IN RE: Michael James THOMPSON (2026)

OPINION AND ORDER

On July 9, 2025, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court (“BPR”) entered an order publicly censuring Respondent Michael James Thompson (“Thompson”) for violating Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (protecting confidential information) and 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest). On August 5, 2025, the Office of Bar Counsel (“OBC”) petitioned this Court to issue an order directing Thompson to show cause, if any, why he should not be subjected to reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 3.435 of the Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court (“SCR”). In the event this Court failed to find good cause, OBC requested an order imposing discipline identical to Tennessee's Public Censure against Thompson — in Kentucky, this is a public reprimand. Having entered an Order on August 8, 2025, directing Thompson, within 20 days of the Order, to show cause why discipline identical to that imposed in Tennessee should not be imposed in Kentucky, and having received no response from Thompson, this Court now publicly reprimands Thompson.

I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Thompson is a member of both the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) and the Tennessee Bar Association. He has been a member of the KBA since October 23, 2009. His KBA member number is 93285, and his bar roster address is 15744 Fort Campbell Blvd, Oak Grove, KY 42262-7208.

On July 9, 2025, the BPR entered an order Publicly Censuring ¹ Thompson, finding that, “Mr. Thompson represented a client in a custody proceeding in Kentucky state court. Mr. Thompson exchanged sexualized communications with his client during the representation, evidencing a concurrent conflict of interest. Mr. Thompson also communicated with his client about the subject matter of the custody proceeding through Instagram messaging without any privacy controls.” The client involved in this matter resided in Tennessee, but her case was in Kentucky. Because of these actions, the BPR order found that Thompson violated the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (protecting confidential information) and 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest).

SCR 3.435(4) allows for the imposition of identical discipline against a KBA member when such member has been subjected to professional discipline in another jurisdiction, unless the Respondent proves by substantial evidence that the original disciplining agency lacked jurisdiction, there was fraud in the original disciplinary proceeding, or the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in Kentucky. Accordingly, on August 5, 2025, OBC filed a petition for reciprocal discipline, requesting this Court to issue an Order directing Thompson to show cause, if any, why identical discipline should not be imposed by this Court pursuant to SCR 3.435. OBC further requested that, if this Court finds such cause lacking, that this Court enter an order imposing identical discipline.

On August 8, 2025, this Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Thompson, within 20 days of the entry of the Order, to show cause why discipline identical to that imposed in the State of Tennessee should not be imposed in Kentucky. This order directed Thompson to include any claim that imposition of identical discipline is unwarranted under SCR 3.435(4) in his response. As the permissible window for a response has expired, and this Court has received no response from Thompson or other evidence demonstrating good cause to not impose identical discipline, this Court now moves forward with imposing identical discipline against Thompson. The discipline identical to Tennessee's Public Censure in Kentucky is a public reprimand.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that Michael James Thompson has been subjected to professional disciplinary action in another jurisdiction and is thus subjected to reciprocal identical discipline in Kentucky pursuant to SCR 3.435.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT Michael James Thompson is found to have been subjected to professional discipline by the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court for violating Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 and 1.7(a)(2) and is hereby publicly reprimanded for unprofessional conduct.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 12.4 defines a Public Censure as “a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the attorney improper but does not limit the attorney's privilege to practice law.”

All sitting. Lambert, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, Keller and Nickell, JJ., concur. Thompson, J., dissents without opinion.