pennsylvania, in June 2018 and accepted a four-year honors scholarship to attend UK, plus a stipend to cover her room and board on campus.
But Doe has a life-threatening allergy to dairy products made from cow’s milk. It severely limits her diet. After finalizing her plans, she was unable to get a direct answer from UK about when, or even if, dairy-free meals would be available to her, she said in her subsequent court filings.
In response, the UK demanded that Doe provide reasonable adjustments for her dietary restrictions.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights got involved in the negotiations. Eventually, British officials grew impatient with Doe and threatened to cancel her scholarship, she said. With the start of the school year approaching, Doe gave up and enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh instead, she said.
On July 2, 2019, Doe filed a lawsuit against UK for discrimination under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. Doe sought damages, civil penalties, and a fair and equitable food allergy policy on UK’s campus.
Miranda was not the attorney who filed the young woman’s lawsuit. But more than a year later, on November 12, 2020, she replaced Doe’s original attorneys and took over the case.
According to court documents, that was virtually the last thing she did in the case.
When the United Kingdom filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2021 seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, Miranda did not respond.
Two months later, U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove dismissed the case.
The following month, Miranda filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider his summary judgment. The judge agreed, saying he did not want to punish Jane Doe for her attorney’s mistakes. He ordered Miranda to respond to the analysis of the case he had given in his summary judgment.
Miranda again did not respond.
On November 2, 2021, Van Tatenhove issued a “show cause” order requiring Miranda to respond within 10 days with her reasons why she should not be disciplined for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. She filed a two-page document with her “sincere apologies” to the judge for her omissions in the case.
The judge reinstated the earlier decision to dismiss the student’s lawsuit. The United Kingdom won.
Not only did Jane Doe not receive any money, the judge also ordered her to pay UK $5,788.36 for printing and copying costs associated with the lawsuit.
Depression and anxiety disorder
Jane Doe and her family were concerned about the progress of her trial, but they received no response from Miranda, court documents show.
“Throughout the representation process, Miranda failed to keep the client or her mother, who was the client’s point of contact for most communications with Miranda, reasonably informed of the status of the case,” the Kentucky Supreme Court said in its disciplinary order against Miranda last winter.
“The client and her mother sent Miranda emails, phone calls and text messages requesting information about the representation. Miranda did not respond to these requests,” the high court said.
When Doe and her family eventually wanted to replace Miranda with a new lead attorney, Miranda refused to return their files, the Supreme Court said.
Around the same time, in 2021, Miranda cashed a $1,000 advance payment check from a woman whose father had died. She was supposed to help her client process the deceased’s will, distribute his assets, and transfer the deed to his home.
But Miranda failed to do the work required for the case or communicate with her client about it, and she refused to pay back the $1,000, the Supreme Court said. In 2022, she finally appeared in court to admit that she had “lost” the man’s will.
Both failed cases led to sanctions for misconduct in December last year.
Miranda told the Kentucky Bar Association that she suffered from “severe depression and generalized anxiety disorder” when she improperly performed her work for clients, the Supreme Court said.
The high court said it took Miranda’s mental health into account in weighing her punishment. But it also had to take into account the fact that “she has been disciplined for similar misconduct before,” as the Kentucky Bar Association described it in its own response to the court. “She has a history of disciplinary action for similar misconduct.”
Asked to explain the disciplinary history being referenced, Supreme Court Clerk Katherine Bing said that “not all attorney disciplinary matters come before the Supreme Court for final resolution. Attorney disciplinary matters may also proceed through an informal admonition process.”
Avoiding conflicts of interest
Laurel Jean Francoeur, an attorney in Woburn, Massachusetts, was part of Jane Doe’s original legal team.
Francoeur, reached by phone recently, said she had followed the case long enough after she left to see that Miranda had missed key deadlines and that the lawsuit had been dismissed at UK’s request. But she didn’t know that Miranda was going to work for UK.
“Oh my God,” Francoueur said. “As a lawyer? Even though she was sanctioned? Wow.”
Francoeur declined to comment on Miranda’s performance at work with her former client.
“I don’t know her at all,” Francoeur said. “I had no idea who she was before. And I’m not sure I can talk about that. I would have to get permission from my client.”
Peter Ostermiller, of Louisville, has been practicing law for 43 years. He is an authority on legal ethics and professional responsibility and represents lawyers in trouble.
Ostermiller said Kentucky attorneys operate under a code of conduct, including conflict-of-interest restrictions that prevent them from representing a client whose interests are opposed to those of another client. As long as Miranda had represented Jane Doe before she applied for the U.K. job, there would be no conflict, he said.
And as long as Miranda disclosed her upcoming disciplinary issues with the Kentucky Bar Association when she applied to UK, and was asked about them, there is no rule that says UK couldn’t hire her under such circumstances, Ostermiller said.
“If a potential employer asks you, you can’t lie,” Ostermiller said.
Lawyers whose licenses have been revoked by the Supreme Court for misconduct are often still seen as people who understand the law. But it is clear that they require close supervision because of the problems they face, such as mental illness or substance abuse, he said.
According to him, the United Kingdom believes there are suitable assignments for her.
“From an optical standpoint, it seems odd,” Ostermiller said. “But it’s not like it’s a private company. It’s a public institution, so who knows what their incentives are in the decision-making process.”
