TO BE PUBLISHED 

,Suprtittr (gaud of 4 rufuritv 

2016-SC-000271-KB 

JAMES ROBERT YATES MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2), James Robert Yates 

moves this Court to impose a thirty-day suspension, probated for one year with 

conditions for his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The 

Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no objection to this negotiated discipline. 

Finding the proposed discipline appropriate, we grant Yates's motion. Yates 

whose last known bar roster address is 436 South Seventh Street, Suite 100, 

Louisville, Kentucky 40202, was admitted to the practice of law in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky on May 1, 2002. 

Yates was retained to represent Heriverto Salcedo-Diaz regarding the 

appeal of his conviction for conspiracy with intent to distribute marijuana and 

for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. For 

those offenses Salcedo-Diaz received a 151-month sentence of imprisonment. 
On January 31, 2013, Salcedo-Diaz's nephew, Jose Chavarria, contacted 

Yates to request that he represent Salcedo-Diaz. Chavarria paid Yates a 

$2,500 retainer to review the trial court record and file an appeal on behalf of 

Salcedo-Diaz. However, later that day, Yates learned that Salcedo-Diaz's case 

was in federal court, where he was not licensed to practice law. Subsequently, 

Yates contacted Chavarria and left a message explaining that he was unable to 

represent Salcedo-Diaz. Thereafter, Yates referred the case to Kyle Burden, an 

attorney in a different law practice, but with whom Yates shared office space 

and a receptionist. Burden agreed with Yates to review the trial court 

transcripts and file a notice of appeal in exchange for splitting the $2,500 fee. 

On February 4, 2013, Chavarria made a $2,000 payment to Yates. In a 

letter to Chavarria dated the same day, Yates acknowledged receipt of the 

funds and identified the $2,000 as payment of the fee for him to review the trial 

transcript. Further, Yates noted that his fee to file the appeal for Salcedo-Diaz 

would be $5,000. Yates acknowledged his receipt of Chavarria's initial 

payment of $2,500 and that the remainder would be due when the brief was 

filed. Notably, neither of the payments made by Chavarria, were placed in 

Yates's client escrow account. 

On February 22, 2013, Burden filed a motion with the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Kentucky requesting an extension of 

time in which to file a notice of appeal on behalf of Salcedo-Diaz. The district 

court granted the motion, permitting Salcedo-Diaz thirty days in which to file a 

notice of appeal. Yet, during that thirty-day period there was no appeal filed 

2 
nor request for additional time made. Ultimately, Yates and Burden jointly 

decided not to file an appeal in Salcedo-Diaz's case, but that decision was not 

communicated by Yates to Salcedo-Diaz. Subsequently, Salcedo-Diaz's 

attempts to make contact with Yates to determine the status of his appeal were 

to no avail. Salcedo-Diaz only learned of Yates's failure to file an appeal after 

directly contacting the district court himself. 

On October 20, 2015, the Inquiry Commission (Commission) issued a 

six-count charge against Yates for violation of: (1) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) 

(Communication) and (2) SCR 3.130(1.4)(b) (Communication) for failing to 

communicate to Salcedo-Diaz his inability to represent him in federal court, his 

plan to share the representation with Burden, and their decision to not file an 

appeal; (3) SCR 3.130(1.5)(b) (Fees) for failing to communicate to Salcedo-Diaz 

about the scope of the representation and how the fees were to be used; (4) 

SCR 3.130(1.5)(e) (Fees) for not informing Salcedo-Diaz that fees for his 

representation would be split with Burden and for not entering into a written 

agreement with Salcedo-Diaz or Chavarria relating to a fee-splitting 

arrangement with Burden; (5) SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) (Safekeeping property) for 

failing to safeguard his client's funds by depositing them in his escrow account; 

and (6) SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) (Declining or terminating representation) for failing 

to inform Salcedo-Diaz that he decided to terminate the representation and not 

file the appeal. 

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

by the Commission. Pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), Yates negotiated a sanction 

3 
with Bar Counsel for a thirty-day suspension probated for one year with 

conditions. The applicable conditions require that Yates attend and 

successfully complete the KBA's Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement 

Program ("EPEP"), not receive any additional disciplinary charges during that 

time period, and to return the $2,500 unearned prepaid fee. The KBA has no 

objection to the proposed discipline. Upon review of the facts in this case and 

relevant case law, we find the proposed discipline is appropriate. 

We note that Yates has been cooperative through the disciplinary process 

and has no prior discipline. Additionally, the Court has previously issued 

similar discipline in comparable cases. See, e.g., Burgin v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 

362 S.W.3d 331 (Ky. 2012) (attorney received a thirty-day suspension probated 

for one year for failing to communicate with client, diligently proceed with 

client's case, deposit client funds into an escrow account, and refund unearned 

fees). Also, we acknowledge that Yates has provided to the Office of Bar 

Counsel proof of his reimbursement of $2,500 in unearned fees. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. James Robert Yates is suspended from the practice of law in this 

Commonwealth for thirty (30) days, probated for a period of one (1) year from 

the date of the Court's Order on the condition that he comply with the 

remainder of this Order; 

2. Yates shall not receive any additional Disciplinary Charges from the 

Inquiry Commission during this probationary period; 

4 
3. Yates shall attend, at his expense, and successfully complete the next 

scheduled Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program ("EPEP") offered 

by the Office of Bar Counsel, separate and apart from his fulfillment of any 

other continuing education requirement within one year after entry of this 

Order; 

4. Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Yates is directed to pay all costs associated 

with this proceeding in the amount of $66.45, for which execution may issue 

from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order; 

5. If Yates fails to comply with any of the terms of discipline set forth 

herein, the thirty-day suspension shall be enforced upon application of the 

Office of Bar Counsel to the Court. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: August 25, 2016. 

5