John D. Minton jr

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against attorney Luann Glidewell for alleged violations of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct. In one matter, Glidewell filed an attorney's lien on property after withdrawing from representing a client in a divorce and refused to remove it despite requests, leading to findings that she violated rules against burdening third persons and engaging in criminal conduct by filing an illegal lien under KRS 434.155. In two other matters, she failed to respond to bar complaints and inquiries despite personal service and reminders, resulting in violations of the rule requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities. The trial commissioner found all violations by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended a three-year suspension, which the court adopted after consolidating the charges and holding a hearing at which Glidewell did not appear.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned disciplinary charges against Kentucky attorney William A. Mitchell for his representation in two separate probate matters. In the first, Mitchell was hired to settle an estate valued at about $150,000 but failed to proceed diligently, communicate adequately, or charge a reasonable fee, and he later agreed to repay most of the fee while attempting to have the bar complaint withdrawn. In the second, Mitchell as executor performed little work on another estate, paid himself $17,500 without completing the matter, and did not respond to inquiries. After Mitchell defaulted on the formal charges alleging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, the Board of Governors found him guilty on all counts and recommended a one-year suspension plus restitution and other conditions. The Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the Board's recommendation in full, imposing a concurrent one-year suspension, restitution of $17,500, referral to KYLAP, and related requirements.

procedureproperty

The case involved the Kentucky Bar Association's Inquiry Commission petitioning for the temporary suspension of attorney Jimmie Green Orr, Jr., from practicing law and restricting his access to client funds, based on allegations from two disciplinary files. In one matter, Orr was accused of misappropriating over $58,000 from client Bethel Slone by fabricating a loan to a nonexistent borrower, falsifying notarized affidavits about a stock sale, and lying to Bar Counsel about the events for months before admitting the misconduct; in the other, he was found to have filed falsified credit counseling certificates in bankruptcy court. Orr did not contest the material allegations. The court granted the petition under SCR 3.165(1)(a) and (b), finding probable cause that Orr had misappropriated client funds and posed a substantial threat of harm to clients or the public, and it imposed the requested suspension and escrow restrictions effective immediately.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Kentucky Bar Association's Inquiry Commission petitioning the court to temporarily suspend attorney David Alan Friedman from practicing law after two clients alleged that he converted tens of thousands of dollars from a lawsuit award meant for them and made repeated misrepresentations about the status of the funds. The court granted the petition for temporary suspension, along with a motion to supplement it with additional evidence of similar alleged misconduct. It found probable cause under SCR 3.165(1)(b) that Friedman's conduct posed a substantial threat of harm to clients or the public, based on details of the delayed payments, false statements, and his admission that he had spent the money on personal obligations before eventually repaying it after complaints were filed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Harry Finn, who was convicted of possession of cocaine after police found microscopic traces of the drug on a pen casing and glass pipe during a traffic stop; Finn admitted to using the items to ingest cocaine but argued that the immeasurable quantity was insufficient for conviction. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that state law permits a guilty verdict for possession of a controlled substance even when the amount is too small to be seen by the naked eye. The court reasoned that Kentucky statutes criminalize possession of any quantity of a controlled substance and that prior precedent had rejected any requirement for a usable amount. It further noted that other evidence, such as Finn's admissions and positive drug test, sufficiently established his knowing possession.

criminal law

Julia Belle Langerak was admitted to the Kentucky bar in 2007 and later suspended for non-payment of dues during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, with no disciplinary matters pending. She filed an application for restoration within one year, paid all required fees and dues, and maintained compliance with continuing legal education requirements. The Board of Governors unanimously recommended restoration, and the court adopted that recommendation, ordering her restored to practice subject to payment of proceeding costs, any additional dues, and timely completion of future CLE obligations if the process extended beyond June 2010.

procedure

This case concerns a physician, Eric C. Norsworthy, who appealed a restriction imposed by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure limiting his practice to male patients only, following multiple complaints of sexual misconduct with female patients over many years. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted a temporary injunction against the restriction, but the Court of Appeals stayed that injunction, finding an abuse of discretion. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the physician's motion to vacate the stay, holding that he failed to show extraordinary cause, as the potential harm was not irreparable and the equities did not favor him given his history.

healthcareprocedure

This case arose from a car accident in which William Stinson and William Mattingly were injured; after Mattingly sued Stinson and the claims were partially settled, Stinson pursued a counterclaim and a third-party claim against his own insurer, Kentucky Farm Bureau, under his underinsured motorist coverage. The trial court prohibited any mention of the UIM coverage or insurer at trial, the jury found Stinson fully liable, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Earle v. Cobb required identification of the insurer. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment, holding that the identification requirement applies only when the UIM carrier has used the Coots procedure to substitute its payment for the tortfeasor's and thereby become the real party in interest. Because no such settlement occurred here and the insurer did not participate at trial, the tortfeasor remained the primary defendant and the jury was presented with a genuine tort dispute rather than a legal fiction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Stanley Brown, a lawyer disbarred in Kentucky in 1995 and later permanently disbarred in Ohio in 1997, applied for reinstatement to the Kentucky bar in 2007. The Kentucky Bar Association moved to dismiss the reinstatement proceeding upon learning of the Ohio disbarment or, alternatively, to impose reciprocal discipline. The court granted the motion to dismiss the reinstatement application, finding Brown ineligible under SCR 2.022(6), which states that any applicant disbarred in another jurisdiction is not eligible for admission in Kentucky. The alternative request for reciprocal discipline was denied as moot. Brown remains suspended from practicing law in Kentucky.

procedure

This case involved Kentucky attorney Steve P. Robey, admitted in 1975 and temporarily suspended since 2005, who moved to resign from the bar under terms of permanent disbarment amid multiple pending disciplinary proceedings. The charges stemmed from his 2006 felony convictions for wanton endangerment and drug possession, subsequent misdemeanor convictions including theft by deception, and repeated instances of client neglect such as failing to appear in court, not communicating with clients, not refunding unearned fees, and mishandling estate matters as executor. The Kentucky Bar Association raised no objection to the motion. The court granted permanent disbarment, citing Robey's sustained pattern of serious misconduct involving criminal acts and misuse of client funds, along with his prior disciplinary record and precedents disbarring attorneys with fewer felony convictions. It also ordered him to pay proceeding costs of $1,894.18, make any required restitution, and provide required notices to clients and courts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney Thomas Joseph Grady for his handling of a client's disability benefits claim. Grady was accused of misappropriating a $350 payment from the client, fabricating a letter to conceal the issue from his law firm, failing to file required summary judgment motions in federal court which led to the case's dismissal, and not informing the client of the outcome or responding adequately to bar inquiries. The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association found him guilty by default on six counts of violating Supreme Court Rules, including those on client funds, dishonesty, diligence, and communication, and recommended a 181-day suspension, which the court adopted after reviewing his prior disciplinary history. The court ordered the suspension to begin immediately, along with notifications to clients and courts, and payment of costs.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Kentucky attorney Eric Lamar Emerson stemming from his 2006 representation in a criminal matter, in which he accepted a $2,500 fee from a client's mother, appeared at a detention hearing, then withdrew on the day a suppression motion was due without refunding part of the fee or taking steps to protect the client's interests, and subsequently failed to respond to the bar complaint or maintain an updated roster address. The Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the Board of Governors' default findings that Emerson violated rules on protecting client interests upon termination (SCR 3.130-1.16(d)), failing to respond to the bar (SCR 3.130-8.1(b)), and disobeying tribunal obligations by not updating his address (SCR 3.130-3.4(c)), while acquitting him on competence, diligence, and certain withdrawal counts. The court imposed a public reprimand, ordered repayment of $1,250 plus costs, and required six hours of remedial ethics education, emphasizing that the sanctions addressed the procedural and ethical violations rather than the fee amount itself.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary charges against attorney Dana Lea Quesinberry for her handling of an uncontested divorce matter, in which she failed to prepare and file a final decree despite court instructions, did not communicate with her clients, and did not respond to the resulting bar complaint or charges. The Inquiry Commission charged her with violations of the rules requiring diligence (SCR 3.130-1.3), communication (SCR 3.130-1.4), and cooperation with disciplinary proceedings (SCR 3.130-8.1(b)). Because Quesinberry did not answer the charges, the Board of Governors found her guilty by default, noting her prior similar discipline, and recommended a 181-day suspension to run concurrently with another suspension already imposed in a related matter. The court adopted the Board's recommendation, adjudicated her guilty on all counts, ordered the concurrent suspension along with notice to clients and payment of costs, and required review by the Character and Fitness Committee for any future reinstatement.

procedurefamily law

In Cumberland Valley Contractors, Inc. v. Bell County Coal Corp., Cumberland Valley and its assignee Del Rio sued Bell County Coal for economic damages from mine flooding allegedly caused by inaccurate or missing maps, raising claims of misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract under a mining agreement. The trial court denied summary judgment based on an exculpatory clause and entered a jury verdict awarding damages, which the Court of Appeals partially affirmed while voiding the clause as against public policy. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, enforcing the clause because it resulted from an arm's-length transaction between sophisticated parties who shared the relevant statutory mapping duties with no gross imbalance of bargaining power, and it did not violate public policy in this context of economic damages. The court also ruled that Bell County Coal's appeal was timely filed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability