Preview:

TO BE PUBLISHED

,$UYrrMr (~Vurf of
2009-SC-000765-KB
KENTUCKYBARASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREMECOURT
CHARLES LEADINGHAM RESPONDENT
OPINION ANDORDER
Charles Leadingham, KBAMember No. 82296, was admitted to the practice of lawin the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October30, 1987. His Bar Roster address is 215 15th St., P.O. Box 387, Ashland, Kentucky, 41105. Before the Court is the Trial Commissioner's AmendedReport of October 5, 2009, covering two files consolidated for this report. KBAFile No. 12458 concerns Respondent's representation ofAllen Walker and KBAFile No. 12559 concerns Respondent's representation of Michael and Leigh AnnPerdue. Neither partyto this case filed a notice ofappeal pursuant to SCR3.360(4). According to said rule, in the event no appeal is filed, the entire record is to be forwarded to this Court for entry of a final order pursuant to SCR3.370(10).
After reviewing the record and beingof the opinion that further briefing is not
necessary, this Court adopts the decision of the Trial Commissioner.
Charges' were initially filed against the Respondent on March 29, 2007
(KBA File No. 12559). Chargeswere also filed against the Respondent on June
5, 2007 (KBA File No. 12458). The files were consolidated on June 4, 2008.
TheTrial Commissioner made the following Findings of Fact which, pursuant
to SCR3.370(10), we adopt as our own:
Allen Walker
l. Allen Walker hired the Respondent to representhimin a divorce case, and paid the sumof $600 at the beginning ofthe matter. There was no written fee agreementbetween the Respondent and Mr. Walker.
2. The Respondent prepared initial pleadings for Mr.
Walker, including aresponse to the petition for dissolution of marriage, a verified response to motion (for possession of the marital residence and various property) and response to motion for restraining order. The Respondent further proceeded to initiate an appraisal ofWalker's marital residence by sending a letter requesting same to Mr. Dale Hensley. All of the initial paperwork in Walker's case wascompleted as part of Walker's first meetingwith the Respondent on
August 25, 2004.
3.
Amotion for various relief, including temporarypossession of the marital residence, was scheduled to be heard on September 3, 2004, before JudgeHagerman of the Boyd Circuit Court. The motion had been filed by counselfor Walker's wife.

4.
The pleadings prepared by the Respondent on


Walker's behalfwere filed with the Boyd Circuit Court on September 2, 2004, the day before the scheduled hearing.
Not the same date that the initial complaint was filed.
5.
Judge Hagerman announced a ruling on the pending motions on Friday, September 3, 2004. Walker waspresent in court. The Respondent was not present. Mrs. Walker's attorney was present, but Mrs. Walker did not attend. No testimonywasheard and no other evidence waspresented. Awritten order memorializing Judge Hagerman's ruling was entered on September 3, 2004, at 9:21 a.m.

6. The Respondent failed to advise Walker, prior to September 3, 2004, that neither the Respondent nor anyone from his office would . . . be attending court on Walker's behalf. There were no other attorneys practicing with the Respondent at the time.

7.
The Orderofthe Boyd Circuit Court entered on September 3, 2004, granted relief requested by both the Petitioner and the Respondent to that action,indicating that the Court took notice of the pleadingsfiled by the Respondent herein on Mr. Walker's behalf. Specifically, the Court restrained both parties from disposing of any marital property, which relief was requested in the pleadings filed by the Respondent for

Mr. Walker.

8.
Mr. Walker did not understand the proceedingsthat occurred on September 3, 2004, and the Respondent never spoke to himdirectly concerning same before or after that date.

9. Walker discharged the Respondent on September 4,2004. He thereafter received an invoice dated October 31, 2004, from the Respondent for the sumof$150


reflecting 1 .25 hoursworked on August 25, 2004, at the rate of $120 per hour. Walker neverpaid the bill. The Respondent never refunded any money to Walker.
10.
Walker filed a bar complaint, which was mailed to the Respondent by certified mail on January 18, 2005. The Respondent personally signed for same on January 19, 2005. The Respondent was later personally served with the bar complaint by the local sheriffs office.

11. The Respondent failed to respond to the bar complaint filed against him by Allen Walker.

Michael and Leigh AnnPerdue

12.
Michael and LeighAnnPerdue hired the Respondent to represent their interests in a bankruptcy action in June, 2003. The Respondent quoted a fee of$800 for the case. 4n or about July14, 2003, Mr. &Mrs. Perdue paid $500, leaving a $300 balance owing.

13.
The Respondent and/orhis office staff prepared the initial pleadings in the Perdues' Chapter 7 bankruptcy case following a series of three meetings that occurred in June and July of 2003. The Respondent metwith Mr. &Mrs. Perdue in June, 2003, and the final two meetings occurred between the Perdues and the Respondent's office staff.

14.
The Respondent never filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for Mr. &Mrs. Perdue, though the bulk of thework wascomplete in the case bythe clients' third meeting with the Respondent's office.

15.
After meeting with the Respondent in June, 2003, Mr. &Mrs. Perdue never again spoke directly with the Respondent until the hearing conducted in the present case on June 15, 2009.

16.
Mr. &Mrs. Perdue neverpaid the remaining $300 originally owedto the Respondent. They requested a refund of the initial $500 they paid to the Respondent sometime in November, 2003, after they decided at that time not to proceed with filing bankruptcybecause Mr. Perdue was rehired at his job.

17.
During the time from June, 2003, to November, 2003, the Respondent experienced significantdifficulties at his office, including (1) a change in filingrequirements of the bankruptcy court necessitating use of a corporate credit card, whichthe Respondentdid not have, and (2) a sabotaged computer systemdue to the termination of a disgruntled employee. The Respondent admits that neither difficulty was


attributable to fault of the Perdues, but argues that neither were the circumstances his fault.
18.
Of the initial $500 received by the Respondentfrom Mr. &Mrs. Perdue, $200 was designated as `filingfee' in the Statement Pursuant to Rule 2016(8)prepared for the Perdues by the Respondent. The bankruptcy was never filed, and the filing fee was never paid to the bankruptcy court. The $200 filingfee was never refunded to Mr. &Mrs. Perdue.

19.
The Perdues' bar complaintwasmailed to the Respondent on February 28, 2005, by certified mail. He personally signed the return receipt for same on March 1, 2005. The Respondent did not respond to the bar complaint prior to the initiation of the presentcharges against him.

20.
The Trial Commissioner wasappointed in June of 2008, and apretrial conference was held on August 14, 2008. At the pretrial a hearing date was set and dates for filing ofWitness &Exhibit Lists were also established. The case was then delayed until April2009, when the KBAfiled an additional Motion for Telephonic Pretrial Conference. While the reason for that delay is not a matter to be considered by the Trial Commissioner, it appears that the KBAcan state that the delay was occasioned by good faith discussions with the Respondent. The Respondent's suspension in another matter waseffective March 19, 2009, and he could not be reinstated while this pendingmatter existed.


The Trial Commissioner also made the following Conclusions ofLaw
whichwe adopt as our own:
Allen Walker
1 . The Respondent did not violate SCR3.130-1 .3, in that he promptly prepared the initial pleadings in Mr. Walker's case and presented same to the Courtin a manner sufficiently timely to allow consideration of same by the trialjudge.
2. The Respondent violated SCR3.130-1 .4 by failing to keep Mr. Walker reasonably informed about the status of his case, and further byfailing to explainJudge Hagerman's motion proceedings to Mr. Walker in advance ofSeptember 3, 2004, to the extent reasonably necessaryto permit Mr. Walker to make informed decisions concerning the case.

3.
The Respondent violated SCR3.130-1 .16(d) byfailing to return to Mr. Walker the unearned portion of the $600 fee he had paid at the beginning ofthe representation.

4.
The Respondent violated SCR3.130-8.1(b) byfailing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.


Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue
5. The Respondent violated SCR3.130-1 .3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing Mr. &Mrs. Perdue, in that he did not complete the filing of their bankruptcy case during the period of time from July, 2003, when they signed the completed bankruptcy petition, to November, 2003, when they finally decided to forego the bankruptcyaltogether.

6.
The Respondent violated SCR3.130-1.4(a) byfailing to keep Mr. &Mrs. Perdue reasonably informed concerning the status of their case, in that the Respondent never spoke to the Perdues again after his first meetingwith them, and did not personallyaddress with them the difficulties he nowrelies uponto excuse his failure to file their bankruptcy case.

7. The Respondent did notviolate SCR3.130-1.5(a),


in that he did not charge the Perdues an unreasonable fee for thework he performed. The Respondent was paid the sumof $300 for the preparation of a bankruptcy petition and for his time spent consultingwith the Perdues, which amount is not unreasonable.
8. The Respondent violated SCR3.130-1.16(d) byfailing to refund to the Perdues the filing fee that was advanced in the amount of $200, butwhichwas never
paid to the court clerk because the case wasnever filed.
9. The Respondent violated SCR3.130-8.1(b) by failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.
After concluding that the Respondent had violated certain Rules of Professional Conduct, the Trial Commissioner considered possible sanctions, together with aggravating and mitigating circumstances whichwere presented in ajoint exhibit. Aggravating circumstances included: a public reprimand on May24, 2001 (2001-SC-000275-KB); athirty day suspension on November 26, 2008, probated on the condition that Respondent attend the Ethics and Professionalism Program during 2009 (2008-SC-000522-KB); and a sixty day suspension on March 19, 2009 (2008-SC-000934-KB). Amitigating circumstance was the fact that Respondent was not reinstated to practice law after the last suspension (which was due to expire on May 19, 2009) because of the within pending case. The Trial Commissioner recommended a 120 day suspension, retroactive to May20, 2009, which would have expired September 15, 2009. TheTrial Commissioner further recommended that the Respondent be ordered to refund to Allen Walker, the sumof $450.00, and to refund to Michael and Leigh AnnPerdue, the sumof $200.00. This Court did not give the parties notice that it would require briefs and re-evaluate the recommendation, pursuant to SCR3.370(9). Therefore, this Court adopts the recommendations of the Trial Commissioner, pursuant to SCR3.370(10).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat:
1) Respondent, Charles C. Leadingham, is suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for aperiod of 120 days;
2) Said period of suspension shall commence retroactively to May20, 2009;
3) Respondent shall refund to Allen Walker, the sumof $450.00, before he is reinstated to practice law;
4) Respondent shall refund to Michael and LeighAnnPerdue, the sumof $200.00, before he is reinstated to practice law; and
5) Respondent is directed to pay all costs associated with this disciplinary proceeding, pursuant to SCR3.450, certified to be in the sumof $1,318.62, for which execution mayissue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: JANUARY 21, 2010.

Download 2009-sc-000765-kb.pdf

Kentucky Law