TO BE**~UBLISHED**

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT

V. IN SUPREME COURT

KENNETH JOSEPH BADER RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER In this attorney disciplinary proceeding,

# the**Tri~** Commissioner issued a report finding that Respondent Kenneth Joseph Bader had violated two rules of professional misconduct, as charged by the Inquiry Commission. As a

. sanction, the Trial Commissioner recommended that Bader be**suspe~ded** from

the practice oflaw for thirty (30) days and be assessed all costs associated with ) this proceeding, pursuant to SCRl 3.450. Neither Bader nor the Kentucky Bar Association ("KBA") filed a notice ofappeal from the report; accordingly; this
case is before this Court for entry ofa final order pursuant to SCR 3.370(9);. \

. Finding**su~ficient** cause to**dos~,** we·;adopt

# the Triai Commissioner's

recommendation.

1 Supreme Court Rules.KBA File 23761 Bader, KBA Number is 02455, bar roster address 544 BaxterAvenue, Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40204, Wa!S admitted to the practice oflaw in the Commonwealth ofKentucky on October 22, 1980. This disciplinary

.proceeding arose from orders entered by the Bullitt Circuit Court finding Bader to be in contempt ofcourt on three separate occasions for failing to appear to represent the interests ofhis clients. Based upon complaints by the**~ullitt ~**  Circuit Courtjudge, the Inquiry Commission issued a comphμnt against Bader inJuly 2015. Bader did not file a response. Subsequently, the Inquiry**Commiss~on** issued a two-count charge against him. Count I charged that Baderviolated SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), which provides: "A lawyer shall not ... knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules ofa tribunal without an open

. .
· refusal based on the claim that no valid obligation exists." Count II charged

that Baderviolated SCR 3.130(8.l)(b), which states, in pai:t, that in conjunction with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not "knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary**~uthority."** Bader did not timely answer the charge, but laterrequested, and received, additional time to .file an answer. In his answer, Bader addres·sed difficulties he faced as a sole practitioner, especially trying to cover cases in multiple courts. He claimed that he missed his contempt hearing in Bullitt Circuit**~ourt** because he did not receive timely notice ofit. He also spoke of health problems and serious personal issues, and stated that he had suffered a 2serious accident that caused him to be offwork. However, Bader filed no documentation to support any ofthese claims; and filed nothing e.lse ofrecord throughout this proceeding, despite addition81 requests for information from the·KBA and the Trial Commissioner, nor did he participate in any other way. Bader did not appear at the pre:.hearing conference, file any witness or exhibit lists in anticipation ofthe hearing, or attend the December 6, 2019 disciplinary hearingitself. Following the hearing, the KBA timely filed its post-hearing brief. Bader did not file a brieforrequest an**ext~I?-sion** oftime to do so.· The Trial ·Commissioner thereafter issued its report, finding thatwith respect to Count I, Baderviolated SCR 3.130(3."!Hc) by engaging in conduct that resulted in three contempt orders beingissued bythe Bullitt Circuit Court. The Trial

. . Commissionerfound that the proofshowed by a preponderance ofthe evidence

. . that on three separate occasions Baderfailed, Without cause, to appear in the Bullitt Circuit Court after having been duly ordered to appear. With respect to Count II, the.Trial Commissioner found that the proofestablished by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Bader had violated SCR 3.130(8.l)(b) by failing to respond to additional requests, both from KBA Counsel and the Trial Commissioner, for additional information during this proceeding and in all. ways failed to ·participate inhis disciplinary hearing. Having concluded that Baderviolated the Rules ofProfessional Conduct
as charged in Count I and II, the Trial Commissionerconsidered Bader's past disciplinary history in determining the appropriate sanction to recommend. 3The record shows that by order entered July 21, 2014, Bader received a private ·

·

### reprim~d for the following: 1) violating.SCR 3.130-1.3 byfailing to.file·a client's bankruptcy**pe~tion** iri a timelymanner; 2) violating SCR 3.130-L4(a)(2) byfailing to tell his client that he was not filing her bankruptcypetition because she had not paid his fee; and 3) violating·scR 3.130-1.4(a)(3) by failing to i:espond to his client's requests for information about her bankruptcy proceedings. Considering Bader's conductin the proceedingat bar, and his disciplinaryhistocy, the Trial Commissioner recommended that Bader be suspended from the practice oflawfor 30 days and be assessed atl costs associated with this proceeding, pursuant Jo SCR 3.450. Upon review ofthe Trial·Commissioner's recommendation, we find that the proposed sanction is appropriate and is supported by this Court's prior decisions. 

### See, e.g., Ky. 

### BarAss'n 

### v. Myles, 436 S.W.3d 204 (Ky. 2014) (61-day suspension warranted**wher~** attorney disobeyed order ofdisciplinary authority

. ;**r~quiring** him to return file to fprmer client, and failed to respond to disciplinary authority's request for information); Ky
..BarAss'n v. Leadingham, 269 S.W.3d 419 (Ky. 2008) (public reprimand, and 30-day ·suspension probated on condition that attorney attend ethics program, appropriate sanction for attorney's failure to obey orders.ofthe court and failure to respond to a demand for**informati~n** from a disciplinary authority); Ky. BarAss'n 

### v. Quesinberry, 203 S.W.3d 137 (Ky. 2006) (30-day suspension merited where attorney failed to properlyhandle a client's**c~se** and failed to respond to the Inquicy Commission's request for information). 4 \

### The record in this case indicates clear noncompliance with the rules of Bader's chosen profession. The admonition he received in 2014 was for**s~milar** 

### conduct. Upon the foregoing facts and charges, we find sufficient evidence to adjudicate Baderguilty ofall counts alleged in 

### KBA File 23761. We further liold thatin light ofBader's conduct, the recommended sanction ofthe Trial

.Commissioner should be adopted.· Therefore, itis hereby ORDERED that: 1. 

### Respondent, Kenneth Joseph Bader, KBA Number 02455, 544 Baxter Avenue, Suite 200, 

### Louisville, Kentucky 40204 is adjudged guilty 

### of violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) and SCR 3.130(8.l)(b); · 

### 2. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice oflaw in the Commonwealth ofKen.tucky for a period ofthirty 

### (30) days; 3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings againsthim, in 

### the amount of$1,241.19, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality ofthis Opinion and Order. All sitting. All 

### concur. ENTERED: September 28, 2017.

CHI

5