Phone: 859-219-9090
Fax: 859-219-9292
Email: E-mail Me
Sarah Laytham joined Richardson Law Group, PLLC as an associate attorney in 2023.
Professional Experience
Associate, Richardson Law Group, PLLC, Lexington, KY July 2023 to present
Staff Attorney, Fayette County Circuit Court, August 2020 to July 2023
Education
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law, Juris Doctor (2020)
University of Kentucky, Bachelor of Arts in International Studies & English, Summa Cum Laude (2017)
Accomplishments, Honors, and Affiliations
Kentucky Bar Association
Production Editor, Kentucky Law Journal
Treasurer, OUTlaw
Bar Admissions
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Representative Matters
April 2026, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2025-CA-0756-MR: Melissa Richardson, Joshua Leckrone, Sarah Laytham, and Bryan Bond, successfully defended the dismissal of all claims of a former physician who attempted to collaterally attack his numerous federal convictions arising out of his distribution of controlled substances. The Complaint alleged claims of negligence, identity theft, fraud, and defamation, among others, against over 80 pharmacies and their staff. The Defendants sought dismissal as the Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by their respective statutes of limitation and because the Plaintiff’s claims were essentially a collateral attack on his prior convictions. The Perry County Circuit Court ultimately dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims as being barred by the statute of limitations but did not consider the collateral estoppel defense.
When the Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the Court of Appeals not only affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, but also addressed the collateral estoppel defense. In so doing, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court of the United States was emphatically clear that Heck “…forecloses all tort claims that ‘necessarily imply’ a conviction’s ‘invalidity.’” James A. Chaney v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., et al., No. 2025-CA-0756-MR, at 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 2026), citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). Beyond the Plaintiff’s improper invocation of the Discovery Rule, his claims relied on a framing of facts and issues that were already foreclosed by his federal convictions. The essential takeaway of the Court of Appeal’s decision is that collateral estoppel functions as a shield when a prior proceeding, be it civil or criminal, has already adjudicated issues necessarily at stake in the subsequent proceeding.
Spare Time
In her spare time, Sarah enjoys reading, drawing, costume-making, and making sure her cats, Laika and Sisko, aren't getting into trouble.