Court Opinion

ID: 9381616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 15:05:58.267339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.594970
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2023-SC-0020-KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                                MOVANT

V.                            IN SUPREME COURT

KENNETH LAWRENCE SALES                                             RESPONDENT

                             OPINION AND ORDER

      Respondent, Kenneth Lawrence Sales, whose Kentucky Bar Association

(KBA) member number is 61135, and whose bar roster address is 9300

Shelbyville Road, Suite 205, Louisville, Kentucky, was admitted to the practice

of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on May 5, 1976. Between 2011 and

2019, Sales was involved in two separate cases resulting in investigation by the

Inquiry Commission. Both Charges were consolidated into one disciplinary

action heard before the Trial Commissioner. The Trial Commissioner’s report

was filed on October 10, 2022. It contained findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and recommendations. Neither the KBA nor Sales filed a notice of review

following the Trial Commissioner’s report. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules

(SCR) 3.360(4) and 3.370(10), the Trial Commissioner’s report was forwarded to

this Court for entry of a final order. For the reasons set out below, we adopt the
Trial Commissioner’s report and recommendation. We thus suspend Sales from

the practice of law in the Commonwealth for one year.

                                 I. BACKGROUND

      The following facts are adopted from the Trial Commissioner’s report,

which details the evidence provided in the hearing below. This evidence formed

the basis for the Trial Commissioner’s legal conclusions.

1. KBA Case No. 20-DIS-0070

      In 2011, Sales was retained by Ms. Eastridge to represent her and her

deceased father in a case involving alleged wrongful exposure to various

chemicals by his former employer. In 2016, the Federal District Court ordered

Sales to provide medical releases to the defendants by the court’s deadline or to

be assessed a fine for lateness. Sales was late to file the releases and was

subsequently fined $200. That same year and in the same case, Sales also filed

discovery answers late to two sets of interrogatories, thereby waiving any

objections to the interrogatories. The court ordered Sales to pay $8,680.03 to

the defendant for his continued delays.

      The court later entered an order on December 30, 2016, granting Sales’s

motion for more time to respond to pending motions for summary judgment. In

the order, the court wrote that it “reminds [Sales] for the final time that ‘Failure

to timely respond to a motion may be grounds for granting the motion.’” Even

after Sales was subsequently granted extended time to file responses, he

missed the deadline. Ultimately, and without Ms. Eastridge’s knowledge, Sales

moved to dismiss the action. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Ms.

                                          2
Eastridge was only made aware that her case had been dismissed upon

obtaining new counsel.

      As part of the case, a defendant settled with Ms. Eastridge for around

$15,000. Sales did not turn this amount over to Ms. Eastridge initially, and

Ms. Eastridge soon “lost contact” with Sales. Sales eventually returned the

money to Ms. Eastridge, but only after this disciplinary action was filed.

2. KBA Case No. 20-DIS-0119

      The second disciplinary case arose from Sales’s involvement in Pierson-

Trapp Company, LLC d/b/a Gardenside Plaza v. Trapp Communications, LLC,

Case No. 18-CI-4150. There, Sales did not respond to discovery in a timely

manner. Opposing counsel moved for summary judgment, and Sales failed to

appear for the hearing to argue the motion. The trial court awarded summary

judgment in opposing counsel’s favor. Sales arrived late and had the Judgment

set aside. The trial court set another date for the hearing and gave Sales

fourteen days to respond to the motion. Sales failed to file a response. Sales

appeared for that hearing a few minutes before the case was called. The judge

reprimanded Sales “for his habit of either missing court or showing up to court

late and for failing to file responses to dispositive motions” before transferring

the case to another judge.

      Sales again failed to file a response to the motion before the new judge

but argued orally against summary judgment. The court then set a briefing

deadline, and Sales only filed a short response. Sales did not appear for the

following hearing. The judge entered an order granting opposing counsel’s

                                         3
motion for summary judgment and entered an order granting a request for

attorney’s fees against Sales. In that order, the trial court found that Sales

“engaged in a pattern and a practice of noncompliance with court orders, with

failing to appear at court hearings, and with showing up late for court

hearings.” Following the entry of this order, opposing counsel discovered that

during the case’s pendency, Sales was practicing with a suspended license. The

matter was then referred to the KBA, who filed Complaints against Sales in the

above two cases.

                                    II. ANALYSIS

      Sales has one prior suspension from January of 2020. He was

suspended for failing to pay bar dues and failing to complete his Continuing

Legal Education requirements. Regarding the above-styled disciplinary cases,

the trial commissioner made the following conclusions of law.1

1. KBA Case No. 20-DIS-0070

      Sales violated SCR 1.30(1.3), which states “A lawyer shall act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” He violated this

Rule by failing to promptly respond to demands of the court, and by failing to

diligently pursue Ms. Eastridge’s rights.

      1  The Trial Commissioner did not conclude that Sales violated SCR 8.1(b) for
“[failure] to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] . . . disciplinary
authority.” Although the KBA entered documentary evidence to the record that
indicated Sales may have violated this rule on both disciplinary cases, they did not
present any additional evidence on the counts at the hearing. Accordingly, the Trial
Commissioner found that “the KBA has failed by preponderance of the evidence to
produce proof of such a violation.” The KBA has not asked this Court to find such a
violation upon our review of Sales’s matter, and we adopt the Trial Commissioner’s
report in full.

                                          4
      Sales similarly violated SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), which states in part, “A

lawyer shall . . . keep the client reasonably informed about the status” of the

representation. He violated this Rule by failing to keep his client, Ms. Eastridge,

informed of the status of her case, especially with regard to its dismissal.

      Sales also violated SCR 3.130(1.15)(b), which states in part, “Upon

receiving funds or other property in which a client has an interest, a lawyer

shall promptly notify the client.” It further states “a lawyer shall promptly

deliver to the client any funds or other property that the client is entitled to

receive.” Id. He violated this Rule by failing to promptly turn over the funds

received to his client, Ms. Eastridge, to whom they were owed.

2. KBA Case No. 20-DIS-0119

      Sales violated SCR 1.30(1.3), which states that a “lawyer shall act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” He violated this

Rule by failing to promptly respond to demands of the trial court in this matter.

This was noted by the trial court in that case in its finding that Sales “engaged

in a pattern . . . of non-compliance with court orders, with failing to appear at

court hearings, and with showing up late to court hearings.”

      Sales similarly violated SCR 1.130(3.4)(c), which states in part, “[a]

lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a

tribunal.” He violated this Rule by knowingly disobeying the tribunal through

his repeated absences and tardiness before the court, even after warnings to

appear and respond.

                                         5
      Sales also violated SCR 3.130(5.5)(a), which states “[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.” He violated this

Rule by practicing while suspended, and without giving notice of such

suspension to the court.

                                 III.   CONCLUSION

      The Trial Commissioner’s report is supported by the record.

“Additionally, it appears that both the KBA and [Sales] are content with the

Trial Commissioner’s report since neither party has filed an appeal.” Kentucky

Bar Ass’n v. Robinson, 412 S.W.3d 184, 187 (Ky. 2013). The Trial

Commissioner concluded that Sales’s pattern of practice evidenced by the two

cases warranted a one-year suspension.2 This Court adopts the Trial

Commissioner’s report and recommendations pursuant to SCR 3.370(10).

      ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

   (1) Respondent, Kenneth Lawrence Sales, is found guilty of violating two

      Counts of SCR 1.130(1.3), one Count of SCR 1.130(1.4)(a)(3), one Count

      of SCR 1.130(1.5)(b), one Count of SCR 1.130(3.4)(c), and one Count of

      SCR 3.130(5.5)(a).

   (2) Sales is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year.

      2  In support of this suspension, the Trial Commissioner cited the following
cases: Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Mathews, 308 S.W.3d 194 (Ky. 2010); Kentucky Bar
Ass’n v. Bader, 558 S.W.3d 472 (Ky. 2018); Yopp v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 136 S.W.3d
453 (Ky. 2004); Coorssen v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 266 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. 2008); and
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Whitlock, 318 S.W.3d 602 (Ky. 2010).

                                          6
(3) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Sales, if he has not already done so, shall,

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

   clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all courts

   in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of

   law, and furnish copies of said letters of Notice to the Office of Bar

   Counsel.

(4) During the time of his suspension, Sales shall not accept new clients or

   collect unearned fees.

(5) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Sales shall, to the extent possible, immediately

   cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged.

(6) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Sales shall pay the costs of this action in

   the amount of $1,956.46, for which execution may issue from this Court

   upon finality of this Opinion and Order.

   All sitting. All concur.

   ENTERED: MARCH 23, 2023.

                                   ______________________________________
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER

                                      7