Kentucky Bar Association v. Kenneth Joseph Bader

TO BE PUBLISHED
cSupmnt dl:ourf :of 1§mfudt}!
2017-SC-000204-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KENNETH JOSEPH BADER RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Trial Commissioner issued. a
report finding that Respondent Kenneth Joseph Bader had violated two rules of
professional misconduct, as charged by the Inquiry CommissiC?n. As a
sanction, the Trial Commissioner recommended that Bader be suspended from
the practice of law for thirty (~O) days and be assessed all costs associated with
this proceeding, pursuant to SCRl 3.450. Neither Bader nor the Kentucky Bar
Association ("KBA") filed a notice of appeal from the report; accordingly, this
case is before this Court for entry of a final order pursuant to SCR 3.370(9).
Finding sufficient cause to do so, we adopt the Trial Commissioner's
recommendation.
1 Supreme Court Rules.
KBA File 23761
Bader, KBA Number is 02455, bar roster address 544 Baxter Avenue,
Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40204, wa~ admitted to the practice of law in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 22, 1980. This disciplinary
. proceeding arose from orders entered by the Bullitt Circuit Court finding Bader
to be in contempt of court on three separate occasions for failing to appear to
represent the interests of his clients. Based upon complaints by the Bullitt
Circuit Court judge, the Inquiry Commission issued a complaint against Bader
in July 2015. Bader did not file a response. Subsequently, the Inquiry
Commiss~on issued a two-count charge against him. Count I ~barged that
Bader violated SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), which provides: "A lawyer shall not ...
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal without an open
· refusal based on the claim that no valid obligation exists." Count II charged
that Bader violated SCR 3.130(8. l)(b), which states, in pai:t, that in
conjunction with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not "knowingly fail to
respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary
~Uthority."
Bader did not timely answer the charge, but later requested, and
received, additional time to .file an answer. In his answer, Bader addres·sed
difficulties he faced as a sole practitioner, especially trying to cover cases in
multiple courts. He claimed that he missed his contempt hearing in Bullitt
Circuit ~ourt because he did not receive timely notice of it. He also spoke of
health problems and serious personal issues, and stated that he had suffered a
2
serious accident that caused him to be off work. However, Bader filed no·
documentation to support any of these claims; and filed nothing else of record
throughout this proceeding, despite addition8.I requests for information from
the·KBA and the Trial Commissioner, nor did he participate in any other way.
. -
Bader did not appear at the pre:.hearing conference, file any witness or exhibit
lists ~n anticipation of the hearing, or attend the December 6, 201~ disciplinary
hearing itself.
Following the hearing, the KBA timely filed its post-hearing brief. Bader
did not file a brief or request an exte~sion of time to do so.· The Trial
·Commissioner thereafter issued its report, finding that with respect to Count I,
Bader violated SCR 3.130(3.~)(c) by engaging in conduct that resulted in three
contempt orders being issued by the Bullitt Circuit Court. The Trial
Commissioner found that the proof showed by a preponderance of the evidence
that on three separate occasions Bader failed, Without cause, to appear in the·
Bullitt Circuit Court after having been duly ordered to appear. With resp~ct to
Count II, the. Trial Commissioner found that the proof established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Bader had violated SCR 3.130(8. l)(b) by
failing to respond to additional requests, both from KBA Counsel and the Trial
Commissioner, for additional information during this proceeding and in all_
ways failed to ·participate in his disciplinary hearing.
Having concluded that Bader violated the ·Rules of Professional Conduct
as charged in Count I and II, the Trial Commissioner considered Bader's past
disciplinary history in determining the appropriate sanction to recommend.
3
The record shows that by order entered July 21, 2014, Bader received a private ·
.
·reprimand for the following: l) violating.SCR 3.130-1.3 by failing to.file a
client's bankruptcy petition iri a timely manner; 2) violating SCR 3.130-L4(a)(2)
by failing to tell his client that he was not filing her bankruptcy petition
because she had not paid his fee; and 3) violating SCR 3.130-l .4(a)(3) by failing
to i:espond to his client's requests for information about her bankruptcy
proceedings. Considering Bader's conduct in the proceeding at bar, and his
disciplinary histoi:y, the Trial Commissioner recommended that Bader be
susp~nded from the practice of law for 30 days and be assessed ail costs
associated with this proceeding, pursuantJo SCR 3.450.
Upo;n review of the Trial·Commissioner's recommendation, we find that
the proposed sanction is appropriate and is supported by this Court's prior
decisions. See, e.g., Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Myles, 436 S.W.3d 204 (Ky. 2014) (61-day
suspension warranted where atto~ey disobeyed order of disciplinary authority
. /
r~quiring him to return file to fprmer client, and failed to respond to
disciplinary- authority's request for information); Ky..Bar Ass 'n v. Leadingham,
269 S.W.3d 419 (Ky. 2008) (public reprimand, and 30-day ·suspension
probated on condition that attorney attend ethics program, appropriate
sanction for attorney's failure to obey orders of the court and failure to respond
to a demand for informati~n from a discipli:r:iai:y authority); Ky. Bar Ass'n v.
Quesinberry, 203 S.W.3d 137 (Ky. 2006) (30-day suspension merited where
attorney failed to properly handle a client's c~se and failed to respond to the
Inquiry Commission's request for information). \
4
The record in this case indicates clear noncompliance with the rules of
Bader's chosen profession. The admonition he received in 2014 was for s~milar
conduct. Upon the foregoing facts and charges, we find sufficient evidence to
adjudicate Bader guilty of all counts alleged in KBA File 23761. We further
hold that in light of Bader's conduct, the recommended sanction of the Trial
Commissioner should be adopted. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Respondent, Kenneth Joseph Bader, KBA Number 02455, 544 Baxter
Avenue, Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40204 is adjudged guilty of
violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) and SCR 3.130(8.l)(b); ·
2. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Ken_tucky for a period of thirty (30) days;
3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary procee.dings against him, in the
amount of $1,241.19, for which execution may issue from this Court
upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: September 28, 2017.
CHI
5