.rc9f~1TL~ED 

~uprtmt dlnurf nf ~tn1fft11LI~ /k L · 

2017-SC-000100-KB 

[Q)~ ffesfqh7 /si~ ~o .. ,b 

CHRISTOPHER LEE STANSBURY MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT 

. OPINION AND ORDER 

Christopher Lee Stansbury, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 

3.480(2), moves this Court to enter an Order resolving the pending disciplinary 

proceeding against him (KBA File Nos. 20721 and 22253) by imposing a twoyear suspension from the practice of law, with the condition that he undergo a 

Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (KYLAP) assessment before any request 

for reinstatement is made. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has no 

objection to Stansbury's motion. Stansbury was admitted to the practice of law 

in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 29, 1999; his KBA number is 

87899. Stansbury's bar roster address is 120 Deer Crossing, Nicholasville, KY 

40356. 

I. BACKGROUND. 

File No. 20721 

From December 2010 through January 2012, Stansbury conducted 

twenty-two real estate closings at which he held himself out as an approved 
, 

agent for Old Republic Title, issuing closing protection and title commitment 

letters on behalf of Old Republic, and also collecting title insurance premiums, 

while knowing he was not authorized to do so. Although Stansbury ultimately 

remitted those premiums to Old Republic, Stansbury acknowledges that his 

conduct violated SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) ("It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to 

... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 

misrepresentation."). Stansbury also acknowledges that he violated SCR 

3.130(8.l)(b) in that he knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for 

information from the Office of Bar Counsel in August 2012, as well as a 

subpoena duces tecum served on him by a sheriff on December 11, 2012. 

File No. 22253 

Stansbury acknowledges that he violated SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) (failure to 

keep the client reasonably informed) in his representation of Linda Curry in a 

divorce case. During.Stansbury's representation of Ms. Curry, an agreement 

was filed on July 6, 2012 requiring Stansbury to prepare a Qualified Domestic 

Relations Order (QDRO). Stansbury failed to do so, although he informed Ms. 

Curry that he had. Additionally, Stansbury failed to communicate to Ms. Curry 

that he had been suspended from the practice of law on August 29, 2013. 

Stansbury failed to provide Ms. Curry with a copy of her file after his 

representation ended due to his suspension. SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) states: "Upon 

termination of represenfa.tion, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably 

practicable to protect a client's interests, such as ... surrendering papers and 

2 
property to which the client is entitled." He acknowledges that his conduct 

violated this rule. 

Finally, during the disciplii;iary investigation of Ms.· Curry's complaint, the 

KBA asked Stansbury to provide a copy of the documentation he purportedly 

submitted regarding the QDRO, and he failed to do so. Stansbury acknowledges 

that his conduct violated SCR 1.30(8 . .l)(b). 

Prior Discipline 

In Stansbury v. Kentucky Bar Association, 405 S.W.3d 470 (Ky. 2013), 

Stansbury was suspended from the practice of law for 181 days, with 61 days to 

be served and the balance probated upon the condition that he succei,sfully 

complete the next Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program. 

Stansbury's discipline originated from two instances of improper conduct. In · 

the first instance, Stansbury represented a bank in a loan closing involving real 

estate in Ohio. Although he had not yet received the title opinion from another 

attorney, Stansbury informed his client that he had performed the title search 

and gave the bank authorization to close. The bank closed on the loan before 

discovering a week later that the property was encumbered with two prior 

mortgages and a tax lien. The bank repeatedly attempted to contact Stansbury; 

however, their attempts to contact him went unanswered. 

Stansbury admitted that he .had violated the Rules of the Supreme Court · 

by failing to diligently represent the bank, by not obtaining a title opinion prior 

to closing, by failing to properly record the mortgage in Ohio, by failing to keep 

the bank reasonably informed about the matter, by not promptly replying to the 

3 
1 

bank's request for information concerning the title opinion, by failing to convey 

information concerning the title opinion to the bank so that the bank could 

make an informed decision, and by misrepresenting the authorization to close 

when he had not received any authorization from the ·attorney who conducted 

the title search. 

In the second instance of misconduct, Stansbury represented a 

corporation in a civil action in Boyle Circuit Court. Stansbury moved for 

summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Both motions were 

granted, however, Stansbury did not tender the proposed orders. The case 

remained open until more than a year later, at which time the court issued a 

Notice to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. After receiving the notice from the 

court, Stansbury mailed his response, but the response was returned for 

insufficient postage and was not filed with the court prior to the scheduled 

hearing dat_e. The client attempted to contact Stansbury, by phone and in 

writing, regarding the status of its case, but Stansbury failed to respond timely. 

When Stansbury did respond, he did not explain that the case had been 

dismissed, instead, he represented that he was waiting on a response from the 

court. After a bar complaint against him, Stansbury clain;ied that he had 

tendered the proposed order to the court on four different occasions, all before 

the scheduled deadline. A review of the firm's computer system by one of 

Stansbury's former partners revealed that Stansbury had created those 

documents only th'ree days before the scheduled deadline. 

4 
St;msbury admitted that he had violated the Rules of the Supreme Court 

by: failing to tender the proposed order in a timely manner; permitting the file to 

remain open and inactive; failing to appear before the court; misinforming the 

client as to the status of the matter; failing to respond to the client's requests 

for information; failing to reasoriably expedite the litigation; providing 

misleading information to the Office of Bar Counsel · concerning the date of the 

proposed orders; and misrepresenting that he had tendered the orders to the 

court in a timely manner. 

Additionally, Stansbury received a private admonition in December 2014 

from the Inquiry Commission. This admonition arose from his above-noted 

suspension, after three of Stansbury's clients informed the Office of Bar · 

Counsel that they had not received a notification of suspension letter pursuant 

to SCR 3.390(b). The Commission found that this constituted a violation of SCR 

3.130-3.4(c). 

II. ANALYSIS. 

In Kentucky Bar Association v. Thornsberry, 399 S.W.3d 773 (Ky. 2013), 

attorney Thornsberry, who had been previously suspended for failure to pay 

dues, was hired to represent a client in a divorce. He later advised the client 

that he had filed the petition for divorce, though he had not. Thornsberry, like 

Stansbury, had a significant disciplinary history, having been suspended for 30 

days, 61 days, and 181 days in previous cases. This Court held that a two-year 

suspension from the practice of law was appropriate. 

5 
In Kentucky.Bar Association u. Burgin, 469 S.W.3d 832 (Ky. 2015), 

attorney Burgin was hired in a contract suit and led the client to believe he had 

filed a complaint when, in fact, he had done no work on the case. After his· 

suspension in another matter took effect, he asked the client to .file a complaint 

he had drafted on her behalf, and cqntinued representing her. Based, in part, 

· on his lengthy discipline history, which included a private admonition, probated 

30-day suspension, 60-day suspension, and 181-day suspension, this Court 

suspended Burgin for one year. 

Based on our review of the record, the preceding caselaw, the severity of 

the conduct in which Stansbury engaged, and our disciplinary precedent, we 

agree that a two-year suspension from the practice of law is appropriate. 

Furthermore,. based on Stansbury's admission that.he is undergoing 

counseling, we agree that, as a condition for requesting reinstatement, 

Stansbury must undergo a KYLAP assessment. Therefore, we grant Stansbury's 

motion for suspensfon from the practice of law. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that: 

1. Movant, Christopher Lee Stansbury, KBA No. 87899, is suspended from 

the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentuc'ky for two years, to 

commence on the date of this order. As a condition to requesting 

reinstatement, Stansbury is required to undergo an _assessment through 

KYLAP; 

2. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Stansbury, if he has not already done so, shall, 

within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients 

6 
, 

in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all courts in which 

he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law, and 

furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Office of Bar Counsel; 

3. Pur11uant to SCR 3.390, Stansbury shall, to the extent he has not already 

done. so and to the extent it is possible and necessary, immediately cancel 

and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged; 

4. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Stansbury is directed to pay the costs of 

this action in the amount of $1,458.76, for which execution may issue 

from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: April 27, 2017. 

7