.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 againsthim (KBA File Nos. 20721 and 22253) byimposing a twoyear suspension from the practice oflaw, with the condition that he undergo a Kentucky LawyerAssistance Program (KYLAP) assessmentbefore any request for reinstatement is made. The Kentucky BarAssociation (KBA) has no objection to Stansbury's motion. Stansbury was admitted to the practice oflaw in the Commonwealth ofKentucky 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 atwhich he held himselfout as an approved

# , agent for Old RepublicTitle, issuing closing protection and title commitment letters on behalfofOld Republic, and also collectingtitle insurance premiums, while knowing he was not authorized to do so. Although Stansbury ultimately remitted those premiums to Old Republic, Stansburyacknowledges thathis 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 thathe violated SCR 3.130(8.l)(b) in that he knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Office ofBar Counsel inAugust 2012, as well as a subpoena 

### duces tecum served on him by a sheriffonDecember 11, 2012. File No. 22253 Stansbury acknowledges that heviolated SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) (failure to keep the client reasonably informed) in his representation ofLinda Curry in a divorce case. During.Stansbury's representation ofMs. 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 oflaw onAugust 29, 2013. Stansbury failed to provide Ms. Currywith a copy ofher file after his representation ended due to his suspension. SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) states: "Upon termination ofrepresenfa.tion, a lawyer shall take stepsto the extentreasonably practicable to protecta client's interests, such as ... surrendering papers and

2property to which the clientis entitled." He acknowledges that his conduct violated this rule. Finally, during the disciplii;iary investigation ofMs.·Curry's complaint, the KBA asked Stansbury to provide a copy ofthe documentation he purportedly submitted regardingthe QDRO, and he failed to do so. Stansbury acknowledges that his conductviolated SCR 1.30(8

..l)(b). Prior Discipline In 

### Stansbury v. KentuckyBarAssociation, 405 S.W.3d 470 (Ky. 2013), Stansburywas suspended from the practice oflawfor 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 ofimproper conduct. In · the first instance, Stansburyrepresented a bank in a loan closing involving real estate in Ohio. Although he had notyetreceived the title opinion from another attorney, Stansbury informed his clientthathe 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 propertywas encumbered with two prior mortgages and a tax lien. The bank repeatedly attempted 

### to contact Stansbury; however, their attempts to contact him wentunanswered. Stansbury admitted thathe.had violated the Rules ofthe Supreme Court · by failing to diligently represent the bank, bynot 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 notpromptly replying to the
31 bank's request for informationconcerning the title opinion, byfailing to convey information concerningthe 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·attorneywho conducted the title search. In the second instance ofmisconduct, Stansburyrepresented a corporation in a civil action in Boyle Circuit Court. Stansburymoved for summaryjudgment andjudgment on the pleadings. Both motions were granted, however, Stansburydid not tenderthe proposed orders. The case remained open until more than a yearlater, at which time the court issued a Notice to Dismiss for Lack ofProsecution. After receiving the notice from the court, Stansbury mailed his response, butthe response was returned for insufficient postage and was notfiled with the courtprior to the scheduled hearingdat_e. The client attempted to contact Stansbury, by phone and in writing, regarding the status ofits case, but Stansburyfailed to respond timely. When Stansbury did respond, he did not explain that the case had been dismissed, instead, he represented thathe 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 ofthe firm's computer system byone of Stansbury's former partners revealed that Stansbury had created those documents only th'ree days before the scheduled deadline.

4St;msbury admitted that he hadviolated the Rules ofthe 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 ofthe matter; failing to respond to the client's requests for information; failing to reasoriably expedite the litigation; providing misleadinginformation to the Office ofBar Counsel· concerning the date ofthe proposed orders; and misrepresenting thathe had tendered the orders to the court in a timely manner. Additionally, Stansburyreceived a private admonition in December 2014 from the Inquiry Commission. This admonition arose from his above-noted suspension, after three ofStansbury's clients informed the Office ofBar · Counsel that they had not received a notification ofsuspension letter pursuant to SCR 3.390(b). The Commission found that this constituted a violation ofSCR 3.130-3.4(c). II. ANALYSIS. In 

### KentuckyBarAssociationv. Thornsberry, 399 S.W.3d 773 (Ky. 2013), attorneyThornsberry, 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 Courtheld that a two-year suspension from the practice oflaw was appropriate.

5In 

### Kentucky.BarAssociation u. Burgin, 469 S.W.3d 832 (Ky. 2015), attorney Burgin was hiredin 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, andcqntinued 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 oneyear. Based on our review ofthe record, the preceding caselaw, the severity of the conduct inwhich Stansbury engaged, and our disciplinaryprecedent, we agree that a two-year suspension from the practice oflaw is appropriate. Furthermore,.based on Stansbury's admission that.he is undergoing counseling, we agree that, as a conditionfor requesting reinstatement, Stansburymustundergo a KYLAP assessment. Therefore, we grant Stansbury's motion for suspensfon from the practice oflaw. It is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. Movant, ChristopherLee Stansbury, KBA No. 87899, is suspended from the practice oflaw in the Commonwealth ofKentuc'ky for two years, to

commence on the date ofthis order. As a condition to requesting reinstatement, Stansbury is required to undergo an_assessment through KYLAP; 2. Pursuantto SCR 3.390, Stansbury, ifhe has not already done so, shall, within ten days from the entry ofthis Opinion and Order, notify all clients 6, in writing ofhis inability to representthem, and notify all courts in which he has matters pending ofhis suspension from the practice oflaw, and furnish copies ofsaid letters ofnotice to the Office ofBar 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 uponfinality ofthis Opinion and Order. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: April 27, 2017.

7