Lawyer bungled a lawsuit against UK badly enough to get disciplined. Then UK hired her

In 2020, Lexington attorney Mary Ann Miranda represented a young woman suing the University of Kentucky in U.S. District Court for disability discrimination.

The next year, a judge tossed out the lawsuit at UK’s request after Miranda missed important deadlines, including her chance to respond to UK’s motion for dismissal. As the case went off the rails, Miranda didn’t return her client’s worried calls, emails and texts, according to court records.

Once UK prevailed, things got worse for Miranda.

The judge rebuked her in writing for her inaction. The Kentucky Bar Association pursued misconduct complaints against her because of the UK suit and another bungled assignment, an estate case where she took a family’s money but didn’t perform the work, respond to the family’s concerns or return their father’s will.

On Dec. 14, 2023, the Kentucky Supreme Court handed down a 181-day license suspension , probated for two years, on the conditions that Miranda enter the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program for close supervision and avoid any further misconduct.

In the midst of all this, UK offered Miranda a job.

Today she’s paid $150,665 a year as an associate general counsel at the university that thwarted 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 in the Office of Legal Counsel. Your experience and credentials appear to be a great match for this position, and I very much look forward to you joining our team,” UK General Counsel William Thro wrote to Miranda on Sept. 16, 2022.

Two days earlier, the Kentucky Bar Association Inquiry Commission issued four formal charges of professional misconduct against Miranda. She later admitted to them.

The charges included failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failure to keep her client informed about the status of a case; failure to return a client’s file when asked; and failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Kentucky Bar Association.

Miranda, 49, did not respond to repeated calls and emails seeking comment for this story.

She was licensed to practice law in Kentucky in 2003. Prior to joining UK, she was self-employed at her own solo firm in Lexington.

UK defended its decision to hire Miranda in a brief statement to the Herald-Leader.

“The general counsel at the University of Kentucky determined that Ms. Miranda was the most qualified person among the applicants for the open position. It is not unusual at all for a firm or an institution to hire counsel who at one point opposed that firm or institution on a matter,” UK spokesman Jay Blanton wrote.

“At the time that Ms. Miranda applied for the position, the KBA had not begun its formal inquiry,” Blanton added.

“The university was aware of her conduct in the case involving UK and explored the reasons for her behavior as part of the interview process,” Blanton wrote. “The general counsel was satisfied with the explanation for her behavior and that the causes of the behavior — mental illness — were behind her. Both federal and state law prohibit the university from refusing to hire someone simply because of a mental illness in the past.”

Disability lawsuit dismissed

“Jane Doe,” as she is identified in court filings, was a National Merit Scholar. She graduated from high school in Wexford, Pa., 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 milk. It severely limits her diet. After she finalized her plans, she couldn’t get a direct answer from UK on when, or even if, dairy-free meals would be available to her, she said in her subsequent court filings.

In response, UK insisted it offered Doe reasonable accommodations for her dietary restrictions.

The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights got involved in negotiations. Eventually, UK officials became impatient with Doe and threatened to cancel her scholarship, she said. Facing the start of the school year, Doe gave up and enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh instead, she said.

UK did not and would not have threatened Doe’s scholarship because of the disagreement, said Blanton, the UK spokesman.

On July 2, 2019, Doe filed a discrimination lawsuit against UK under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act seeking damages, civil penalties and a fair and equitable food allergy policy on the UK campus.

Miranda wasn’t the lawyer who filed the young woman’s lawsuit. But more than a year later, on Nov. 12, 2020, she replaced Doe’s original lawyers and took over the case.

That was nearly the last thing she did in the case, according to court records.

When UK filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2021 to get the suit dismissed, Miranda failed to respond.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove dismissed the suit two months later.

The next month, Miranda filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider his summary judgment. The judge agreed, saying he didn’t want to punish Jane Doe for her lawyer’s mistakes. He ordered Miranda to respond to the analysis of the case he had provided in his summary judgment.

Miranda again failed to respond.

On Nov. 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 submitted a two-page filing with her “sincerest apologies” to the judge for her omissions in the case.

The judge reinstated his previous dismissal of the student’s lawsuit. UK won.

In fact, not only did Jane Doe get no money, the judge ordered her to pay $5,788.36 to UK for printing and copying costs related to the litigation.

Depression and anxiety disorder

Jane Doe and her family grew concerned about what was happening with her lawsuit, but they weren’t getting answers from Miranda, according to court records.

“Throughout the course of representation, Miranda failed to keep the client or her mother, who was the client’s contact for most communications with Miranda, reasonably informed about 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, calls and texts requesting information about the representation. Miranda, however, failed to reply to these requests,” the high court said.

Yet when Doe and her family finally tried to replace Miranda with a new lead counsel, Miranda would not return their case file, the Supreme Court said.

Around this same time, in 2021, Miranda cashed a $1,000 retainer check from a woman whose father had died. She was supposed to help her client process the dead man’s will, distribute his assets and transfer the deed to his house.

But Miranda failed to do the work necessary for the case or communicate with her client about it, and she refused to refund the $1,000, the Supreme Court said. In 2022, she finally appeared in court to admit that she had “misplaced” the man’s will.

Both botched cases led to the misconduct sanctions against her last December.

Miranda told the Kentucky Bar Association she was suffering from “severe depression and generalized anxiety disorder” when she mishandled her work for clients, according to the Supreme Court.

The high court said it took Miranda’s mental health into account as it weighed her punishment. But it also had to consider that “she has already received discipline for similar misconduct,” as the Kentucky Bar Association described it in its own response to the court. “She has a disciplinary history for similar misconduct.”

Asked to explain the disciplinary history being referenced, Supreme Court Clerk Katherine Bing said that “not all lawyer discipline matters come before the Supreme Court for final resolution. Matters of lawyer discipline can also proceed through an informal admonition procedure.”

Avoiding conflicts of interest

Laurel Jean Francoeur, an attorney in Woburn, Mass., was on Jane Doe’s original legal team.

Contacted by phone recently, Francoeur said she followed the case long enough after she left to see that Miranda missed important deadlines and the suit was dismissed at UK’s request. But she hadn’t known that Miranda went to work for UK.

“Oh my gosh,” Francoueur said. “As an attorney? Even though she was sanctioned? Wow.”

Francoeur declined to offer her opinions on Miranda’s job performance for her former client.

“I don’t know her at all,” Francoeur said. “I had no idea before this who she was. And I’m not sure that I’m at liberty to talk about that. I’d have to get my client’s permission.”

Peter Ostermiller, of Louisville, has practiced law for 43 years. He’s an authority on legal ethics and professional responsibility who represents attorneys in trouble.

Ostermiller said Kentucky lawyers operate under a code of ethics rules, including conflict-of-interest restrictions that prevent them from representing one client whose interests are adverse to another client’s. As long as Miranda finished representing Jane Doe before she applied for the UK job, there wouldn’t be a conflict, he said.

And as long as Miranda disclosed her pending disciplinary problems with the Kentucky Bar Association when she applied to UK, if she was asked about it, there is no rule that says UK could not hire her under such circumstances, Ostermiller said.

“If a prospective employer asks you about it, you can’t lie,” Ostermiller said.

Lawyers who get their license suspended by the Supreme Court because of misconduct often are still considered knowledgeable sources about the law, but it’s understood they’re going to need close supervision because of the problems plaguing them, such as mental illness or substance abuse, he said.

UK might believe it has appropriate assignments for her, he added.

“From an optics standpoint, it seems strange,” Ostermiller said. “But it’s not like it’s a private enterprise. It’s a public institution, so who knows what their drivers are in the decision-making process.”