Suprrtur Gurf 

2015-SC-000600-KB 

CORRECTED: April 7, 2016 

TO BE PUBLISHED 

A ck-selt 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION DT E3 40, Eu ?).c.. 

-MOANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

EDMUND V. SMITH RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On October 20, 2015, upon the motion of the Kentucky Bar Association 

(KBA), this Court issued an order directing Edmund V. Smith' to show cause 

why he should not be subject to reciprocal discipline after being publicly 

reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The KBA also requested that 

if such cause be lacking, this Court enter an order in accordance with SCR 

3.435(4) publicly reprimanding Respondent and requiring the repayment of an 

unearned fee to a client involved in the Tennessee proceedings. Having 

received no response from Respondent, this Court now grants the KBA's 

motion and orders the recommended disciplinary sanction. 

I. BACKGROUND OF TENNESSEE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 

1KBA Member No. 83589; Bar roster address P.O. Box 575, Cadiz, Kentucky, 

42211. 
The Tennessee Disciplinary proceedings consisted of three files: 

Tennessee File Nos. 37089-0-BG; 36699c-0-BG; and 37385c-BG. 

File No. 37089-0-BG. In August 2013, Jan Krakowiak, Jr. paid 

Respondent $2,500.00 to represent him in a divorce case. There was no 

written fee agreement associated with the representation. In the meantime 

Krakowiak's wife filed a divorce action in Michigan and Respondent prepared a 

response for Krakowiak in that case. Respondent then filed a divorce action in 

Tennessee and argued that Tennessee had jurisdiction over the case. 

Krakowiak ultimately decided to abandon the Tennessee case and pursue the 

divorce in Michigan. Krakowiak thereafter informed Respondent that he would 

no longer need his services and asked him to refund part of the $2,500.00 

previously paid to Respondent; however, Respondent did not do so. Krakowiak 

continued to attempt to contact Respondent but Respondent did not return his 

calls. As a result of the foregoing Respondent was charged with violating 

Tennessee Supreme Court Rules of Profession Conduct (RPC) 1.4 by failing to 

communicate; RPC 1.5(f) by failing to have a written non-refundable fee 

agreement; RPC 1.16(d) by failing to refund a portion of the $2,500.00 fee; and 

RPC 8.1 by failing to timely respond to disciplinary counsel. 

File No. 36699c-O-BG. In October 2011, Emanuel Garcia retained 

Respondent to represent him in a divorce case. Upon conclusion of the case, 

Garcia asked Respondent to send him a copy of his ex-wife's deposition. 

Respondent subsequently failed to respond to a number of communications 

from disciplinary counsel regarding whether he had ever provided the 

2 
deposition to Garcia. In connection with failing to provide Garcia with his 

wife's deposition, Respondent was charged with violating RPC 1.16(d) (requiring 

that an attorney act with diligence in representing a client); RPC 1.4(3) and (4) 

(requiring that an attorney communicate with a client concerning the 

representation); RPC 1.5(f) (relating to fees charged to a client); RPC 1.16(d) 

(relating to declining or terminating representation); RPC 8.1(b) (relating to bar 

admission and disciplinary matters); and RPC 8.4(a) (relating to misconduct by 

an attorney). 

File No. 37385c-BG. In 2014, Ovita Miller paid Respondent $5,000.00 

to represent her in an administrative proceeding against the United States 

Army on an employment discrimination claim; Ms. Miller passed away in 

November 2014. Ms. Miller's husband, Johnny Miller, paid Respondent an 

additional $5,000.00 to proceed with the case on behalf of Ms. Miller's estate. 

Respondent subsequently filed a complaint in United States District Court. 

Respondent then stopped communicating with Mr. Miller and failed to return 

his phone calls. In July 2015, Respondent sent Mr. Miller a letter informing 

him that he was closing his practice; he returned $1,500.00 of the fee Miller 

had paid. After consulting with Mr. Miller's new attorney, Respondent agreed to 

refund an additional $2,000.00. In connection with the foregoing transaction, 

Respondent was charged with violating RPC 1.4(3) and (4) (communication); 

RPC 1.16 (declining or terminating representation): and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). 

Conditional Guilty Plea and Disposition. In July 2015, Respondent 

entered a conditional guilty plea with the Board of Professional Responsibility 

3 
of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. In connection with the plea, Respondent 

admitted that he was guilty of violating RPC 1.4 by ceasing communications 

with Mr. Miller and Mr. Krakowiak; that he violated RCP 1.5 by failing to have a 

written fee agreement with Mr. Krakowiak; that he violated 1.16(d)(6) by failing 

to promptly return an.unearned fee to Mr. Miller; and that he violated 8.4(a) by 

violating the foregoing rules. 2The analogous Kentucky Rules of Professional 

Conduct are contained in SCR 3.130 and are sub-numbered identically to their 

Tennessee counterparts. 

Upon consideration, the Hearing Panel recommended that Respondent's 

conditional guilty plea be approved by the Board of Professional Responsibility. 

The Supreme Court of Tennessee subsequently adopted the Hearing Panel's 

Order Recommending Approval of the Conditional Guilty Plea. As its 

disciplinary sanction, the court publicly censored Respondent and required 

him to pay restitution to Mr. Miller in the amount of $3,500.00. 

II. DISCIPLINE 

Under SCR 3.435(4), Respondent is subject to identical discipline within 

this Commonwealth unless he "proves by substantial evidence: (a) a lack of 

jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that [the] 

misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this 

State." The Tennessee Supreme Court's order, as a "final adjudication in 

another jurisdiction that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct[,] shall 

2It was ultimately determined that there was no rule violation in the Garcia 

case. 

4 
establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding 

in this State." SCR 3.435(4)(c). 

Respondent has failed to show cause why he should not be subjected to 

reciprocal discipline for his conduct as described above, and seeing no reason 

why Respondent should not be subjected to identical discipline in this 

Commonwealth under SCR 3.435, the Court ORDERS: 

1) The Kentucky Bar Association's petition for reciprocal discipline is 

GRANTED; 

2) As of the date of this Order, consistent with the disciplinary sanction 

imposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Respondent, Edmund V. Smith, 

is forthwith (a) publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct as 

described above, and (b) directed to repay restitution to Johnny Miller in the 

amount of $3,500.00 in connection with File No. 37385c-BG; and 

3) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay any costs 

associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, should there be 

any, and execution for such costs may issue from this Court upon finality of 

this Opinion and Order. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: March 17, 2016. 

5 
*mutt Conti ntfuritg 

2015-SC-000600-KB 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

EDMUND V. SMITH RESPONDENT 

ORDER 

The Opinion and Order of the Court entered March 17, 2016 is corrected 

on its face by substitution of the attached Opinion and Order in lieu of the 

original Opinion and Order. Said correction does not affect the holding of the 

original Opinion and Order of the Court. 

ENTERED: April 7, 2016.