Court Opinion

ID: 9685875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:07:52.20195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:11.207758
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2021-SC-0475-KB

D. STEVEN PARKS                                                       MOVANT

V.                            IN SUPREME COURT

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                           RESPONDENT

                             OPINION AND ORDER

      This case is before the Court on Applicant D. Steven Parks’ application

for reinstatement pursuant to SCR1 3.502(2). His Kentucky Bar Association

(KBA) Member Number is 90969 and his bar roster address is 3925 Fieldside

Circle, Louisville, Kentucky 40299. Parks resides in California.

      The Character and Fitness Committee (the Committee) issued its

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation to the Board of

Governors, recommending that Parks not be reinstated. The Board of

Governors adopted the Committee’s recommendation and also recommends

that this Court deny Parks’ application. Having reviewed the record, we adopt

the Board’s recommendation and deny Parks’ application for reinstatement.

      1 Rules of the Supreme Court.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

       Parks was admitted to the practice of law on October 14, 2005. Parks

had no disciplinary actions before the matter at issue here.

       This matter began more than ten years ago when Parks’ client Linda

Stengel paid him $500 to obtain title on an abandoned vehicle. Parks failed to

respond to Ms. Stengel’s numerous requests for information as to how the case

was proceeding, to obtain title on the abandoned vehicle, or to refund the $500

fee.

       Stengel then filed a complaint against Parks with the KBA. The KBA

sought to resolve the matter via alternative disposition but was unable to do so

because Parks failed to provide pertinent information. Parks also failed to

respond to the Board’s subsequent formal complaint.

       The Board thus ultimately found Parks guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1.3

for failing to act with reasonable diligence, SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(3) for failing to

keep his client reasonably informed, SCR 3.130-1.16(d) for failing to refund the

unearned fee, and SCR 3.130-8.1(b) for failing to respond to the formal

complaint and lawful requests for information. The Board recommended Parks

be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days. We agreed and issued a

decision on December 18, 2014 suspending Parks from the practice of law for

thirty days. Ky. Bar Ass’n v. Parks, 449 S.W.3d 763, 765 (Ky. 2014). We

further ordered that Parks “immediately refund to Linda Stengel $500.” Id.

       Parks filed an application for reinstatement on January 23, 2020. Parks

affirmatively represented in his application that he had not been adjudicated

                                         2
bankrupt, when in fact he had been. In the application Parks also stated that

he had never been a party to a civil or administrative proceeding other than a

divorce action, when in fact he was the defendant in a malpractice case that

resulted in a judgment against him.2 Parks also asserted in the application

that he had never been charged with fraud in any legal proceeding, when in

fact he was the subject of an adversarial proceeding in his bankruptcy case

alleging that he engaged in fraud.3 Parks further represented in the application

that he had not been charged with unprofessional or unethical conduct or had

disciplinary proceedings against him, when in fact he received a private

admonition in 2015 after being the subject of a bench warrant in Jefferson

District Court for failure to produce records.

      The Committee held an informal hearing and recommended granting

Parks’ application for reinstatement. During the course of the Board’s

subsequent consideration of the application, it came to light that Parks had not

refunded the unearned $500 fee to his client until September 1, 2021—and

thus after the Committee’s proceedings and recommendation to grant the

application for reinstatement. The Board also noted Parks’ false and

misleading answers in his application and his failure to disclose the

      2 The plaintiff in the malpractice case was a construction company that retained

Parks to collect a debt. Parks failed to prosecute the company’s claim and the company
obtained a $58,464 malpractice judgment against him. Parks’ former spouse satisfied
the judgment even though it had been discharged in Parks’ bankruptcy proceedings.

       3 The adversarial proceeding was commenced by the Trustee of Parks’ bankruptcy

estate and alleged that he engaged in fraud in the bankruptcy case by failing to disclose
both his transfers of interest in four properties and three vehicles and his own interests
in one property and two vehicles.
                                            3
malpractice case and judgment, the fraud allegations against him, or his 2015

private admonition. The Board thus recommended we deny the application.

      On review, we concluded the proceedings were flawed due to the

Committee’s failure to provide the parties an opportunity to request a formal

hearing and thus remanded to the Committee for such a hearing. Parks v. Ky.

Bar Ass’n, 642 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Ky. 2022). Further proceedings consistent

with our opinion have now occurred and the matter thus again returns to us

for consideration of Parks’ application for reinstatement.

      I.    The Character and Fitness Committee’s Findings and
            Recommendation.

      On remand, the Committee held a formal hearing during which it heard

sworn testimony from Parks and three character witnesses on his behalf. The

Committee recommended denial of Parks’ application given his prior

misconduct, his failure to timely refund the unearned fee, his lack of candor in

his reinstatement application, issues with professional competence, and the

“exceedingly superficial” character evidence he offered.

      II.   The Board of Governors’ Findings and Recommendation.

      On appeal, the Board received full briefing from the parties and heard

oral argument. The Board reviewed the record, applied our standards for

reinstatement as set forth in SCR 3.503(1), and found that the Committee’s

recommendation to deny was supported by substantial evidence and was not

clearly erroneous as a matter of law.

      The Board concluded Parks failed to comply with his refund obligation

with reasonable diligence, and that the false statements on his reinstatement
                                        4
application reflect a lack of the reliable trust and confidence required of an

attorney. See SCR 3.503(1)(b), (c), & (i). The Board further noted that while

Parks explained the misrepresentations on his application by asserting he did

not understand the questions, such an explanation raises questions as to

whether he has the requisite competence for the practice of law. See SCR

3.503(1)(d). The Board also found Parks’ character witnesses did not provide

helpful proof of rehabilitation. See SCR 3.503(1)(f). The Board thus also

recommends that we deny the application for reinstatement.

               ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

      The Board of Governors’ recommendation is supported by the record and

the law. No party has made any subsequent filing to this Court following the

Board’s submission. Thus, because the Board’s recommendation is supported

by the record and the law, this Court elects not to review the recommendation

as allowed under SCR 3.370(9). The recommendation of the Board is therefore

adopted pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), and we thus deny Parks’ application for

reinstatement.4

      All Sitting. All concur

      ENTERED: August 24, 2023

                                       ______________________________________
                                       CHIEF JUSTICE

      4 We note that Parks has now been under disciplinary suspension for more than

eight years. As such, should Parks again apply for reinstatement and obtain either an
unchallenged Committee recommendation or a Board recommendation that we grant
the application, he must then successfully take the reinstatement bar examination
before this Court can consider whether to reinstate him. SCR 3.503(6).
                                          5