(_ 

CORRECTED: FEBRUARY 20, 2018 

TO BE PUBLISHED 

2017-SC-000579-KB 

KENTUCKY BAR.ASSOCIATION MOVANT 

v. IN SUPREME COURT 

DANIEL ALAN NIEHAUS RESPONDENT 

· OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter came before the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar 

. . Association as a default case under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.210 after 

. . 

Daniel Alan Niehaus! failed to tespond to a charge of three separate violations 

of the Kentucky Rules of Pro~essional Conduct. The Board found Niehaus guilty 

1 Daniel Alan l\Jiehaus, KBA Member No. 94639, was admitted to the practice oflaw in 

the Commonwealth of Kentucky on January 19, .2012, and his bar roster address is 

5294 Madison Pike, #201, Independence, Kentucky 41051. Niehaus has no prior 

disciplinary history. However, on January 20, 2017, the Board of Governors vpted to 

suspend Niehaus for faillire to pay bar dues and for non-compliance with his 

continuing education requirements. 
of violating all three rules, SCR 3.130(1.3)2, (1.4)(a)(3)3, and (L16)(d)4, and 

recommended a 181-day suspension, to be served consecutively with any 

pending discipline; a _$2,500 payment in restitution to his client, and payment 

of the costs of the proceeding, $1,857.36, as required by SCR 3.450. We adopt 

the Board's recommendation and issue the recommended discipline. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 

Niehaus agreed to represent Owen Bums in a post-divorce action 

regarding child custody and child support. Niehaus charged a $2,500 retainer, 

which Burns paid with a credit card. Four days later, Niehaus contacted 

Burns, claiming that Niehaus had to "re.,..run" Burns's credit card because the 

charge failed to process. However, the first charge had processed, meaning that 

Burns had now paid Niehaus an additional $2,500. 

Three ·days later, Bums alerted Niehaus· to the. double charge. After 

\ 

repeated inquiries by Burns, repeate<;i. false assurances from Niehaus, and a · 

.bounced check for $2,500 ~ven. by Niehaus, Burns finally received the extra 

' $2,500 on January 22; 2016, three J;Ilonths after the initial double charge. 

2 "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 

client." · 

a." A lawyer shall: ... keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 

matter." 

4 "Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent 

reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice 

to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrenderlng papers and 

property to which the client is entitled and refunding any .advance payment of fee or 

expense ·that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating 

to the client to the extent permitted by other law." 

2 
·' 

During the pendency of Burns~s case, Niehaus failed to respond to. 

opposing counsel's discovery requests that were due mid-November of 2015, 

despite having presented Bums with opposing counsel's discovery requests 

· and receiving the requested information from Bums suffici~ntly in advance of 

the deadline to achieve timely production. On November 24, 2015, Bums sent 

Niehaus a letter stating that the court had set a March 21, 2016, hearing date 

on Burns's case, attached copies of what purported to be the discovery 

responses to opposing counsel signed by Niehaus, and attached a Motion for 

Child Support purpor_tedly filed on Burns's behalf. But in addition to failing to 

respond to opposing counsel's discovery-requests by the mid-November· 

deadliil.e~ Niehaus never filed the Motion for Child Support. Niehaus's failure to 

respond to the discovery requests is highlighted by. the February 16, 2016, 

hearing on opposing counsel's Motion to Compel the discove:ty opposing 

counsel requested of Niehaus but never received. · 

·Because Bums felt nervous and unprepared for the March 21, 2016, 

hearing, Burns s.ent a text message to Niehaus seeking a meeting to prepare for 

the hearing on March 16. N~ehaus responded by falsely claiming that the 

March 21 hearing date had been moved to early May 2016. Luckily for 

Niehaus, opposing counsel filed a motion to reschedule the hearing date to 

June 9, 2016. Niehaus respo_nded to the motion by sending the judge's 

secretary an email indicating he was available on June 9. Howt'.ver, Niehaus . 

did not inform Burris of the rescheduled hearing despite several requests from 

3 
Bums for an update on hi~ case.and whether a specific date·had been set for 

the hearing. 

On June 24, 2016, Bums's employer notified him that it received a court 

ordered wage garnishment for the payment of child support. The garnishment 

consumed approximately one-third of Bums's" wages each pay period. Bums 

immediately reached out to Niehaus demanding an expianation. Niehaus stated 

that he had no knowledge of the garnishment and that it was an administrative 

error. Bums told Niehaus that the gamishmen~ was entered during a June 9 

· hearing on Burns's case. Niehaus falsely stated that he knew nothing about a 

June 9 hearing. 

Between June 24 and Juiy 14, 2016, Nieha~s prevaricated about his 

actions on Bums's case, falsely claiming he was filing an appeal of the 

garnishment order, that he had ordered transcripts of the June 9 hearing, and 

that he had filed a request for reconsideration ·of the garnishment order with 

the Kenton Circuit Court. Niehaus went so far as to promise Burns that 

Niehaus would pay Bums's child support obligation while Niehaus worked .on 

getting the garnishment overturned; ·ri.o such payments were made. 

On July 14, 2016, Bums.sent Niehaus a text and email ending the 

engagement and seeking a return of the $2,500 retainer. On July 19, 2016, 

Niehaus responded that a full refund was forthcoming; Bums has yet to receive 

any refund. After Augμst 9, 2016, Bums's text messages to Niehaus bounced 

back as undelivered and Burns's several calls to Niehaus went unanswered. 

Bums has not received any contact from Niehaus since August 9, 2016. 

4 
On August 16, 2016, Burns's new counsel filed a Motion to Reconsider 

the Garnishment with the Kenton Circuit Court, which overruled the motion 

and held that Burns's only recourse was to pursue an action against Niehaus. 

The actions recounted above resulted in ~ three count .Charge filed on 

February 16, 2017, by the Inquiry Commission, alleging .violations of SCR 

·. 3·.310(1.'3), (1.4)(a)(3), and (1.16)(d). 

The Complaint was initially sent to Niehaus at his Bar Roster address by 

way of certified mail on September 20, 2016, but was returned as unclaimed. 

The Complaint was then sent to the Kenton County Sheriff for service, but the 

Sheriffs Office was unable to locate Niehaus. Niehaus was served via service on 

the KBA Executive Director pursuant to SCR 3.175(2) on December 2, 2016. No 

response was filed. 

Niehaus was served with a copy of.the Charge lodged against him 

through service upon the KBA Executive Director on February 16, 2017. The 

Executive Director mailed a copy of the Charge to Niehaus's bar roster address 

·and one a,dditional address. On February 21, 2017, Niehaus signed the green 

card indicating proof of service at the alternate address sent by the Executive 

D . 

Director. The Charge was also forniarded to the Kenton County Sheriff for 

service, but once again the Sheriffs Office was unable to locate Niehaus.-

Niehaus did not file an answer to the Charge. 

The Board of Governors unanimously, by a vote of 18-0 with one 

recused, found Niehaus guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a)(3), and 

(1.16)(d). The Board voted 11-7 to recommend that Niehaus be suspended from 

5 
the practice of law for 181 days, to be served consecutive with any pending 

~scipline, and pay $2,500 in restitution to Burns. 

JI. ANALYSIS. 

From the record, it is clear·that Niehaus violated SCR 3.310(1.3), 

(l.4)(a)(3), and (1.16)(d). Regarding SCR 3.310(1.3), Niehaus blatantly lied to 

Burns, .failed to respond to discovery requests in Burns's case, failed to remedy 

.'his failures, falsely portrayed activity and work on the case when no such 

activity or work occurred, missed a crucial hearing in Burns's case, and failed 

to protect his client from garnishment, among other wrongdoings. Regarding 

SCR 3.310(1.4)(a)(3), Niehaus blatantly lied to Burns and altog~ther failed to 

respond to Burn~'s inquiries about important matters regarding Burns's case, 

including failing to inform Burns about a crucial hearing date resulting in 

garnishment of Burns's.wages. Regarding SCR 3.310(L4)(a)(3), Niehaus has 

---. 

taken no steps whatsoe~ef to protect Burns's interests after termination of 

their relationship, still h~s not returned the original retainer fee after agreeing 

to do so, and failed to respond to Burns's inquiries about the fee and in 

general. 

III. ORDER. 

Finding the Board's findings and recommended sanctions appropriate, it 

is ORDERED that: 

1. Daniel Alan Niehaus is found guilty of violating SCR 3.310(1.3), l. 

(1.4)(a)(3), and (1.16)(d). 

6 
2. Niehaus is suspended from the practice oflaw for a period of 181 days 

to be served consecutively with any pending discipline. 

3. Niehaus must pay his former client, Owen Burns, $2,500 in 

restitution. 

4. Under SCR 3.450, Niehaus must pay:the costs of this proceeding, as 

calculated and certified by the Di~ciplinary Clerk, in the amount of 

$1,857.36. 

5. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Niehaus shall, within ten days from the entry 

of this opinion and order, provide written notice to his dients of his 

inability to represent them; provide written notice to all courts in 

which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of 

law; and furnish copies of all letters of notice to the Executive Direc~or 

of the Kentucky Bar Association. Furthermore, to the extent possible, 

Niehaus shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities 

in which he is engaged. 

All sitting. An concur. 

ENTERED: February 15, 2018. 

7 
. ~upnm:e ~Inurf nf ~:enfudtu 

2017-SC-000579-KB 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT 

v. IN SUPREME COURT 

DANIEL ALAN NI~HAUS RESPONDENT 

ORDER CORRECTING 

The Opinion and Order of the Court rendered February 15, 2018 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: February 20, 2018 

i -