Court Opinion

ID: 9685850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:07:30.425489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:10.704153
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                2023-SC-0219-KB

TONY BRANDON MILLER                                                       MOVANT

V.                            IN SUPREME COURT

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                            RESPONDENT

                             OPINION AND ORDER

      On May 19, 2023, Tony Brandon Miller (Miller), moved this Court for the

entry of an order suspending him from the practice of law for 181 days,

probated for one year with conditions, for violating SCR1 3.130(1.7)(a)(2), SCR

3.130(3.3)(a)(1), SCR 3.130(4.2), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) from KBA disciplinary

case 21-DIS-0203 and SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), SCR 3.130(1.16)(d)

and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) from KBA discipline case 22-DIS-02152. Thereafter, the

Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed a response stating that it had no

objection to the order as requested. This Court hereby enters said 181 day

suspension, for violating 3.130(1.7)(a)(2), SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), SCR 3.130(4.2),

SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), and SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).

      1 Kentucky Rule of the Supreme Court.

       2 21-DIS-0203 and 22-DIS-0215 were consolidated into one file and are under

the lead case of 21-DIS-0203.
                                I. BACKGROUND

      Miller’s KBA member number is 96164. He was admitted to practice law

in the Commonwealth on October 17, 2014. His address is 2331 Midland

Trail, Rush, Kentucky 41168.

      21-DIS-0203:

      Miller’s former client (Client) was referred to the Fayette Mental Health

Treatment Court in June 2021 in conjunction with a probation violation charge

from Fayette District Court. She was represented by Hon. Edward Dove in that

criminal matter. The Client has a history of trauma, has been diagnosed with

PTSD, and has reported being a sex industry worker. The Client’s daughter

was in the custody of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services due to a

dependency, neglect, and abuse case, and she also had several domestic

violence cases that were pending in family court before Judge Libby Messer.

Miller represented the Client in these family court matters. Many of the

Client’s criminal matters arose as violations of IPOs issued by the family court.

      The Mental Health Court team discovered that Miller had been

communicating with the Client on the website “Only Fans,” a platform that

provides adult images and videos. The team addressed concerns regarding an

unprofessional relationship between Miller and the Client with presiding Judge

John Tackett.

      On October 20, 2021, Miller appeared by Zoom for the Client in Mental

Health Treatment Court, although he was not her attorney of record in that

matter, and she was still being represented by another attorney. Miller notified

                                        2
the court that the Client was not present due to illness, which was not

accurate. At that time, Judge Tackett notified Miller that the Client had made

allegations of inappropriate conduct on the part of Miller and that Miller should

not say anything regarding the allegations. Miller then left the Zoom call.

      The next day, October 21, 2021, Miller appeared before Family Court

Judge Messer and advised her that the Client could not attend due to illness;

this was also incorrect. The court date was rescheduled for October 25, 2021,

and neither Miller nor the Client appeared on that date.

      22-DIS-0215:

      Miller was hired by Madison Miller, (Madison) in September 2021 to

represent her in a family court case regarding custody and child support.

Madison paid Miller a $1,500.00 retainer and service fees totaling $2,000.00.

Madison attempted to contact Miller but was unable to reach him for several

months in the latter part of 2021. Madison claims that Miller performed no

work on her case and did not file any motions during this time.

      Madison discovered that Miller had been suspended from the practice of

law, due to an order3 that was issued by this Court on February 24, 2022,

pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(a)(b), and (d).

      Madison filed a bar complaint in August 2022. Miller was served with

the bar complaint by the Boyd County Sheriff’s office on September 28, 2022.

      3 Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Miller, 641 S.W.3d 181(Ky. 2022).

                                          3
Miller failed to respond to the bar complaint, however, he refunded Madison’s

legal fees around the time he was served.

                                   II. CHARGES

      21-DIS-0203:

      Count I. Violation of SCR 3.130(1.2)(d) – Concerning engaging in

criminal conduct with a client. Miller has denied those allegations and that

Count will be dismissed by agreement.

      Count II. Violation of SCR 3.130(1.7)(a)(2) – Conflict of interest, which

Miller admits.

      Count III. Violation of SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1) – Making false statements to

a tribunal, which Miller admits.

      Count IV. Violation of SCR 3.130(4.2) – Communicating with a

represented person about the subject of a matter in which that person is

represented by another lawyer, which Miller admits.

      Count V. Violation of SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) – Dishonest or fraudulent

statements made to Mental Health Court personnel. Miller has denied those

allegations and that Count will be dismissed by agreement.

      Count VI. Violation of SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – Failing to respond to a lawful

request for information in disciplinary process, which Miller admits.

      22-DIS-0215:

      Count I. Violation of SCR 3.130(1.3) - Miller’s lack of diligence in

representing Madison, which Miller admits.

                                        4
      Count II. Violation of SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(4)- Lapses in communication

between Miller and Madison. Miller admits this violation.

      Count III. Violation of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) – Failure to timely refund the

unearned fees back to his client. Miller admits this violation.

      Count IV. Violation of SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – Failing to respond to a lawful

demand for information in a disciplinary proceeding, Miller admits to this

violation.

                                 II. ANALYSIS

       The KBA cites several cases in support of its conclusion that a 181-day

suspension is appropriate. Preliminarily, we note that Miller’s history of

attorney discipline includes one private admonition by the Inquiry Commission

on February 8, 2022. In mitigation, Miller acknowledges that he was having

personal and/or emotional problems during the relevant time period discussed

herein. He relates this to family struggles, anxiety, and depression. No

evidence of a formal diagnosis has been provided. Miller has been temporarily

suspended from practicing law for over a year under the order entered in

February, 2022, and claims he has been compliant during the period of

suspension.

      In the first case cited by the KBA, Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Meredith,4

Meredith’s personal and emotional involvement with a client had adverse effect

on advice or services rendered during Meredith’s representation. Meredith was

      4 641 S.W.3d 181.

                                        5
found to have revealed confidential information from the client during court

proceedings to the detriment of the client. The court found that a public

reprimand was warranted for Meredith. Miller has substantially more violation

counts than Meredith did.

      In Riley v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n,5 this Court issued a sanction of a public

reprimand for Riley’s admitted misconduct of engaging a client in sexually

explicit telephone conversations, and for making a sexual advance toward the

client while he was representing the client in a class action case, violating SCR

3.130(1.7). The client turned down Riley’s advances and Riley was soon taken

off the case. Riley had a similar conflict of interest as Miller’s, but Riley had

many fewer violations than Miller.

      In Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Matthews,6 this Court upheld a 181-day

suspension against Matthews for multiple violations of the rules of professional

conduct. Matthews violated SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), SCR

3.130(1.16)(d), SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) and SCR 3.130(1.3). SCR 3.130(1.3) requires

a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a

client. Matthews accepted payment to represent a client in a civil lawsuit but

failed to file the pleadings in time.

      In Coorssen v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n,7 this Court ruled that Coorssen had

violated several rules of professional conduct. Coorssen failed to return client

      5 349 S.W.3d 301(Ky. 2011).

      6 283 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. 2009).

      7 266 S.W.3d 237(Ky. 2008).

                                         6
telephone calls, failed to provide client with information concerning the status

of her divorce, failed to return an unearned client fee, and failed to withdraw

from a case. The court issued a suspension from practice of law for one year,

with 181 days to be served and the remainder probated for two years subject to

certain conditions.

      This Court also held in Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Bader,8 that Bader would

be suspended for thirty days for violation of SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), and SCR

3.130(b). Bader failed to respond to a lawful demand for information related to

a disciplinary authority.

      Miller has a history of prior discipline in that he was issued a private

reprimand by the Inquiry Commission on February 8, 2022, after these

violations occurred. Miller acknowledges that he was having personal and/or

emotional problems. He relates this to family struggles, anxiety and

depression. No formal diagnosis has been provided. Miller has been

temporarily suspended from practicing law for over a year under the February,

2022 order.

      Miller admits that he violated SCR 3.130(1.7)(a)(2), SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1),

SCR 3.130(4.2), SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(4), SCR

3.130(1.16)(d), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b). Miller and the KBA agree to an order

suspending him from the practice of law for 181 days, retroactive to his

temporary suspension commencement from 2021-SC-0527-KB, and we agree

      8 529 S.W.3d 774 (Ky. 2017).

                                        7
that this sanction is appropriate. Miller shall be referred to the Kentucky

Lawyer’s Assistance Program (KYLAP), as he has acknowledged struggles with

his mental health.

      Therefore, the Court Orders:

      1.    Miller is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 181 days,

            retroactively.

      2.    Miller is hereby ordered to pay all costs of these proceedings

            pursuant to SCR 3.450.

      3.    Miller shall not commit any crimes, including misdemeanors or

            felonies.

      4.    Within 10 days of the entry of this order, Miller must contact

            KYLAP to schedule an assessment, complete the assessment and

            comply with any recommendations made by KYLAP. Miller must

            also sign an authorization allowing Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) to

            directly communicate with and obtain information from the

            Director of KYLAP. Miller shall also provide quarterly reports to

            the OBC showing his compliance with any terms and conditions

            set by KYLAP regarding his mental health assessment.

      All sitting. All concur.

      ENTERED: August 24, 2023.

                                     ______________________________________
                                     CHIEF JUSTICE

                                        8