,iniarrntr &Turf 'ef fi.r 

2014-SC-000057-KB 

RICHARD K. ROSE MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Richard K. Rose moves this Court to issue a public reprimand for hiS 

admitted violations of Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 3.130-1.1, 1SCR 3.130-1.5, 2 

3and SCR 3.130-1.15(a). 4The Kentucky Bar Association SCR 3.130-3.4(c),

("KBA") states no objection to the proposed discipline. Finding a public 

reprimand to be the appropriate discipline for his misconduct, we grant Rose's 

motion. Rose, whose KBA member number is 93386 and whose bar roster 

SCR 3.130-1.1 provides: "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 

client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 

preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 

2SCR 3.130-1.5 provides, in pertinent part: "A lawyer shall not make an 

agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for 

expenses." 

3SCR 3.130-3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey an 

obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an 

assertion that no valid obligation exists{.]" 

4SCR 3.130-1.15(a) provides, in pertinent part: "A lawyer shall hold property of 

clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a 

representation separate from the lawyer's own property." 
address is P.O. Box 910253, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, was admitted to the 

practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on December 9, 2009. 

Margaret Finn retained Rose to represent her in a bankruptcy matter in 

early 2012. Rose was paid $3,100.00, which he placed in his personal banking 

account. He then filed two bankruptcy petitions on Finn's behalf. The first 

petition was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, and the second was 

dismissed for failure to file required documents. Rose failed to inform the 

Bankruptcy Court that he had collected a fee from Finn in violation of 11 

U.S.C. § 329(a). 5He further failed to notify Finn that the petitions had been 

dismissed. She only learned of the dismissals after receiving orders from the 

Bankruptcy Court in the mail. Finn subsequently discharged Rose and 

retained new counsel. 

On August 23, 2012, Finn filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court to 

set aside an order of dismissal. The United States Trustee filed a motion for an 

order disgorging excessive fees, asserting that the $3,100.00 collected by Rose 

far exceeded the value of the services rendered. The Trustee further stated that 

Rose failed to complete required bankruptcy schedules for Finn, that he never 

filed or obtained confirmation of a repayment plan for Finn, that his fee did not 

fit into the local compensation rubric in force for Chapter 13 debtor's attorneys 

511 U.S.C.A. § 329(a) provides: "Any attorney representing a debtor in a case 

under this title, or in connection with such a case, whether or not such attorney 

applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the 

compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after 

one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be 

rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the 

source of such compensation." 

2 
in the district, and that he failed to refund Finn's fee despite requests to do so. 

On October 10, 2012, a United States Bankruptcy Court judge entered an 

order finding that Rose provided Finn no value in relation to her desire to 

receive bankruptcy relief and that he failed to disclose the $3,100.00 

compensation he had received which he was required to disclose pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(b). The 

order directed full disgorgement of the fee. Rose ultimately refunded Finn's 

$3,100.00 fee in full just prior to the entry of the order. 

The Inquiry Commission filed a four-count charge against Rose on May 

9, 2013, and filed an amended charge on October 18, 2013. Count I of the 

amended charge alleged a violation of SCR 3.130-1.1 (failing to offer competent 

representation of a client). Rose admits that he violated this rule by failing to 

file the required schedules and repayment plan, and by failing to disclose his 

fee to the Bankruptcy Court. Count II of the amended charge alleged a 

violation of SCR 3.130-1.5 (collecting an unreasonable fee). Rose admits that 

he violated this rule by collecting the $3,100.00 fee from Finn, which was 

unreasonable in light of the services provided. Count III of the amended charge 

alleged a violation of SCR 3.130-3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation 

under the rules of a tribunal). Rose admits that he violated this rule by 

violating Bankruptcy Court rules by failing to redact Finn's social security 

number and by failing to disclose his fee to the court. Count IV of the amended 

charge alleged a violation of SCR 3.130-1.15(a) (safekeeping client property). 

3 
Rose admits that he violated this rule by depositing the $3,100.00 into his 

personal banking account. 

The KBA states no objection to Rose's motion for a public reprimand, 

asserting that case law supports the discipline. After reviewing the record and 

the applicable law, the Court finds a public reprimand is an appropriate 

punishment for Rose's misconduct. We have faced similar misconduct in 

McAdam v. Kentucky Bar Association, 262 S.W.3d 640 (Ky. 2008), wherein this 

Court imposed a public reprimand when an attorney admitted to committing 

ethical violations arising from his failure to file a prehearing statement and by 

not complying with show cause orders. See also Stutsman v. Kentucky Bar 

Association, 184 S.W.3d 560 (Ky. 2006) (public reprimand was appropriate 

discipline in a case where an attorney disregarded procedural requirements 

and repeatedly missed deadlines). The record establishes that Rose, who has 

no prior disciplinary history, engaged in misconduct warranting a public 

reprimand. 

For the reasons stated herein, Rose's motion is granted. Therefore, it is 

hereby ORDERED, 

1. Richard K. Rose, KBA Member Number 93386, is publicly 

reprimanded for his violation of SCR 3.130-1.1, SCR 3.130-1.5, SCR 3.130-

3.4(c), and SCR 3.130-1.15(a); 

2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Rose is directed to pay $197.79 in 

4 
costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings, for which execution may 

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

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: March 20, 2014. 

5