Kentucky Bar Association v. Michael Linden Myers , 457 S.W.3d 725 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                               TO BE PUBLISHED
    $5uptrtur T.,ourt                   tIfirttfurkv
    2015-SC-000051-KB
    KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION                                                 MOVANT
    V.                            IN SUPREME COURT
    MICHAEL LINDEN MYERS                                               RESPONDENT
    KBA MEMBER NO. 90570
    OPINION AND ORDER
    Respondent, Michael Linden Myers, Kentucky Bar Association ("KBA")
    member number 90570, bar roster address P.O. Box 2631, Charleston, West
    Virginia 25329, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of
    Kentucky on January 7, 2005. The KBA Inquiry Commission issued a four-
    count Charge against Respondent on October 4, 2013, in KBA File Number
    21948. The Charge alleged violations of the following Rules of Professional
    Conduct: Count I, Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 3.130-1.3 (attorney must
    represent the client with reasonable diligence and promptness); Count II, SCR
    3.130-1.4(a)(3) (attorney shall keep the client reasonably informed); Count III,
    SCR 3.130-1.4(a)(4) (attorney must promptly comply with reasonable requests
    for information); and Count IV, SCR 3.130-8.4(c) (attorney may not engage in .
    conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
    On October 28, 2013, Respondent filed his Answer and admitted to
    violating the first three Counts of the Charge. A hearing was subsequently held
    and both parties submitted memorandums. The Trial Commissioner issued his
    Report on October 7, 2014. The Report found Respondent guilty of violating all
    four Counts of the Charge and recommended a thirty-day suspension from the
    practice of law, probated conditionally for two years.
    This disciplinary action is now before the Court pursuant to SCR
    3.360(4), which states that within thirty days after the Trial Commissioner files
    his or her report with the Disciplinary Clerk, "either party may file a notice of
    appeal . . . . If no notice of appeal is timely filed, the entire record shall be
    forwarded to the Court for entry of a final order . . . ." Before we accept the
    Report and enter a final order pursuant to SCR 3.370(9), this Court must
    determine whether it will independently review the Trial Commissioner's
    decision. After all, the Trial Commissioner's Report is advisory, and it is "our
    job to establish the appropriate sanction." Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Steiner, 
    157 S.W.3d 209
    , 211 (Ky. 2005) (citing SCR 3.380).
    Findings of Facts
    In 2010, Respondent began representing Howard and Gidget Smith in a
    medical malpractice suit in the Boyle Circuit Court. In April of 2012, a week-
    long trial commenced. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on
    April 16, 2012. Respondent discussed with his clients the option of appealing
    the verdict, but candidly explained that a successful appeal was unlikely.
    Nonetheless, the parties elected to move forward with an appeal. Respondent
    filed the appeal on May 31, 2012. Unfortunately, Respondent failed to file a
    pre-hearing statement as required by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure
    2
    76.03. As a result, the appeal was dismissed in August of 2012. Unaware of
    the dismissal, the Smiths contacted Respondent in February of 2013 to discuss
    the status of their appeal. Respondent did not admit to his procedural
    mistake. Instead, Respondent explained that the Court of Appeals denied the
    appeal.
    Conclusions of Law
    As mentioned, Respondent admitted to violating the first three Counts of
    the Charge. Consequently, the Trial Commissioner only analyzed Count IV of
    the Charge, which alleged Respondent "engag[ed] in conduct involving
    dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." Respondent urged the Trial
    Commissioner to find him not guilty of violating the rule because his conduct
    did not involve fraud. Yet, as the Trial Commissioner correctly stated, SCR
    3.130-8.4 uses the conjunction "or" not "and", meaning that the misconduct
    must only fall into one of the proscribed categories—dishonesty, fraud, deceit
    or misrepresentation. Even assuming arguendo that a finding of fraud is
    required, the Trial Commissioner still believed Respondent violated SCR 3.130-
    8.4 as fraud is defined as "a false representation of a matter of fact .. .
    concealment of that which should have been disclosed." Black's Law
    Dictionary, 4th Edition (1968). Respondent's statement to the Smiths that the
    Court of Appeals denied their appeal was a false representation, the truth of
    which should have been disclosed. Thusly, the Trial Commissioner correctly
    concluded that Respondent "engaged in conduct that was dishonest,
    fraudulent, deceitful, and contained acts of misrepresentation when he failed to
    3
    timely advise his clients that the appeal had been dismissed, but instead told
    them 6 months later that it had been denied."
    Recommendation
    In formulating Respondent's punishment, the Trial Commissioner
    considered Respondent's state of mind when the misconduct occurred. More
    specifically, Respondent claimed that after the jury trial, he was highly
    distraught because he cared so deeply for the Smiths. Respondent also alluded
    to the possibility that he was suffering from depression. Respondent further
    demonstrated great remorse for his behavior. As a result, the Trial
    Commissioner recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice
    of law for thirty days, probated for two years. Respondent's probation is
    conditioned on him paying all costs associated with the disciplinary
    proceedings, refraining from incurring any additional disciplinary charges, and
    completing all recommendations imposed upon him by the Kentucky Lawyer
    Assistance Program ("KYLAP").
    Conclusion
    After reviewing the Trial Commissioner's Report, we conclude that his
    findings of fact and conclusions of law are adequately supported by the record
    and our case law. See Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Pridemore, 
    436 S.W.3d 526
    (Ky.
    2014) (attorney received a thirty-day suspension, probated for two years, for
    failing to file client's appeal and then lying to the client about the appeal when
    subsequently asked about the case's status); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v.
    Quesinberry, 
    203 S.W.3d 137
    (Ky. 2006) (attorney was given a probated thirty-
    4
    day suspension for failing to file an appellate brief which resulted in the
    dismissal of his client's appeal); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Zimmerman,    
    11 S.W.3d 47
    (Ky. 2000) (attorney was suspended for forty-five days after his client's
    appeal was dismissed due to his failure to file a pre-hearing statement).
    Thusly, this Court does not elect to independently review the Trial
    Commissioner's decision pursuant to SCR 3.370(8). We hereby adopt the Trial
    Commissioner's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
    pursuant to SCR 3.370(9). However, we must note that the record does not
    disclose whether Respondent has sought KYLAP services, nor can we ascertain
    if KYLAP has evaluated Respondent. Therefore, in addition to abiding by any
    KYLAP recommendations, our order also imposes a condition that Respondent
    obtain an evaluation by a KYLAP professional.
    ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    1. Respondent, Michael Linden Myers, KBA member number 90570, is
    found guilty of the above-described violations of the Rules of
    Professional Conduct.
    2. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this
    Commonwealth for a period of thirty (30) days, probated for two (2)
    years.
    3. Respondent's probation is conditioned on him receiving an evaluation
    preformed by a KYLAP professional. Once obtained, Respondent must
    fully comply with any resulting recommendations from the evaluation.
    4. Respondent's probation is also conditioned on him not receiving any
    additional disciplinary charges during the two (2) year probationary
    period.
    5. Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
    associated with this disciplinary proceeding, in the amount of
    $796.11 for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality
    of this Order.
    All sitting. All concur.
    ENTERED: April 2, 2015.
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-SC-000051-KB

Citation Numbers: 457 S.W.3d 725, 2015 WL 1544459

Filed Date: 3/30/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024