TO BE PUBLISHED 

oStlyttittr Conti of rufurkg 

2015-SC-000719-KB 

ERIC CHARLES DETERS MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2), Eric C. Deters moves 

this Court to impose a sixty-day suspension for his violations of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no objection to 

this negotiated discipline. Finding a sixty-day suspension appropriate, we 

grant Deters's motion. Deters whose last known bar roster address is 5247 

Madison Pike, Independence, Kentucky 41051, was admitted to the practice of 

law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 10, 1986. 

KBA File 22026 

Deters was retained to represent Aric Shinkle regarding criminal charges 

in Indiana, including a vehicular homicide matter. For this representation, 

Deters accepted the sum of $5,000. Deters was not licensed to practice law in 

Indiana and had previously been denied pro hac vice admission in a separate 

Indiana case. As a result, the representation was initially handled by another 
member of Deters's firm, James Moore, who is licensed to practice law in 

Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. 

When Moore was unavailable to assist with Shinkle's probation violation 

hearing, Deters asked Kevin Moser, an attorney licensed in Kentucky and 

Indiana, to represent Shinkle at that hearing. Moser contacted Shinkle and his 

parents, received discovery, and appeared at multiple court proceedings. 

Subsequently, Moser contacted Deters to inquire about compensation for his 

representation of Shinkle. Deters informed Moser that he had only been paid 

to represent Shinkle for the vehicular manslaughter charge and that Moser 

would have to seek compensation directly from the Shinkles. Consequently, 

Moser contacted the Shinkles and received the sum of $1,000. 

During the pendency of their son's case, the Shinkles hired a new 

attorney who requested an accounting of the retainer given to Deters. Deters 

refused to provide an accounting, claiming that he was unable to account for 

how the retainer was used. During his representation Deters decided to forgo a 

written fee agreement with the Shinkles, failed to keep time records, and chose 

to not place the advance fee in an escrow account. The Shinkles' new attorney 

also contacted Moore to request confirmation that he had been paid for the 

time he worked on the case. In fact, Moore, who had left Deters's firm in 2013, 

had not been paid for his work on the case. 

In response to the inquiry, Deters sent a text message to the Shinkles to 

advise them that he would not be refunding any portion of his fee and that he 

was prepared to sue the couple for slander. Further, Deters advised the 

2 
Shinkles that there was no longer an attorney/client relationship and that he 

would take actions detrimental to their son if necessary to defend himself. 

On March 23, 2015, the Inquiry Commission (Commission) issued a 

four-count charge against Deters for violation of: (1) SCR 3.130(1.6)(a) 

(Confidentiality of information) for threatening the Shinkles with the disclosure 

of information that may have been detrimental to Aric Shinkle; (2) SCR 

3.130(5.5) (Unauthorized practice of law; multijurisdictional practice of law) for 

continuing to represent Aric Shinkle in an Indiana criminal case without an 

Indiana attorney assisting in the matter, and after learning he would not be 

admitted pro hac vice; (3) SCR 3.130(1.15) (Fees) for failing to maintain the 

advance fee payment in a proper escrow account and by failing to provide a full 

accounting of the funds to Aric Shinkle; and (4) SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) (Misconduct) 

for continuing the representation of Aric Shinkle after Deters was left with no 

Indiana associates and after he was denied pro hac vice admission in Indiana. 

Deters admits to violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth 

in Counts I, II, and III, but denies the violations listed in Count IV. In light of a 

review of the evidence and Deters's cooperation to resolve his ethical violations, 

the Inquiry Commission Chair and Immediate Past President approved the 

dismissal of Count IV. 

KBA File 23552 

In June 2010, Deters contracted with Eugene Trenkamp and Dean 

Gregory to represent their limited liability companies in a law suit against Fifth 

Third Bank. Trenkamp and Gregory paid Deters $10,000 as a retainer for his 

3 
services. While Deters was suspended from the practice of law, the case was 

handled by Tina Edmondson, an employee of Deters's law firm. While 

Edmondson was handling the case she obtained an additional $5,000 payment 

from Trenkamp and Gregory. 

In January 2014, Trenkamp contacted Deters by electronic mail to 

discuss the firm's failure to respond to his attempts at communication. In a 

hostile email exchange, Deters claimed that his firm had provided diligent 

representation well in excess of the fees received. Additionally, Deters stated 

that the firm's representation of Gregory and Trenkamp was over. It is unclear 

from the record what if any steps were taken by Deters to end the 

representation. 

In any event, in a letter dated March 3, 2015, Trenkamp made it clear 

that he believed that the representation was ongoing. Trenkamp noted that he 

had been unsuccessful in the preceding weeks in obtaining a response from 

Edmonson regarding the status of the lawsuit. Trenkamp then informed 

Deters that he had recently learned that Edmonson was no longer employed by 

Deters's firm. Consequently, Trenkamp requested that Deters's firm end the 

representation, refund the $15,000 that had been paid, and provide a copy of 

the file. Subsequently, Trenkamp filed a bar complaint against Deters. 

While no formal charges were filed by the Commission, Deters 

acknowledges that there is probable cause to find that he violated the following 

rules: (1) SCR 3.130(1.3) (Diligence); (2) SCR 3.130(1.4) (Communication); (3) 

4 
SCR 3.130(1.16) (Declining or terminating representation); and (4) SCR 5.1 

(Responsibilities of partners, managers and supervisory lawyers). 

Proceedings Before this Court 

The Inquiry Commission consolidated Deters's files pursuant to SCR 

3.260(1). In response to the Commission's inquires, Deters now moves this 

Court to enter an order suspending him for a period of 60 days. Additionally, 

Deters has agreed to refund $1,000 to the Shinkles in KBA file 23552. The 

KBA has no objection to the proposed discipline, which was negotiated 

pursuant to SCR 3.480(2). Upon review of the facts in this case and relevant 

case law, we find the proposed discipline is appropriate. 

While Deters's prior disciplinary history does support increased 

sanctions, his cooperation in the resolution of these matters is considered as a 

mitigating factor. Further, the Court has previously issued similar discipline in 

comparable cases. See, e.g., Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Justice, 198 S.W.3d 583 

(Ky. 2006) (attorney with four previous private reprimands, was suspended for 

thirty days for failing to communicate with client, prosecute client's case, keep 

funds separate, and return unearned fee). Additionally, we note that Deters is 

currently suspended from the practice of law and only able to seek 

reinstatement to practice pursuant to SCR 3.510. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. Eric C. Deters is suspended from the practice of law in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky for sixty days. 

2. Deters must return $1,000 to Mr. and Mrs. Shinkle (KBA File 22026). 

5 
3. Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Deters is directed to pay all costs associated 

with these disciplinary proceedings, in the amount of $156.09, for which 

execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: March 17, 2016.