TO BE PUBLISHED 

Suprrtur Court of 7 rnfiailtvri. 

2016-SC-000098-KB and 2016-SC-00026-K4- 1 

DA' H3h/i6 Kv; geeloon DC 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

RUSSELL W. BURGIN RESPONDENT 

KBA MEMBER NO. 88688 

OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING DISBARMENT 

Respondent, Russell W. Burgin, was admitted to the practice of law in 

the Commonwealth of Kentucky on May 1, 2001. His Kentucky Bar 

Association (KBA) member number is 88688. In 2014, the KBA Inquiry 

Commission issued three separate disciplinary charges against Respondent in 

KBA File Numbers 22727, 23233, and 23250. 

The KBA Board of Governors (the "Board") issued its Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations and ultimately found Respondent 

guilty of committing seven of the eight alleged disciplinary infractions. The 

Board recommended a five-year suspension for KBA File Number 22727. The 

Board recommended permanent disbarment in KBA File Numbers 23233 and 

23250. For the reasons stated herein, we agree with the Board's 

recommendation. 
I. BACKGROUND 

A. KBA FILE 22727 

Respondent was suspended from practicing law in Kentucky on 

November 21, 2013, for his failure to comply with continuing-legal-education 

requirements. While suspended, Respondent filed two separate marriage 

dissolution petitions in Laurel Circuit Court in 2014. Following the filing of the 

complaint and charges in this file, Respondent failed to respond in any 

manner. 

Respondent was charged with violating SCR 3.130-1.3, (requiring 

reasonable diligence); SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(3) and (4) (requirement to promptly 

provide the client with necessary information and promptly respond to the 

client's reasonable requests for information); SCR 3.130-8.1(b) (failing to 

respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority; SCR 

3.130-8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation); and SCR 3.130-5.5(a) ("A lawyer shall not practice law in a 

jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 

jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so."). 

After reviewing Respondent's extensive disciplinary background, which 

will be subsequently discussed, the Board voted as follows: 15 votes in favor of 

a five year consecutive suspension; and 3 votes for permanent disbarment. 

B. KBA FILE 23233 and KBA FILE 23250 

While on suspension in 2014, Respondent appeared in Fayette District 

Court on behalf of a client, James E. Reed, pertaining to Mr. Reed's 

2 
misdemeanor charge. When his membership status was questioned in open 

court by the presiding district judge, Respondent represented to the court that 

he had been reinstated to practice, which was false. Following the filing of the 

complaint and charges in this file, Respondent failed to respond in any 

manner. 

Respondent was charged with violating SCR 3.130-5.5(a) ("A lawyer shall 

not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal 

profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so."); and SCR 

3.130.8.4(c) (prohibiting an attorney "from engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."). 

While on suspension, Respondent also filed a dissolution of marriage 

petition in Laurel Circuit Court on January 28, 2014. Chambers v. Chambers, 

Laurel Circuit Court, Case Number 14-CI-00076. Respondent contacted the 

opposing party, Mrs. Chambers, on at least 15 occasions and intimidated her 

so that she would agree to a final decree before his client, Mr. Chambers, had 

discharged mutually agreed upon settlement terms. Mrs. Chambers filed a 

verified Complaint against Respondent on October 17, 2014. Following the 

filing of the complaint and charges in this file, Respondent failed to respond in 

any manner. 

Respondent was charged with violating SCR 3.130-5.5(a) (A lawyer shall 

not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal 

profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing. so.") 

3 
The Board considered KBA File 23233 and KBA File 23250 together as 

one case. In deciding these matters, the Board reviewed Respondent's 

extensive disciplinary background. This included the Board's still pending 

recommendation in KBA v. Burgin, 2016-SC--98 (KBA File 22727) 

(recommending five year suspension), one case that resulted in a private 

admonition in 2011, as well as the following cases: Burgin v. KBA, 362 S.W.3d 

331 (Ky. 2012); KBA v. Burgin, 412 S.W.3d 872 (Ky. 2013); KBA v. Burgin, 448 

S.W.3d 256 (Ky. 2014); KBA v. Burgin, 461 S.W.3d 401 (Ky. 2015); and KBA v. 

Burgin, 469 S.W.3d 832 (Ky. 2015). All of these cases resulted in orders 

imposing temporary suspension. After reviewing the record in the present case 

and Respondent's disciplinary history, the Board voted as follows: 5 votes for a 

consecutive suspension; and 14 votes for permanent disbarment. 

In light of Respondent's failure to answer any of the pending charges as 

well as his extensive disciplinary history resulting from a sundry of violations, 

each of which warranted temporary suspension, we agree with the majority of 

the Board that permanent disbarment is appropriate here. Our decision is 

further fortified by the fact that one of Respondent's most current offenses 

involved him lying to a judge in open court when Respondent's membership 

status was questioned by the judge. This behavior demonstrates a complete 

disregard for the Court of Justice and the rules of ethics that is unlikely to be 

remedied by yet another order of suspension. 

Moreover, we have imposed disbarment under similar circumstances. In 

KBA v. Pendleton, for example, we imposed permanent disbarment on the 
respondent having found him guilty of the following offenses: 1) the 

unauthorized practice of law during disciplinary suspension; 2) multiple acts of 

misconduct including making false statements to a tribunal; and 3) failing to 

cooperate in disciplinary proceedings. 452 S.W.3d 607 (Ky. 2015). See also, 

KBA v. Schott, 353 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. 2011) (imposing permanent suspension 

due in part to attorney's disciplinary history and his failure to cooperate with 

the disciplinary process). 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Respondent, Russell W. Burgin, KBA Member Number 88688, is found 

guilty of violating the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, including 

SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(3) and (4); three counts of SCR 3.130-5.5(a); two counts of 

SCR 3.130-8.4(c); and SCR 3.130-8.1(b); 

2. Respondent is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, effective from the entry of this Opinion and 

Order; 

3. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, if he has not already done so, 

within ten (10) days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify all 

clients, in writing, of his inability to represent them; notify, in writing, 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 Office of Bar Counsel. 

Furthermore, to the extent possible, Respondent shall immediately cancel 

and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged; and 

4. Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs associated 
with these disciplinary proceedings, in the amount of $648.14 for which 

execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Order. 

All sitting. All concur. 

2i02e ENTERED: August 25, 2016. 

CH 'F JUSTICE 

6