Court Opinion

ID: 9381605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 15:05:47.950166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.456599
License: Public Domain

TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2022-SC-0469-KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                                MOVANT

                             IN SUPREME COURT
V.

MICHAEL R. P. CALILUNG                                            RESPONDENT

                            OPINION AND ORDER

      Michael R. P. Calilung, Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Member No.

84663, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky

on May 21, 1993. His bar roster address is 4119 Taylor Boulevard, Louisville,

Kentucky 40215.

      In this case, the KBA Board of Governors recommends this Court find

Calilung guilty of violating Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.130(1.3), SCR

3.130(3.3)(a)(1), and SCR 3.130(3.4)(c)(1). For these violations, the Board

recommends that Calilung be suspended from the practice of law in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky for 120 days, with 60 days to be served and the

balance probated for two years, to pay the costs of the underlying proceedings,

and that he attends and successfully completes, at his own expense, the Ethics

and Professional Enhancement Program (EPEP) within 12 months of a final
order of this Court. Pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), and for the reasons below, we

agree and adopt the recommendation of the Board.

                          I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

      The charges arise out of Calilung’s representation of two probate estates

in Jefferson District Court Probate Division (the Probate Court) which are

hereinafter referred to separately as the “Miller Estate” and the “Fowler Estate.”

      Calilung filed a petition to probate the Miller Estate on January 30,

2004, followed by an initial Inventory. The estate’s real property was sold in

January 2006, and Calilung filed the first Periodic Settlement on June 12,

2006. Over the next twelve years, in response to inquiries from the Probate

Court, Calilung filed a number of sworn, yet incomplete, Periodic Settlements

indicating that estate monies had been distributed, and filed four motions for

extensions of time, claiming additional documents were needed to effectuate

final settlement. Included in these filings were mentions in 2007 of seeking a

refund for overpayment from the Internal Revenue Service and, in 2012, that

there was a claim pending the Kentucky State Treasurer for $160,000.00 in

unclaimed property. Neither of these matters were resolved by Calilung.

      On November 27, 2019, the Probate Court issued an order to show cause

which prohibited Calilung from withdrawing any funds related to the estate,

appointed the Public Administrator as successor executor, and required

Calilung to, within 15 days, provide both the court and the Public

Administrator a sworn accounting including the identification of all persons or

                                        2
institutions holding estate assets and the value of the assets held. Within 30

days Calilung was also required to provide correspondence regarding the

estate’s unclaimed property, proof of distributions of bequests, a listing of

documents related to his four prior motions for extension of time, and a listing

of persons determined by the estate to be remainder heirs.

      On December 27, 2019, Calilung filed a two-page pleading that the

Probate Court would later describe in an opinion and order as “woefully

unresponsive to the court’s directives.” The Respondent did not file in the

record, nor did he provide to the Public Administrator, the sworn accounting or

any of the documents required by the November 27, 2019, order. The hearing

on the Probate Court’s show cause order was conducted on January 7, 2020,

and Calilung offered no substantive explanation for either his failure to satisfy

the November 27, 2019, order or his decade-long delay in administering and

closing the Miller Estate. The executrix of the estate was compelled to fly from

Massachusetts to attend the hearing and stated on the record that she didn’t

“understand why they haven’t been distributed, why it’s taken …,” to which the

presiding judge responded, “[y]ou and me both.” In its subsequent order, the

Probate Court described Calilung’s actions as “grossly negligent.”

        In the Fowler Estate, Calilung filed the petition to probate the estate in

October of 2015 and filed the initial inventory on February 25, 2016. Over the

course of the next four calendar years, Calilung received multiple notices for

failures to file inventories or periodic settlements. The same Probate Court

                                        3
entered an order removing Calilung as counsel for the Fowler Estate on July 7,

2020.

        As a result of the foregoing events, the KBA was notified of the foregoing

by the Probate Court’s presiding judge and the Inquiry Commission filed a

Charge against Calilung on November 30, 2020. That Charge alleged that

Calilung had violated the following four Supreme Court Rules:

           1. SCR 3.130(1.3): “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
              and promptness in representing a client;”

           2. SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(l): “ A lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make
              a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct
              a false statement of material fact or law previously made to
              the tribunal by the lawyer. . . ;”

           3. SCR 3.130(3.4)(c): “A lawyer shall not (c) knowingly disobey
              an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open
              refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;”
              and,

           4. SCR 3.130(8.4)(c): “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer
              to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud, deceit or
              misrepresentation. . .”

        The first violation, SCR 3.130(1.3), applied to both the Miller and Fowler

Estates, while the remaining three violations only related to the Miller Estate.

        The hearing on Calilung’s alleged violations was conducted on February

17, 2022, and the Trial Commissioner issued his report on April 22, 2022,

which found that Calilung had not violated SCR 3.130(8.4)(c), but had violated

SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(1), and SCR 3.130(3.4)(c)(1). For those

violations, the Trial Commissioner recommended that Calilung be suspended

                                           4
from the practice of law for 120 days, with at least 60 days to serve and the

balance probated for a period of two years on the condition Calilung receive no

new disciplinary charges, and that he attend and successfully complete EPEP

within 12 months.

      Calilung filed exceptions admitting his violation of SCR 3.130(1.3) but

denying violations SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(l) or SCR 3.130(3.4)(c). He further argued

that a public reprimand was the more appropriate sanction to impose. Oral

arguments were conducted on Calilung’s exceptions on September 16, 2022.

The Board of Governors subsequently voted 19-0 (with one recusal and one

absence) to accept the Trial Commissioner’s proposed suspension.

      The known applicable mitigating factor is Calilung’s lack of any prior

disciplinary history. However, his almost thirty years of experience in the

practice of law before our courts may be seen to serve as an aggravating factor

given that he should know that much more is expected of seasoned lawyers

than the lack of diligence, honesty, and candor which he displayed towards

both his clients and the Probate Court.

                                 II. ANALYSIS

      Having reviewed the record, we agree that the Trial Commissioner’s

findings were supported by substantial evidence and the Board reached the

appropriate conclusions as to Calilung’s culpability. Furthermore, the

recommended sanction in this matter falls squarely within the appropriate

range of suspensions previously considered, accepted, and ordered by this

                                          5
Court in the matters of Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Thomas, 927 S.W.2d 838

(Ky.1996) (30 day suspension for failure to complete ancillary estate or respond

to correspondence from estate’s counsel and executrix prior to issuance of bar

complaint); Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Hatcher, 965 S.W.2d 166 (Ky.1998) (Two

year suspension for failure to file inheritance and state tax returns resulting in

late penalties, failure to timely settle estate over the course of a four year

period, and a prior disciplinary history).

      Calilung has not filed a notice to this Court requesting review of the

Board’s decision and based upon our review of the entirety of the record and

precedent, we do not elect to review the decision of the Board under SCR

3.370(9). Accordingly, the decision of the Board is adopted under SCR

3.370(10).

                                   III.   ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

      1.     Michael R. P. Calilung, KBA Member No. 84663, is found guilty of

             violating SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(3.3)(a)(l) and SCR 3.130(3.4)(c);

      2.     As discipline for these violations, Calilung is suspended from the

             practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 120 days, with

             60 days to be served and the balance probated for two years;

      3.     Calilung shall successfully complete, at his own expense, the

             Commonwealth’s Ethics and Professional Enhancement Program

             within 12 months of this order;

                                          6
4.   Under SCR 3.390, Calilung:

     a. Shall notify all clients in writing of his inability to continue to

        represent them and shall furnish copies of all such letters to the

        Director of the Kentucky Bar Association. These notices shall be

        mailed or emailed to the respective clients within ten (10) days of

        the entry of this Order, if not already mailed. Calilung shall

        make arrangements to return all active files to the client or new

        counsel and shall return all unearned attorney fees and client

        property to the client and shall advise the Director of such

        arrangements within the ten (10) day period;

     b. must not, during the term of suspension and until reinstatement,

        accept new clients or collect unearned fees;

     c. must immediately cancel any pending advertisements; must

        terminate any advertising activity for the duration of the term of

        suspension; and must not allow his name to be used by a law

        firm in any manner until he is reinstated.

                                   7
5.   In accordance with SCR 3.450(2), Calilung is directed to pay all

     costs associated with these proceedings against him, said sum being

     $1,675.58 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

                                   8