D. Steven Parks v. Kentucky Bar Association ( 2023 )

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