Opinion ID: 1578773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: KBA Pile Number 15694

Text: On July 11, 2008, the Inquiry Commission charged McCartney with four (4) counts of violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules as follows: SCR 3.130-1.3 (lack of diligence); SCR 3.130-1.4(a) (lack of adequate communication with a client); SCR 3.130-1.16(d) (failure to protect a client's interests upon termination); and SCR 3.130-8.1(b) (failure to respond to an inquiry from a disciplinary authority). The violations set out in KBA File Number 15694 arose from McCartney's representation of Carl Weiss in defense of a claim of back rent. Weiss retained McCartney on or about May 12, 2005. Weiss paid an advance of $1,000.00. McCartney entered an appearance in the case and filed an Answer on Weiss' behalf. After a long period in which Weiss failed to hear from McCartney, Weiss made several unsuccessful attempts to contact McCartney. In May of 2006, Weiss was contacted by plaintiffs attorney. The attorney informed Weiss that McCartney had failed to respond to his attempts to communicate with him concerning the case. Further, the attorney informed Weiss that judgment had been entered against him in the amount of $22,000.00. Since filing the Answer, McCartney has failed to provide Weiss with any information concerning the case. In fact, McCartney has made no further contact with Weiss. Facts later established that McCartney abandoned his office in November of 2005. McCartney took this action without ever informing Weiss of his intent to cease practicing law.