Kentucky Bar Association v. Christy Smith Grayson

CONFIDENTIAL
finpreme Gland 11f ghettfurkg
P
2017 SC 000659 KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION COMPLAINANT
V IN SUPREME COURT
CHRISTY SMITH GRAYSON RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3 480(2) 1 the negotiated
sanction rule, Christy Smith Grayson2 moves this Court to impose upon her a
five year suspension with the condit10ns that she refund or partially refund
money to several former clients and that she participate in the Kentucky
1 SCR 3 480(2) states in full
The Court may consider negotiated sanctions of disciplinary
invesugations, complaints or charges prior to the commencement of a
hearing before a Trial Commissioner under SCR 3 240 Any member
who is under investigation pursuant to SCR 3 160(2) or who has a
complaint or charge pending in this jurisdiction, and who desires to
terminate such investigation or disciplinary proceedings at any stage of it
may request Bar Counsel to consrder a negotiated sanction If the
member and Bar Counsel agree upon the specifics of the facts, the rules
v101ated, and the appropriate sanction, the member shall file a motion
with the Court which states such agreement, and serve a copy upon Bar
Counsel, who shall, within 10 days of the Clerk’s notice that the motion
has been docketed, respond to its merits and confirm its agreement The
Disc1plinary Clerk shall submit to the Court within the 10 day period the
active disciplinary files to which the motion applies The Court may
approve the sanction agreed to by the parties; or may remand the case
for hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of remand
3 KBA Member No 88262, bar roster address P O Box 2186, Inez, Kentucky
41224 Grayson was admitted to the practice of law May 1, 2000
. 5. a 9.
Lawyer Assistance Program (KYLAP) Grayson also requests that the
suspension be made effective October 8, 2017 Grayson seeks this discipline to
resolve nineteen disciplinary cases Grayson is currently indefinitely
suspended under SCR 3 380 pursuant to this Court’s September 28, 2017
Opinion and Order in 2017 SC 000240 KB Kentucky Bar Association v
Grayson 530 S W 3d 460 (Ky 2017) Grayson further requests the indefinite
suspension imposed in 2017 SC 000240 KB be dlssolved as moot upon
imposition of the currently requested discipline The Kentucky Bar Association
(KBA), through the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC), has no objection to Grayson’s
requests “The Court may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or
may remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of
remand ” SCR 3 480(2), See Anderson 1) Kentucky Bar Association, 262 S W 3d
636, 638 (Ky 2008) (The Court has d1scretion to accept or reject the negotiated
sanction )
As charged, the cases present a pattern of lack of diligence,
misrepresentations, inadequate communications with the clients, and failure to
refund unearned fees One case involves Grayson’s felony conviction for
possession of a forged instrument Grayson repeatedly states that her
misconduct stems from depression for which she has sought treatment but the
record contains no medical evidence Grayson’s verified statements alone are
not sufficient for a mental health dlsability to be conSIdered as mitigation See
Kentucky Bar Association v Hill, 476 S W 3d 874 (Ky 2015) discussed infra
Although it may be that a five year suspension, with conditions, is the
2
, 1'. , 5.
appropriate discipline for Grayson, that conclusion cannot be reached through
consrderation of Grayson’s verified motion, the KBA’s response, and the record
currently before the Court Because Grayson relies largely on findlngs related
to her depression to mitigate her penalty (with no ev1dentiary support other
than her own statements regarding diagnosis and treatment), and we cannot
find at this time that other suggested mitigating circumstances some of
which are also related to Grayson’s depression are sufficient to conclude the
proposed sanction is proper, we must reject the negotiated sanction We
remand this case for hearing
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A Prior Disc1plmary Proceedings
Grayson is presently under indefinite suspension, effective October 8,
2017, pursuant to this Court’s September 28, 2017 Opinion and Order in
2017 SC 000240 KB for failing to respond to charges initiated by the KBA
Inquiry Commission in 17 DIS 0026 and 17 DIS 0027 A private admonition
issued May 23, 2018 the conduct underlying the admonition occurred within
the same time period as the cases currently before the Court
Leading up to this current action, in January 2018, this Court was asked
by Grayson, represented by counsel, to review the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of the Board of Governors in 2017
SC 000659 KB for four default cases 17 DIS 0026 and 17 DIS 0027 the two
cases resulting in Grayson’s indefinite suspension, and two others, 17 DIS
0099 and 17 DIS 0112 A discrepancy existed between the Board’s vote on the
3
. u
. a , ’.
recommended discipline and that actually presented in the Board’s
Recommendation The Board’s September 15, 2017 vote breakdown indicated
that the majority voted to suspend Grayson for five years, but the Board’s
December 2017 Recommendation stated that the recommendation was a five
year suspension with three years probated
Grayson also tendered answers to the four default cases and asked that
the dis01plinary proceedings be remanded to the KBA for the filing of the
answers into the record and for further proceedings before the KBA, allowing
her to prov1de ev1dence addressing factual allegations and to prov1de mitigating
evidence, particularly an objective healthcare assessment, relevant to the
proper resolution of the proceedings Grayson’s January 2018 brief described
mental health issues as playing a role in her inability to properly address the
four disciplinary cases, as establishing a valid excuse for the default, and
stated those issues were presently being assessed and evaluated
In support of her remand request, Grayson specifically stated that for
approximately the last two years she has been prescribed antidepressant
medication by her primary care physician, and following the events in the latter
part of 2017 that are before the KBA and this Court, she has sought
comprehensive and aggressive mental healthcare assessment, evaluation, and
treatment through a number of healthcare providers, including a psychiatrist
She stated that at that time, she had been diagnosed with depressron (the
scope and degree yet to be fully determined) and anxiety, and possible Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (P'I‘SD) Grayson also stated that she recognized the
4
.
,. ‘. : ’.
need to establish an appropriate connection between the conduct at issue in
the Charges and any adverse health condition of hers which existed during
that time She noted that the process of assessment and evaluation had begun
but had not yet concluded, but that part of the process had included her
reaching out to KYLAP to assist in obtaining an appropriate mental health and
physical health assessment and evaluation
The four tendered answers contained like statements regarding
Grayson’s mental health The tendered answers also stated that the ongoing
and pendlng assessment regarding her health condition during the relevant
time period of the Charge would provide material information and mitigating
evidence in determining the appropriate outcome of the proceeding She stated
that a comprehensive mental healthcare assessment had yet to be performed,
and a long term treatment and counseling plan had yet to be established In
regard to KYLAP’s requested assistance, Grayson also stated that part of the
assessment would include determining the connection, if any, between her
adverse health condition and the underlying conduct set out in the Charge By
its June 14, 2018 order, this Court granted Grayson’s request to remand the
matter to the KBA to allow filing of answers and development of the record so
the Court could determine the appropriate discipllne
The four cases initially presented in 2017 SC 000659 KB are part of the
nineteen cases considered in the present action, which maintains the same
case number Upon approval of the proposed sanction, the DEC requests the
Court deem the consensual discipline as resolution of 2017 SC 000240 KB
5
i t a
B Mitigation Grayson’s Statement Regarding Her Mental Health
Grayson states in her verified motion that her personal and professional
life began deteriorating around 2016, eventually culminating in the present
disciplinary proceeding Several years ago (on a date not disclosed in the
record), Grayson’s primary care physic1an prescribed depression medication for
Grayson Matters in Grayson’s personal life including attempting to help her
best friend suffering from serious mental health and alcohol problems and who
died in early 2017, helping her friend’s teenage daughters, and attempting to
help her older and younger sisters who were also having their own personal,
health, and employment problems began to take their toll on her mental
health, which had adverse consequences in her personal and professional life
During those earlier times, Grayson states she was not fully disclosing to
her physician all of the adverse matters in her life and the negative effects on
her And, as the various disciplinary proceedings began to pile up, Grayson
did not reach out to others, personally or professionally, for help According to
Grayson, her chronic depression and anxiety were not properly diagnosed until
after the various attorney disciplinary proceedings arose Grayson alleges she
ultimately reached out and received appropriate healthcare intervention in late
2017 and into 2018 As a result, Grayson maintains she was able to bring her
life into an ongoing stable condition Grayson states she has benefitted from
counseling, treatment, a new approach to addressing life stressors, and
prescribed depression medication, and that she is committed to continuing on
a positive path The proposed disc1p1ine is conditioned on Grayson entering
6
,, 1i
into an appropriate KYLAP agreement to monitor her ongoing compliance with
treatment recommendations of her healthcare professionals
C Violations Charged or Acknowledged3 across Nineteen Cases
The motion for consensual discipline concerns seventy counts of
misconduct across nineteen disciplinary cases In terms of interaction with
clients, the charged violations largely pertain to Grayson not acting with
reasonable diligence when representing her clients, misrepresenting the status
of their respective cases, not communicating with the clients to keep them
reasonably informed or to provide requested information, and not refunding
unearned fees Criminal conduct related to possession of a forged instrument
is also involved Grayson admits violating the following Supreme Court Rules
SCR 3 130(1 3) A lawyer shall act With reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client ” KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS
0027 17 DIS 0099 17 D18 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0257
17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17
DIS 0410 17 DIS 0440* 17 DIS 0445 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022
seventeen counts total
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) A lawyer shall (2) reasonably consult with the
client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished ”
3 An asterisk by a disciplinary case indicates that Grayson acknowledges the
allegations of the pending disciplinary case would support a violation of the Supreme
Court Rule The pending charges are included in the total violation count for the
applicable Supreme Court Rule
7
‘. I 1 i
KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0410 17
D18 0445 18 DIS 0124 18 DIS 0022 seven counts total
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) A lawyer shall (3) keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17
DIS 0027 17 DIS 0257 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS
0410 17 DIS 0440 17 DIS 0445* 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022* eleven
counts total
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) A lawyer shall (4) promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information ” KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026, 17 DIS
0027 17 DIS 0099 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0410
17 DIS 0440 17 DIS 0445* 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022* eleven counts
total
SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests,
such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled
and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned
or incurred The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent
permitted by other law KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS 0099 17
DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS
0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0410 ten counts total
8
,. I I f
SCR 3 130(3 2) “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite
litigation consistent with the interests of the client ” KBA File Number 17 DIS
0244, one count total
SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) [A] lawyer shall not (b) knowmgly fail to
respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary
authority KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0099 17
DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 D18 0244 17 DIS 0257 eight
counts total
SCR 3 130(8 4)(b) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (b)
commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects ” KBA File Number 18
DIS 0042’“ one count total
SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c)
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ”
KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17
DIS 0244 17 DIS 0257 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS
0390 17 DIS 0440* 17 DIS 0445 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022’“ fourteen
counts total
D Nineteen Dlsciplmary Cases
Unless otherwise noted, Grayson admits she violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in each Charge or implicated by her conduct in
9
I :‘ s i
the cases in which a Charge has not been issued 4 Across twelve of the
fourteen cases which contain a charge of misrepresentation, in addition to
making other statements regarding the alleged misrepresentations, Grayson
makes a similar statement that any misrepresentations were not intentional
conduct, although her misrepresentations were knowingly made, and that any
such mlsrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic
depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed KBA File Numbers
17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS
0257 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0440
17 DIS 0445 18 D18 0124* but not 17 DIS 0390 or 18 DIS 0022* which
deals With a pending civil malpractice case Grayson further states that
beginning in late 2017, and continuing to the present, she has taken concrete
and productive steps to address her depression and anxiety problems
The criminal case at issue in KBA File 17 DIS 0042 (infra, case nineteen)
and involving the complaints made in 17 DIS 0027 (Infra, case two) and 17
DIS 0368 (Infra, case ten), was resolved in October 2018 through a plea
agreement with Grayson’s two year sentence being probated for one year, and
Grayson’s payment of expenses and letters of apology to the two former clients
KBA File 18 DIS 0022 (infra, case eighteen) concerns allegations stemming
4 17 DIS 0368 {Inquiry Commission Complaint) Infra case ten 17 DIS 0440
(Bar Complaint, Charge authorized but not issued), infra, case fifteen, 17 DIS 0445
(Bar Complaint, Charge authorized but not issued), infra, case sixteen, 18 DIS 0124
(Bar Complaint), Infra, case seventeen; 18 DIS 0022 (Inquiry Commission Complaint
in abeyance), infra, case eighteen, and 18 DIS 0042 (Investigative file), infra, case
nineteen
10
‘I I I I:
from a pending legal malpractice action against Grayson Grayson seeks a
global resolution of all pending disciplinary matters
Grayson acknowledges that thirteen of the former clients are entitled to a
partial or complete refund of the fees previously paid the restitution totaling
$15 352 5
1 KBA File 17 DIS 00265 7 The Williamson Matter
In April 2016, Ashley and Brandon Williamson retained Grayson to assist
with a custody/ private adoption proceeding of a then unborn child The
Williamsons paid a $1,500 retainer for the contemplated representation When
the birth mother revoked her consent to adoption after giving birth in May
2016, Mrs Williamson was of the belief that the legal proceedings were over
and that no further action could be taken In early June 2016, Grayson
advised Mrs Williamson that the case was not over,3 and that the
custody/ adoption proceeding could proceed, but Grayson did not contact her
with further explanation Mrs Williamson’s multiple attempts to contact
5 Grayson proposes that the restltution be paid within six months of this
Court’s order
5 Case cons1dered in 2017 SC 000240 KB as a default case, Dismpline
Indefinite Suspension
7 Including itself, twelve files are now consolidated under 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS
0099 0112 0189 0228 0244 0257 0341 0371 0378 0390 and 0410
8 The day after giving birth in May 2016, the birth mother revoked her consent
to adoption Grayson then filed in the Martin Circuit Court the previouslrprepmed
Petition for Sole Custody and the birth mother’s premously signed Entry of
Appearance, and tendered the Agreed Order signed by all parties regarding custody
Counsel for the birth mother filed a Notice of Revocation of Consent and Motion
to
Determine Revocation of Consent as Valid
11
. .’ i f
Grayson for explanation about hearing notices and other court orders were
unsuccessful
Grayson states she actively participated in the various hearings before
the Martin Circuit Court through October 2016 Grayson acknowledges that
by the latter part of 2016, there was a breakdown of communlcation with the
Williamsons communication was sporadic and brief and she did not satisfy
in full her communication obligation to the Williamsons
On April 17, 2017, the Inquiry Commission initiated a Charge against
Grayson alleging she violated the following five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by
failing to perform the work for which she was hired (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by
not informing Mrs Williamson of the status of the adoption matter, (3’ SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not responding to Mrs Williamson’s request for information
and attempts to reach her (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failmg to refund the fee to
Mrs Wllliamson after the birth mother revoked her consent to adoption; and
(5) SCR 3 130(8 l)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint
Grayson acknowledges Mrs Williamson is entitled to a full refund in the
sum of $1 500
2 KBA File 17 DIS 00279 The Patrick Matter
Gina Patrick hired Grayson in November 2015 to facilitate
custody/ adoption of her grandson and paid her $1,176 According to Patrick,
Grayson advised Patrick and her husband to appear in Martin Circuit Court on
9 Case considered in 2017 SC 000240 KB as a default case, Discipline
Indefinite Suspension
12
,. i I I
August 17, 2016 When they met Grayson outside the courtroom, Grayson
informed them that court had been cancelled that morning, but the Judge had
deCIded to Sign the adoption papers because their case had been passed
several times, and that they would receive their paperwork in approximately
three weeks After three weeks, Patrick contacted the Martin Circuit Court
Clerk’s office and learned nothing had been filed and there were no past or
scheduled court dates When Patrick went to Grayson’s office and asked for
documentation of her pending adoption, Grayson provided Patrick with an
“Agreed Custody Judgment” signed by Judge McKenzie Wells on August 17,
20 16
In early October, Grayson told Patrick that the adoption case was filed
and that a custody hearing was scheduled, after which Patrick would get a date
for the final adoption At the custody hearing, the circuit court heard a Motion
to Accept Agreed Judgment which gave Patrick custody of her grandson The
adoption papers remained unfiled two weeks later When Patrick appeared on
her pro 56 motion to ask the court about the status of the adoption, Judge
McKen21e Wells informed Patrick that the August 2016 judgment was
unrelated to Patrick’s pending case or an adoption and that the signature on
the document was not hers Judge McKenzie Wells explained that the
November 4, 2016 Agreed Custody Judgment was the last action of record by
the court and that as to the forged August 2016 judgment, the Patricks would
need to confer with an attorney for legal advice
13
.- I a {
Grayson, in her verified motion, explains that court filing delays were
initially due to a fallure to secure the birth father’s signature on the Entry of
Appearance until November 2015 and after that, Patrick communicated to her
that the mother was having second thoughts about the Patricks adopting the
child Although the paperwork had been signed, the documentation was kept
in Grayson’s file When the birth parents were again in agreement to moving
forward on the custody and adoption proceedings, Grayson took custody
related documents to the Martin Circuit Clerk’s office for filing However, due
to a mix up, the filing didn’t occur Grayson realized the error when
responding to Patrick’s request for an update, and advised Patrick of the mix
up
Grayson filed the custody proceeding with both birth parents’ Entries of
Appearance on October 4, 2016 On November 4, 2016, the court entered an
Agreed Custody Judgment granting the child custody relief sought 1n the
Petition Thereafter, Grayson advised Patrick the adoption proceeding needed
to be filed and Patrick would need to pay the filmg fee Patrick dld not return
to Grayson’s office to pay that fee
Grayson states that any misrepresentations she made concerning the
adoption status and procedural steps were not intentional misconduct,
although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made She
also states that any such misrepresentations were made during the time when
Grayson’s chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly dlagnosed,
which issues have now been addressed
14
a ’ r .’
On April 17, 2017, the Inquiry Commission initiated a Charge against
Grayson alleging she violated the following five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by
faillng to perform the work for which she was hired (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by
failing to inform Patrick of the status of her adoption matter; (3) SCR
3 130(1 4) (a) (4] by failing to respond to Patrick 5 attempts to contact her (4)
SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (5) SCR
3 130(8 4) (c) by conduct including, but not limited to, telling Patrick her
adoption was pending when no such action had been initiated, and providing
Patrick with a document bearing an inaccurate case number and a signature
purported to be that of Judge Jame McKenzie Wells when the judge had not
signed the document
Grayson has reimbursed Patrick’s previously paid attorney fees, such
payment being part of the resolution of the criminal case discussed infra
3 KBA File 17 DIS 0099 The Fraley Matter
In January 2017, Samantha Fraley retained Grayson to assist her In
obtaining sole custody of her seven year old child Fraley completed initial
paperwork, but did not provide an address for the father to be served Fraley
paid Grayson for filmg fees and $100 toward attorney fees Grayson prepared a
Petitlon for Custody, which Fraley signed on January 30, 2017 The petition
was not filed and a 11ttIe over two weeks after Fraley retained Grayson, the
father filed hIS own petition in Martin Circuit Court Fraley complained about
Grayson’s failure to file her petition, Grayson’s lack of response to her calls,
15
a .’ , I
and Grayson not creating a file for her case, a fact discovered when Fraley went
to pick up her file and give it to another attorney
Grayson states that she and Fraley conferred concerning the options
available after the Initiation of the Martin C1rcuit Court case, but acknowledges
and expresses regrets for the breakdown in communication with Fraley
On June 9, 2017, the Inquiry Commission charged Grayson violated four
rules ( 1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file a custody petition on behalf of Fraley
(2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing to respond to Fraley s attempts to contact her
regarding the status of her custody matter (3) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to
return the unearned attorney fee and unpaid filing fees to Fraley after the
representation ended‘ and (4) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar
Complaint
Grayson acknowledges that while she performed some services after
initially conferring with Fraley, Fraley is entitled to a full refund of $276
4 KBA File 17 DIS 0112 The Alexander Matter
In August 2016, Sandra Alexander retained Grayson to file an ancillary
probate proceeding in Kentucky and paid her $350 in attorney fees Alexander
was the Executrix of a decedent’s Estate in West Virginia That estate included
real property 1n Martin County, Kentucky, necessitating the ancillary
proceeding
Alexander complained that Grayson told her the entire matter would be
finished by mid November 2016, that Grayson told her the matter had been
filed and an order signed by the judge, and that the order had been mailed to
16
" ~ .’
the wrong address 1n January 2017, but that the proceedings had concluded
Alexander later learned the action was never filed Through mid March 2017,
Alexander’s and her sister’s attempts to contact Grayson at her office were
unsuccessful In mid March, Alexander sent a letter terminating the
representation
Grayson states any alleged misrepresentations were made during the
time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly
diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed
Grayson acknowledges there was a breakdown in communication with
Alexander during January and February of 2017 Grayson also acknowledges
that although she conferred with Alexander, reviewed certain documents, and
corresponded with Alexander, the contemplated ancillary probate proceedings
were not initiated Alexander denies ever instructing Grayson not to
communicate with her SISter and receiving a December 14, 2016 letter from
Grayson confirming that Alexander did not want Grayson to communicate with
Alexander’s sister
The Charge filed on June 9, 2017, alleged Grayson violated four rules (1)
SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the ancillary probate petition and /or perform
any work for her clients (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing to return
Alexander’s phone calls and failing to respond to requests for information from
Alexander and her sister (3) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar
Complaint and (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) by failing to take any action on behalf of
Alexander and her siblings, despite being paid and depositing the check, and
17
.- 3 : 5
misrepresenting the status of the matter to the clients when she claimed on
several occasions that the matter was pending and would soon conclude
Grayson acknowledges that Alexander IS entitled to reimbursement of the
full $350 attorney fees previously paid
5 KBA File 17 DIS 0189 The Smlth Matter
In July 2016, Linda Smith retained Grayson to pursue custody of her
then five year old grandchild who was living in Ohio Smith paid Grayson
$1,500 on August 2, 2016 In her bar compliant, Smith complained that
Grayson misrepresented to her that Grayson was talking to a judge, that the
custody matter was moving forward, and that her case was pending and to be
on standby Grayson states that during her representation of Smlth, she did
not Speak with the judge, but did speak to the judge’s staff on the issue of
jurisdiction and venue Grayson does not recall telling Smith that she had
talked to the judge, and does not recall making any material misrepresentation
of fact regarding the procedural status of any proceedings in Kentucky
Grayson states any such misrepresentations were made during the time when
her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which
issues she says have now been addressed
Smith also complained that at Grayson’s direction, she prepared for a
Child Protective Services (CPS) visit to her home When no one from CPS
arrived, Smith called CPS and learned there was no record of an appomtment
or a court order for a home visit Grayson states she described to Smith
actions Smith would need to take in order for Kentucky to exercise jurisdiction
18
f . 2
over her grandson and acknowledges that Smith frequently called Grayson’s
office and Grayson would again indicate that the child needed to be physically
present in Kentucky before Kentucky CPS could do an investigation At a point
in time, Smith showed up at Grayson’s office with her grandson Grayson
states she contacted the local social services agency who were to go out that
day to interview Smith and to assess the grandchild
The Charge filed on September 22, 2017, alleged Grayson violated four
rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to take any action to file or otherwise
pursue Smith s custody matter (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failmg to perform any
work for Smith and failing to return the unearned advance fee payment, (3)
SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (4) SCR
3 130(8 4) (c) by making multiple misrepresentations to Smith concerning
existence of the custody matter
Grayson acknowledges that Smith is ent1t1ed to full refund in the sum of
$1,500, although she performed services in her representation of Smith
6 KBA File 17 DIS 0228 The Spence Matter
Mr Tracy Spence retained Grayson in September 2015 for the filing of an
uncontested divorce, and by the end of January 2016 paid Grayson a total of
$600 Spence complained that although he and his wife signed several
documents, the divorce petition was not filed Furthermore, when Spence and
his wife called to check on the status of their divorce, they were told the
paperwork had been sent to Frankfort Grayson’s verified motion explains that
in early January 2016 and again in early February 2016, she notified Spence
19
,. i 1 f
by letter that Mrs Spence needed to return to the office to Sign a necessary
document and that he had not yet paid the filing fee for the divorce Spence
denies receiving the letters
The Charge filed on September 22, 2017, alleges Grayson violated four
rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the pet1tion for dissolution on behalf
of Spence“ (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failing to 1nform her client she could no
longer represent him or otherwise act to protect his interests before
abandonmg the case, and by faillng to return the unearned advance payment;
(3) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (4) SCR
3 130(8 4) (c) by misrepresenting to Spence that the divorce petition had been
filed and a divorce was forthcoming
Grayson states that any such representations were not intentional
misconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were
knowingly made She further states that any such misrepresentations were
made during the time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been
properly diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed
Grayson acknowledges that she did not provide complete representation
to Spence In his d1vorce proceeding and he is entitled to a partial refund 1n the
sum of $300
7 KBA File 17 DIS 0244 The SIddell Matter
In mid November 2016, Lisa Siddell retained Grayson to represent her in
an uncontested divorce proceeding, paying Grayson $600 The Siddells were
told the d1vorce would be final within sixty days Although Grayson filed the
20
,. .’ r f
documents on December 27, 2016, Grayson failed to submit the matter for a
decree of dissolution as required by Family Court Rules Siddell contacted
Grayson for an update in February 2017, and Grayson stated the divorce was
final When Siddell arrived at her appointment to get a copy of the decree,
Grayson was not there and Siddell’s later attempts to reach Grayson were
unsuccessful Siddell was informed by the court clerk’s office that the divorce
was not final When contacted, Grayson stated the divorce was signed by the
Judge, but Grayson forgot to file the documents with the clerk’s office Grayson
stated she would have the divorce finalized within the week When Siddell
arrived at her appomtment to pick up the documents, Grayson’s office was
locked and Grayson did not answer Siddell’s calls
Grayson acknowledges in her verified motion that Siddell had a number
of conversations with her concerning whether the case had been submitted to
the court for the entry of the decree Grayson recalls telling Siddell that she
would file the necessary documentation for Its entry, but Grayson
acknowledges that she did not submit the case for the entry of the decree
Grayson does not independently recall making any material misrepresentations
to Siddell concerning the procedural status of the divorce case Grayson states
that any such material misrepresentations were not intentional conduct,
although Grayson acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made
Any such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic
depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues she
claims have now been addressed
21
,. f a .’
The Charge filed September 22, 2017, alleged Grayson violated five rules
(1) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by failing to respond to Siddell 3 calls and respond to
her requests for information concerning the status of the uncontested divorce,
(2) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) by not completing the representation failing to take
action to protect her client’s interests, and failing to return the unearned
portion of the fee' (3) SCR 3 130(3 2) by failing to submit the matter for a
decree as required by the Family Court Rules (4) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to
respond to the Bar Complaint and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) by making
misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the uncontested
divorce, including telling the client the divorce was final and the Judge had
signed the decree
Grayson acknowledges Siddell is entitled to a partial refund in the sum of
$300
8 KBA File 17 DIS 0257 The Carol Sue Fletcher Matter
On or about February 10, 2017, Carol Sue Fletcher retained Grayson to
represent her in an uncontested divorce proceeding, paying her a total of $600
by March 31, 2017 Fletcher complalned of the time Grayson took to have Mr
Fletcher Sign the necessary documents, but eventually the documents were
fully executed by both Mr and Mrs Fletcher Further, after not receivmg a
decree and belng unable to reach Grayson by phone, Fletcher went to
Grayson’s office in June or July 2017 Grayson informed Fletcher the judge
was behind, Grayson had been on vacation, and Grayson would obtain the
signed decree from the judge for Fletcher When Fletcher returned an hour
22
. f .- .’
later to obtain the promised copy, Grayson’s office was locked and she did not
answer the door Fletcher learned from the Martin Circuit Clerk’s office that
there was no pending divorce matter Fletcher was unable to reach Grayson
after the office Visit
Grayson states in her verified motion that Grayson is unsure why Mr
Fletcher did not Sign the Property and Separation Agreement but the
necessary documents for filing the divorce were not available during the time of
Grayson’s representation of Mrs Fletcher Grayson also does not recall
making any such material misrepresentations of fact to Fletcher, and believes
she would recall making such statements had they been made Grayson
further states any such misrepresentations were not intentional mlsconduct,
although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made Any
such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic
depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues she
claims have now been addressed
The Charge filed September 22 2017 alleged Grayson violated four
rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the divorce (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by
failing to tell Fletcher she had not filed the divorce and not responding to
Fletcher’s attempts to get information about the status of her divorce, (3) SCR
3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c)
by collecting a $600 fee, failing to file the divorce, and misrepresenting the
status of the case, first claiming the Judge was behind and later that she would
prov1de the decree to Mrs Fletcher
23
. I 3 f
Grayson acknowledges Fletcher is entitled to a partial refund in the sum
of$300
9 KBA File 17 DIS 0341 The Hall Matter
Shonda Hall hired Grayson in early August 2017 At that time there
was a pending post divorce custody matter concerning Hall in Floyd Circuit
Court A hearing was set for August 25, 2017, a time Grayson was not
available Because she was not available at that time, Grayson did not enter
her appearance in the case Nevertheless, she accepted a $500 fee from Hall
Hall learned later through the clerk’s office that Grayson had not entered an
appearance in the case
Hall complained that after hiring Grayson, she had difficulty reaching
her and was unable to substantively discuss her case Hall attempted to
contact Grayson on August 24 to confirm she would appear in court on August
25; Hall was not informed by Grayson that the August 25 hearing had been
rescheduled to September 22 Hall terminated the representation when she did
not receive a reSponse Grayson adVISed Hall to make an appointment the
following week to obtain a refund Grayson then blocked Hall on Facebook,
their primary method of communication Grayson states that because she was
not counsel of record, she was not rece1v1ng the filings in the proceeding and
she was depending on Hall to keep her adv1sed that a continuance had been
granted
Grayson acknowledges that her conduct fell below that requ1red of an
attorney, that confusmn developed between Grayson and Hall regarding the
24
’ ; f
procedural status of the court proceedings and the significance of what was
occurring; that there was a communication breakdown between her and Hall;
and that she should have been more proactive in her representation of Hall and
communicated her understanding of the representation to Hall
The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1)
SCR 3 130(1 3) by accepting the representation and failing to take action to
represent her chent (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(2) by failing to inform Hall that she
was not available on the scheduled hearing date, by not entering an
appearance in the case, and relying on Hall to inform her of the status of the
case' (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by failing to respond to her client’s requests to
meet with her and discuss the custody matter and (4} SCR 3 130(1 l6)(d) by
failing to return the unearned portion of the fee following the termination of the
representation
Grayson acknowledges Hall is entitled to a full refund in the sum of
$500
10 KBA File 17 DIS 0368 Inquiry Commissmn Complaint regarding
the Naomi Fletcher Matter
In October 2014, Naomi Fletcher contacted Grayson concerning a
custody/ adoption proceeding regarding her grandson Grayson prepared an
Agreed Order regarding custody which the Fletchers and the birth parents
signed In May 2015, Grayson gave Fletcher a copy of an Agreed Order Signed
by Martin Family Court Judge McKenzie Wells on May 17, 2015 the case
number on the order was 15 CI 77 In 2017, when Fletcher went to the clerk’s
office to inquire about the status of the proceedings, she learned 15 CI 77 was
25
.- -' i 7.
not a family court case nor was she a party to the case The clerk also noted
the Signature on the Agreed Order was not Judge McKenzie Wells’s The
clerk’s office had no record of adoption or custody proceedings filed on behalf of
Fletcher
Grayson states in her verified motion that after the Agreed Order was
signed by the Fletchers and the birth parents, an unrelated matter caused
conflict between Fletcher and the birth mother which complicated the custody
agreement In January 2015, Fletcher indicated she wanted to hold off on
instituting legal proceedings regarding the child and filing the Agreed Order
The child remained informally w1th Fletcher The situation persisted
throughout 2015 When another conflict arose in 2016 with the birth mother,
Fletcher did not want Grayson to pursue the formal custody of the child who
remained with her
Grayson states she would have likely given Fletcher a copy of the draft
agreed order signed by the prospective parties Grayson does not have facts to
dispute Fletcher’s contention the she was prov1ded a copy of what was
purported to be the Agreed Order signed by the judge However, Grayson does
not have any independent recollection of having given such a document to
Fletcher Grayson states any such misrepresentations were not intentional
misconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were
knowingly made Further, any such misrepresentations were made during the
time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly
diagnosed, which issues she states have now been addressed
26
.- 3 a 5
The Inquiry Commission Complaint filed November 8, 2017, alleged
Grayson minimally violated two rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, and (2) SCR
3 130(8 4)(c) regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation The allegations underlying the Inquiry Commission’s
Complaint were also the subject of criminal charges in Pike County Those
charges are further detailed infra in case number nineteen
11 KBA File 17 DIS 0371 The Dials Matter
Jaclyn Dials (Dials), along With her aunt, Barbara Dials, contacted
Grayson on March 14, 2017, concerning a contemplated custody proceeding
Barbara was given custody of Dials’s child in a dependency, abuse and neglect
proceeding Dials and Barbara agreed that custody of the child should be
returned to Dials, who was living in Ohio Dials paid Grayson $686 to
represent her Grayson initially told Dials that the process would likely be
concluded in May 2017
Dials stated in her complaint that when she next spoke with Grayson on
April 14, 2017, Grayson indicated that she was waiting for the results of Dials’s
background check before the case could move forward and that it would take
six to eight weeks to complete the custody modification Dials complained that
Grayson did not communicate with her after April 14, 2017
In June 2017, Barbara was successful in getting Grayson’s personal
phone number Grayson told Barbara the background check looked great and
Martin Family Court Judge McKenzie Wells, the Commonwealth, and the State
27
,. . :
of Ohio all agreed Dials should receive custody of the child Grayson sent
Barbara documents to Sign and told her that the judge would Sign an order in
court on July 19, 2017, and only Barbara needed to be present Grayson
called Barbara on July 18 2017, and told her Judge McKenzie Wells did not
have time to hear the case on July 19, but since the parties agreed, the Judge
would Sign the order Grayson did not communicate with Barbara after July
18 2017
In August 2017, Dials contacted the clerk’s office to get a copy of the
motion she believed had been filed in the matter She learned the custody
modification had not been filed Dials was unsuccessful in reaching Grayson
by calling and texting
Grayson states in her verified motion that she indicated to Dials and
Barbara that she could prepare an Agreed Custody Order for submission to the
court However, Barbara, who r631ded locally and maintained contact with
Dials, returned the draft order without Dials’s notarized signature The
document, consequently, was not in form to be filed, and the matter was
complicated by Dials’s inability to reach Grayson after April 2017 Grayson
does not independently recall making any material misrepresentations to the
Dials concerning the status of any legal proceeding or inquiry either in
Kentucky or Ohio regarding custody Grayson states any such
misrepresentations were not intentional misconduct, although she
acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made According to her,
any such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic
28
depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues have
now been addressed
The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1)
SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to prov1de substantive representation to Dials, (2)
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to consult with her client to explain how she
would assist the client with modification of a prior custody order; (3) SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing to respond to her client’s attempts to contact her for
status updates and by failing to prov1de her chent with status updates; (4) SCR
3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to complete the representation, failing to notify her
client of her inability or unwillingness to proceed, and failing to refund the
unearned portion of the advance fee payment and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by
misrepresenting the status of the custody case to her client and her client’s
aunt
Grayson acknowledges that D1als is entitled to a partial refund in the
sum of $500
12 KBA File 17 DIS 0378 The Chapman Matter
In early 2013, Grayson represented Patric1a Chapman and her husband
In that Martin Circuit Court proceeding, an Agreed Order was entered naming
the Chapmans as the defacto custodians and awarding them full custodial
rights of their grandchildren In June 2016, the Chapmans contacted Grayson
regarding representing them in a proceeding for their adoption of their
grandchildren The Chapmans paid Grayson $1,500
29
i h .
The Chapmans initially received updates from Grayson regarding the
status of the alleged proceedings including the paperwork had gone to
Frankfort the paperwork had been returned, everything was on track, and the
court decided they dld not need social services to do a home visit and would
schedule a court date In the summer of 2017, having not received further
updates, the Chapmans attempted to reach Grayson by phone and even visited
her office The office doors were always locked, and even though they could see
Grayson, she did not come to the door
In July 2017, Grayson told the Chapmans that a court date was
scheduled for August 2, 2017, at 9 00 a m As they drove to the courthouse
that morning, Grayson called and told them the judge had an emergency and
had to leave Grayson indicated she would attempt to reschedule for August
16, 2017 The Chapmans did not hear from Grayson again When responding
to the bar complaint, Grayson admitted she took no action on the Chapmans’
behalf
Grayson states in her verified motion that she does not have any
independent recollection of having made material mlsstatements concerning
the procedural status of adoption proceedings to the Chapmans Grayson
regrets that circumstances were such that she had not able to conclude that
representation Grayson states that any such misrepresentations by Grayson
were not intentional misconduct, although she acknowledges her
misrepresentations were knowingly made Any such misrepresentations were
30
I . :
made during the time when Grayson’ s chronic depression and anxiety had not
been properly diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed
The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1}
SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the adoption (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing
to inform her clients about the status of the matter in 2016 and 2017, (3) SCR
3 130(1 l6)(d) by abandoning the representation with no notice to the
Chapmans, by retaining the $1,500 fee since 2016 Without providing legal
work, and by failing to return papers provided to her by the Chapmans, and (4)
SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by making numerous misrepresentations to her clients
concerning the status of the adoption, which included 1) the adoption
proceedings were pending, 2) paperwork had been sent to Frankfort, 3) the
court had considered the matter, 4) the court scheduled a hearing for August
2, 2017, and 5) the court cancelled the hearing due to an emergency
Grayson acknowledges Mr and Mrs Chapman are entitled to a full
refund in the sum of $1,500
13 KBA File 17 DIS 0390 The Maynard Matter
In April 2017, Justin Maynard retained Grayson to prepare necessary
documents regarding an uncontested divorce proceeding He paid her $750
Maynard and his wife signed documents prepared by Grayson and were told
the divorce would be final after sixty days After not receiv1ng an update,
Maynard called Grayson Grayson informed him that there had been a mix up
in Frankfort and his divorce had not been filed By that time, Maynard’s wife
had moved to Ohio and taken their child with her On September 19, 2017 ,
31
’ .. :
after Grayson responded to Maynard via Facebook Messenger that his case was
on the docket October 4, Maynard went to the clerk’s office to verify the date
He learned hIS divorce had never been filed
In her verified motion, Grayson states that although she prepared the
documents for the uncontested divorce, for reasons that are unclear, not all the
documents were signed by the Maynards and Grayson did not file the petition
and attendant documents Later, a dispute developed between the Maynards
regarding custody, and Grayson informed Mr Maynard that a petition and a
motion would need to be filed and informed Mr Maynard, based upon the filing
of the petition, of a potential court date According to Grayson, she did not tell
Mr Maynard that the divorce case was on the court’s docket for October 4
since no petition had been signed by Maynard nor had a motion for child
custody been filed
Grayson acknowledges there was a breakdown in communication with
Maynard and she should have been more diligent in his representation
Grayson acknowledges there was confusion as to what goals Maynard wanted
to pursue when the uncontested proceeding became a contested proceeding
Grayson’s communications with Maynard regardlng any court action which
could be taken or had been taken, did not reflect any intentional
misrepresentation on her part She regrets if her communications with
Maynard constituted misleading him concerning the procedural status of any
proceedings
32
’ .. :
The Charge filed June 11, 2018, alleged Grayson violated five rules (1)
SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to perform the work for which she had been hired and
failing to advise her client how to proceed when the divorce became contested,
(2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to inform her client that he and his wife
needed to Sign additional documents before the divorce could proceed (3) SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing to explain the status of the matter to her client
1nclud1ng failing to inform her client the divorce, and any attendant
agreements, had not been filed with the appropriate court; (4] SCR
3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to refund the unearned portion of the advance fee
payment and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by informing her client that his divorce had
been filed and a court appearance was scheduled for October 4, 2017
Grayson acknowledges Maynard is entitled to a partial refund in the sum
of$500
14 KBA File 17 DIS 0410 The Dams Matter
Grayson’s legal representation in this matter began in early 2017,
litigation was then pending The subject matter of that litigation concerned the
estate of Winford Davis On February 26, 2016, a civil suit was filed in the
Martin Circuit Court alleging fraud and conversion of estate assets in order to
defraud plaintiff Moore as a creditor At that time, Thelma Davis was serving
as a co executor of the estate
By the Spring of 2017 there was a pending trial date of June 12, 2017
On April 26, 2017, co executor Don Davis, by counsel, filed a motion to
continue the trial date On the same date, Grayson was hired to represent Ms
33
’ -- 1
Davis, Don Davis paid the $7,500 retainer fee on behalf of Thelma Davis
Counsel for Mr Davis put Grayson on the certificate of service of the motion
Grayson states she was of the understanding that Don Davis, through counsel,
was still going to take the lead in the proceedings
In her bar complaint, Thelma Davis complained that the April 26, 2017
meeting was the only contact she had with Grayson Davis attempted to
contact Grayson during the representation but was unsuccessful Davis did
not agree or intend to limit Grayson’s representation Moore had filed an
amended complaint on April 20, 2017, and Grayson did not file an answer on
Davis’s behalf When the court continued the June 1, 2017 trial date to
December 4, 2017, Grayson did not inform Davis of the continuance Grayson
did not file an entry of appearance in the case nor provide Davis with a copy of
the fee agreement
Grayson states in her verified motion that the next court hearing after
June 1, 2017, was the November 2, 2017 motion hour regarding a number of
motions which had been filed by the parties in late October 2017 By that
time, Grayson was already under suspension, and had notified Davis of that
suspension and her inability to continue to represent Davis
Grayson acknowledges that there was a breakdown on her part in
communications with Davis and others during the latter time of her
representation of Davis On October 18, 2017, eight days after Grayson filed
the notice of her suspension 1n the civil suit, Davis filed a Client Security Fund
34
- .’ -. 1
Claim with the Kentucky Bar Association, which was also treated as the above
captioned disciplinary proceeding
The Charge filed June 11 2018 alleged Grayson violated five rules (1)
SCR 3 130(1 3) by falling to provide representation to Davis, (2) SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to consult with Davis regarding Grayson’s role in the
litigation (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3) by failing to inform her client of motions to
continue and orders concerning the trial date (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing
to respond to Davis’s requests for information concerning the litigation, and (5)
SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failing to return the unearned portion of the advance fee
payment
Grayson acknowledges Davis IS entitled to a partial refund in the sum of
$7 000
15 KBA File 17 DIS 0440 The Stacy Bar Complaint10
Abraham Stacy hired Grayson in mid 2015 to file a civil action in Martin
Circuit Court against a tax and bookkeeping business which provided services
to Stacy’s business, Pizza Stop The civil action was initiated after Gary
Brewer, an employee of that bookkeeping business, was convicted in January
2015 of stealing approximately $148,000 from Pizza Stop by issuing bogus
payroll checks
The case progressed As a result of the defendants’ motion, Brewer was
joined as a necessary party On May 11, 2016, the trial court entered
10 Charges authorized but not issued
35
. I -. 1
summary judgment in favor of all the defendants except Brewer On June 9,
2016, Grayson, on behalf of the plaintiff, Pizza Stop, filed a motion for
summary judgment against h1m On July 13, 2016, the trial court sustained
the motion and entered a summary Judgment in favor of Grayson’s client
against Brewer
Stacy complained that at one point, Grayson told him that the circuit
court judge had sent the case to the Court of Appeals for a decis1on, and that
he mlght have to go in front of the Court of Appeals to testify As time went on
and Stacy sought updates, Grayson would not answer his calls, would not
return his messages, and would keep her office door locked Stacy learned of
the May 1 1, 2016 summary judgment when another attorney checked the case
status for him Stacy complained that he paid out around $5,000 for attorney
fees, arbitration fees, and other fees
Grayson states that following the trial court’s July 13, 2016 summary
judgment, Grayson and Stacy conferred Grayson recalls that they discussed
whether Stacy wanted to appeal the May 11 2016 summary judgment and he
decided to attempt to seek relief in a Fayette Circuit case On August 3, 2016,
Grayson sent Stacy a letter to confirm Stacy’s dec1sion to not appeal the
adverse ruling in the Martin Circuit Court proceeding, Stacy denies receivmg
that letter and that he decided to seek other relief in Fayette Circuit Court
Grayson acknowledges that she did not maintain proper commumcation
with Stacy during the latter part of the representation Grayson does not
independently recall making any material misstatements of fact to Stacy
36
concerning the procedural status of the proceedings including any supposed
appellate proceedings as alleged by Stacy in his Bar Complaint Grayson states
any such misrepresentations by Grayson were not intentional misconduct,
although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made Any
such misrepresentations were made during the time when Grayson’s chronic
depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed which issues she
says have now been properly addressed
Because of the efforts of the KBA, through the Office of Bar Counsel, and
Grayson, by counsel, to resolve all pending KBA disciplinary matters, no
Charge was issued, although authorized Grayson acknowledges that the
allegations of Stacy’s Bar Complaint would support a charge that Grayson
violated four rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing the client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by not
keeping the client reasonably informed about the status of the representation;
(3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying with reasonable requests for
information from the client, and (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) regarding conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation
16 KBA File 17 DIS 0445 The Chapman Bar Complaint11
In January 2013 Clyde Chapman hired Grayson to file a medical
malpractice case on his behalf In October 2013, the suit was dismissed on
W but not issued
37
statute of limitations grounds Grayson successfully appealed the dismissal to
the Court of Appeals, and the suit resumed in the latter part of 2015
In 2016, the trial was scheduled for February 27, 2017 Per an agreed
scheduling order, Chapman’s deadline for presenting his expert witness for
dep051tions was November 16, 2016 In October 2016, efforts were made to
schedule the expert’s deposition, but difficulties were encountered, one being
that the expert then lived in New Jersey Because of the difficulty in arranging
the deposition, the trial court set aside the trial date By the time of the status
conference on January 13, 2017, the deposition was scheduled in New Jersey
on January 16 2017 The trial was rescheduled for May 22 2017
Chapman stated in his bar complaint that he had contact with Grayson
only a few times One of those times he stopped in her office and she told him
it was time for his expert’s deposition and she was trying to conduct the
deposition by phone because she did not have the time nor the money for a trip
to New Jersey Chapman gave her $4,000 for the trip and assumed she made
the trip, Chapman did not receive a receipt or make contemporaneous notes of
said payment Later, despite no commumcation with Grayson to this effect,
Grayson communicated to opposing counsel that Chapman had terminated her
services and the deposition could not go forward Finding Grayson’s last
minute cancellation egregious, the circuit court ordered Chapman to pay
opposing counsels’ costs and fees spent to attend the deposition When
Chapman showed the order to Grayson, she was unaware of it, but she
informed him that she had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel as a legal
38
maneuver to buy time, but she would step back in at a later time When new
counsel did not enter an appearance as ordered, the circuit court dismissed
Chapman’s suit
Grayson’s verified motion states that over the weekend before the
deposition, Grayson and Chapman had a number of telephone conversations
Chapman made statements to Grayson which gave her some concern regardi
ng
the legitimacy of his claim Ultimately, In those conversations, Chapman told
Grayson that he was terminating her representation Shortly thereafter on that
Sunday, Grayson sent an email to opposing counsel advismg that her
representation of Chapman had concluded, and Chapman instructed her to not
go forward with the deposition as he wanted his new attorney present at the
deposition In regard to the costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of the
January 16, 2017 deposition, Grayson advised opposing counsel that
Chapman said he would reimburse opposing counsel for their plane tickets
On January 19, 2017, the defendants filed a joint motion for the
awarding of costs and fees, for the striking of Chapman’s expert, and for the
dismissal of the civil suit On January 26, 2017, Grayson filed two motions
The first motion was to withdraw as counsel of record for Chapman since he
had terminated her The second motion was to continue the hearing on the
defendants’ Joint motion because Grayson had a scheduling conflict and
because she had been terminated by Chapman and did not have any authori
ty
to respond to the joint motion
39
. ; - .
On January 27, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on the
defendants’ joint motion for fees and costs and the dismissal of the suit It is
Grayson’s recollection that both she and Chapman were present at that
hearing The trial court found that the cancelling of the deposition was
unjustified and noted Grayson’s conduct was improper because she had not
sought permission to Withdraw before she unilaterally cancelled the deposition
Later that day, Chapman came to Grayson’s office and picked up his file
On January 30, 2017, the circuit court entered an order on the motion
for the award of fees and costs The court indicated that Chapman had ten
days to pay the costs The court took under submission the defendants’ joint
motion to dismiss the civil suit Grayson dld not send that order to Chapman
On February 10, 2017, the court entered an order allowing Grayson to
withdraw as counsel of record for Chapman The court indicated in its order
that Chapman would have twenty days to retain new counsel, which would
have been up through and including March 2, 2017 Grayson did not send the
order to Chapman Chapman did not retain other counsel and there was no
entry of appearance within that time frame On March 10, 2017, the court
entered an order dismissmg the civil su1t
Grayson has no recollection of making material misstatements to
Chapman regarding the status of any proceedings before the trial court or any
proposed proceedings before the Court of Appeals Grayson states that any
such misrepresentations were not Intentional misconduct, although she
acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made She states further
40
. I I .
that any such misrepresentations were made during the time when Grayson’s
chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues
she claims have now been properly addressed
Grayson acknowledges that the allegations of Chapman’s Bar Complaint
would support a charge that Grayson violated five rules ( 1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the
client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (2) by not reasonably consulting with the client
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3)
SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3) by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the
status of the representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying
with reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR
3 130(8 4) (0) regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation
17 KBA File 18 DIS 0124 The Robinson Bar Complaint
Blanch Robinson retained Grayson in 2016 regarding custody and
adoption proceedings concerning her granddaughter Robinson paid Grayson a
total of $826 Robinson complained that Grayson told her several times that
she sent papers to the incarcerated birth father but was not getting a reply, but
when Roblnson contacted the prison, she was told the birth father had not
received any legal documents from Grayson Following the prison personnel’s
suggestion, Robinson went to Grayson’s office and had her fax the documents
The documents were returned, signed, in two days
41
A few days later, Grayson told Robinson that the documents had been
filed for custody of her granddaughter However, upon checking with the
circuit clerk, Robinson was informed the documents were not filed Grayson
then told Robinson she was waiting to file both the custody and adoption
papers at the same time After Robinson returned adoption papers signed by
her daughter, she kept contacting Grayson about getting a court date, but
Grayson said the Judge was busy On February 8, 2018, Robinson was told by
Grayson that since the judge knew Robinson, there would be no court date and
that the Judge would Sign the adoption papers, but Robinson might informally
have to meet with the Judge in her office Robinson learned of Grayson’s
suspension afterward
Grayson states there were delays in the process as a result of the birth
father’s incarceration, but acknowledges she could have been more diligent in
pursuing the proceedings on behalf of Robinson Grayson also acknowledges
that her level of communication with Robinson was not sufficiently responsive,
on occasion, during the representation Grayson states that unfortunately, as
a result of circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Grayson, she was
not able to pursue and conclude that contemplated legal representation
Grayson denies that she intentionally made material misstatements of fact to
Robinson concernlng the procedural status of any contemplated proceedings
Grayson further states that any such misrepresentations by Grayson were not
intentional mlsconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations
were knowingly made She states any such misrepresentations were made
42
I i j .
during the time when Grayson’s chronic depression and anxiety had not been
properly diagnosed, which issues have now been properly addressed Grayson
regrets that circumstances were such that she not able to conclude that
representation
Grayson acknowledges that the allegations of Robinson’s Bar Complaint
would support a charge that Grayson violated five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the
client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by not reasonably consulting with the client
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, (8)
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (3) by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the
status of the representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying
with reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR
3 130(8 4)(c) by misrepresenting that there were court proceedings for adoption
when no petition or other mot1ons had been filed
Grayson acknowledges Robinson should be fully reimbursed the $826
paid for attorney fees
18 KBA File 18 DIS 0022 The Inquiry Commissmn Complaint m
Abeyance regarding the Slone Malpractice Suit
On October 13, 2017, Lowanda Slone and Chalice Slone, through
counsel, filed a civ1l complaint against Grayson in the Martin Circuit Court
The complaint alleged legal malpractice on the part of Grayson, concerning a
medical malpractice claim That civil suit remains a pending matter
43
I .
On May 21, 2018, the Inquiry Commission issued a complalnt based on
the Slones’ Martin Circuit Court civil proceeding The Inquiry Commission
Complaint recites allegations made in that civil suit
The Slones met with Grayson in April 2015 regarding a potential medical
malpractice case Grayson agreed to represent them, had the Slones Sign
several releases, and told them she would take care of the hospital bills
Grayson told the Slones she would file a lawsuit within one month She later
told them the lawsuit had been filed and she was awaiting a date to go on the
docket Mrs Slone called and texted Grayson seeking updates on the status of
the lawsuit, but did not receive a response In March 2017, Grayson told the
Slones she anticipated receiving an offer from the opposing party
Then, in May 2017, Mrs Slone learned Grayson had not filed a lawsuit
Mrs Slone immediately contacted Grayson by text, but Grayson blocked her
Mrs Slone also learned Grayson failed to take action with respect to the
outstanding hospital bills, and they were sent to collections The Slones hired
new counsel and in July or August 2017 delivered a letter to Grayson
requesting their file Grayson advised Mrs Slone she would have to make an
appointment and pay for Grayson’s services in order to obtain her file Mrs
Slone made the appomtment, but on the scheduled day Grayson called and
said she had court in Johnson County and had to cancel Mrs Slone then
called the Johnson County’s Circuit Clerk’s office to verify and learned there
was no court on that particular day
44
. I I u
The Inquiry Commission, on Grayson’s motion pursuant to SCR 3 180,
held the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance as a result of the pendency of that
civil suit
Grayson acknowledges that under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the
allegations would be she violated (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, (2) SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by not reasonably consulting with the client about the means
by which the client 3 objectives are to be accomplished (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3)
by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the status of the
representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying with
reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c)
regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
Grayson’s acknowledgement differs from the Inquiry Commission’s specific
listing of potential rule violations by including a violation of SCR
3 130(1 4)(a)(2) but excluding violations of SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) and SCR
3 130(1 5)(c) 12
Since a civil proceeding is presently pending concerning the allegations
set out in the Inquiry Commission Complaint, Grayson does not address the
merits of the allegations She states that the requested resolution of the
12 Without placing limits on potential violations, the Inquiry Commission’s
Complaint states that Grayson s actions may be In violation of (1] SCR 3 130(1
3] (2)
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (4) SCR 3 130(1 5)(c) (Fees) by not
complying with the contingency fee agreement requirements (5) SCR
3 130(1 16)(d)'
and (6) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c)
45
l I I
pending disciplinary proceedings as set out in the proposed consensual
discipline, 1' e , a five year suspension, effective October 8, 2017, would not be
materially different if the 18 DIS 0022 disciplinary proceeding was addressed
on the merits Grayson requests, as a matter ofJudicial economy and to
facilitate a global resolution of all pending disciplinary proceedings, that KBA
File 18 DIS 0022 be closed
19 KBA File 18 DIS 0042 Investigative File regarding the Criminal
Charges
This disciplinary proceeding stems from a criminal proceeding against
Grayson in Pike Circuit Court On February I, 2018, Grayson was indicted on
six counts three counts of forgery 1n the second degree and three counts of
criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree The
documents at issue in that proceeding are the same documents which are the
subject of two of the above described attorney disciplinary proceedings, 17
DIS 002713 (Patrick complaint) and 17 DIS 0368 (Fletcher complaint) (supra
cases two and ten, respectively) In 17 DIS 0027 the Inquiry Commission
charged Grayson with Violating SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) through conduct including,
but not limited to providing Patrick with a document bearing an inaccurate
case number and a signature purported to be that of Judge Janie MCKCI‘IZIC
Wells when the judge had not signed the document 17 D18 0368 contains
allegations similar to 17 DIS 0027 In 17 DIS 0368, the Inquiry Commission
13 Grayson’s current indefinite suspension is related in part to disc1plinary
proceeding 17 DIS 0027
46
, .
alleged Grayson gave Fletcher a copy of the Agreed Order signed by the parties,
but also containing what appeared to be a Family Court Judge’s signature, a
date when the judge signed the Agreed Order, and a supposed case number
Both 17 DIS 0027 and 17 DIS 0368 were placed in abeyance because of
the related pending criminal litigation On May 30, 2018, the trial court, by
agreed order, dismissed counts 1, 3, and 5, the three counts of forgery in the
second degree Counts 2 and 4, two of the criminal possession of a forged
instrument charges, were also dismissed On September 10, 2018, Grayson
entered a guilty plea to count 6, the third criminal possession of a forged
instrument count related to 17 DIS 0027 On October 15 2018 the Court
entered its Judgment and Sentence Grayson recelved a two year sentence
which was probated for one year That unsupervised probation ran until
October 2019 Grayson was also required to reimburse Gina Patrick and
Naomi Fletcher the attorney fees they had previously paid and to submit letters
of apology to those two clients Grayson has satisfied those conditions
Grayson acknowledges that her criminal conviction constitutes a
violation of SCR 3 130(8 4) (b) by “commit[ing] a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects ” Grayson states she has accepted responsibility for her
conduct
II ANALYSIS
Grayson admits that she is guilty of the above ethical violations and
moves this Court to accept her Motion for Consensual Discipline She asks
47
a
this Court to enter an order suspending her license to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of five years, effective October 8, 2017,
with conditions The KBA has no objection to Grayson’s Motion for Consensual
Discipline and requests that we order the proposed discipline
The issue in a consensual dismpline case is generally the appropriate
discipline to be imposed under the circumstances Factors relevant to the
appropriate level of sanction are taken Into consideration, such as the nature
and severity of the offense(s), the need for deterring other members of the bar,
the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, the protection of the
public, the attitude of the offender generally, and the offender’s present or
future fitness to continue in the practice of law See, e g , Gngsby v Kentucky
BarAssociation, 181 S W 3d 40 (Ky 2005); Kentucky Bar Association v Maze,
397 S W 3d 891 (Ky 2013) and Hill 476 S W 3d 874 Each case is evaluated
in light of its particular facts and circumstances, including aggravating and
mitigating factors, and generally Whether the proposed sanction is adequate
and comparable to discipline imposed for similar conduct
Citing Kentucky Bar Assoaation v Sparks 538 S W 3d 284 (Ky 2018)
and Kentucky Bar Assoaatton 1; Taylor 997 S W 2d 464 (Ky 1999) the KBA
points out that this Court has disbarred attorneys for conduct Similar to
Grayson’s Nevertheless, the KBA regards the requested sanctlon to be
appropriate when comparing the facts and the discipline imposed in Kentucky
Bar Assoctation v Johnson 457 S W 3d 720 (Ky 2015) Perkins 1) Kentucky
Bar Assoczation, 412 S W 3d 877 (Ky 2013); and Kentucky Bar Association v
48
. 3
Hammond 241 S W 3d 310 (Ky 2007) 14 The KBA particularly relies on the
American Bar Association (ABA), Standards for Imposmg Lawyer Sanctions
(ABA Standards), Rule 9 to point out the mitigating circumstances which it
believes weigh in favor of Grayson’s five year suspension rather than
disbarment, and thus distinguishing Grayson’s case from Sparks and Taylor
The KBA identifies the following as the actions taken by Grayson which
allow a lesser sanction than disbarment First, Grayson, participated in the
disciplinary process ABA Standards 9 82(e) While she did not respond
in1tially,15 after being indefinitely suspended, she contacted OBC, hired counsel
and responded to the outstanding matters Second, Grayson does not have
substantial prior discipline ABA Standards 9 32(a) Grayson’s only prior
discipline is a private admonition issued in May 2018, the underlying conduct
occurring within the same time period as the cases currently before this Court
Third, other penalties or sanctions have been imposed ABA Standards
9 32(k) Grayson has been suspended from the practice of law since October
2017 and in Commonwealth v Grayson, Pike Circuit Court No 18 CR 00213,
she has been prosecuted and entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal
possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a Class D felony
14 Hammond involved seven disciplinary matters while Johnson and Perkins
each Involved three separate matters By contrast, Grayson has nineteen separate
disciplinary matters, rendering her case distinguishable on the breadth and
scope of
misconduct Also, none of the cited cases involved a felony conv1ction as involved
in
Grayson’s case
15 As listed, the first eight cases reached the point of Grayson being charged
with failure to respond to the bar complaint
49
'5 A
Fourth, Grayson has expressed remorse ABA Standards 9 32(1) Lastly, the
KBA notes that Grayson has asserted personal or emotional problems played a
role in the conduct at issue and her initial lack of response to charges and for
which she has been undergoing treatment for chronic depression and anxiety
ABA Standards 9 32(c)
When determining apprOpriate discipline, we may consider the ABA
Standards compilation of aggravating16 and mitigating17 circumstances See
Hill 476 S W 3d at 884 Kentucky Bar Assoaatzon v Deters 360 S W 3d 224
233 (Ky 2012) Anderson 262 S W 3d at 638 39 While we agree with the KBA
that the weight accorded mitigating (and aggravating) circumstances will play a
role in determining the appropriate discipline in this case, Sparks and Taylor,
cited to Show why disbarment is not the more appropriate discipline for
Grayson, and Johnson, Perkins, and Hammond, cited on the other hand to
ShOW why a five year suspension is suitable, do not provide the guidance
required for Grayson’s case as it currently stands Grayson’s primary
mitigation defense to her numerous ethical violations is her depression
16 The following list of aggravating factors is found in Standard 9 prior
disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple
offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, submission of false evidence
false statements or other deceptive practices during disciplinary process, refusal to
acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, vulnerability of victim; substantial
experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution
17 The list of mitigating circumstances found in Standard 9 is included in n 18,
infra
50
l b
Relevant at this p01nt is Hill, precedent requiring Grayson to provide medical
proof sufficient to support depression serving as a mitigating factor
In Hill, we found Hill’s depression to be a mitigating factor and
suspended Hill for eighteen months after being found guilty of twelve ethical
violations involving a pervaswe pattern of lying to three clients about the status
of their cases, ignoring their repeated requests for information, and charging
them for work not performed 476 S W 3d at 881 885
H1113 violations occurred in 2010 201 1 and 2012 Id at 877 89 Hill
presented evidence that as early as 2009 he began suffering from untreated
depression and resulting anxiety, and he aggravated the suffering by self
medicating with alcohol Id at 882 At others’ insistence, Hill sought help
through KYLAP, which in turn put him in touch with a licensed clinical social
worker for help with his substance abuse problems Id He was prescribed
medication for his depression and attended individual and group counseling
between March 2009 and September 2010 Id Hill’s ethical violations began
to accrue after he stopped the counseling Id
Hill began seeing a psychiatrist in 2013 Id The psychiatrist testified
that the 2009 2010 treatment and counseling were inadequate to address his
actual problems Id In January 2013, Hill entered into a KYLAP Supervision
Agreement and as agreed, began and continued attending Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings Id The psychiatrist testified to (1) a causal connection
between Hill’s untreated mental health condition and the conduct in the
disciplinary cases and (2) his opinion that Hill was on the path to recovery if he
51
I J
continued his same program and treatment Id One of Hill’s clients also
testified that there were improvements in Hill’s demeanor, appearance, and
attitude toward his work between 2010 2012 and after he started his
therapeutic regimen in 2013 Id at 883
The Board of Governors reviewed Hill’s case after the trial commiss10ner
found H111 guilty of twelve of fifteen violations and recommended that Hill be
suspended from the practice of law for five years Id at 875 The Board
unanimously agreed with the trial commissioner’s guilt findings, but
recommended a 181 day suspension along with other conditions, those being
that Hill obtain the approval of the KBA’s Character and Fitness Committee
prior to readmission and that he continue substance abuse counseling through
KYLAP Id Hill did not contest the Board’s findings of guilt on the twelve
ethical violations but argued that in hght of the mitigation evidence he
presented, even the Board’s recommended sanction was excessive Id at 875,
882
We expressed the rule for when mental health disabilities, such as
depression, may be accorded mitigation effect in a lawyer disciplinary case as
follows
For evidence of a lawyer’s disability to be accorded a mitigating
effect in a KBA disciplinary case, it must be shown that the
disability caused the misconduct KBA v Steiner, 157 S W 3d 209,
213 (Ky 2005) (the burden of establishing a successful mitigation
defense remains with the attorney), KBA v Chnstian, 320 S W 3d
687 (Ky 2010) The attorney must also Show a recovery from the
condition demonstrated by “meaningful and sustained proof of
successful rehabilitation ” Id at 690 (citing ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Section 9 32(i)(3)) Moreover, “the
52
I
misconduct must have stopped and recurrence proved to be
unlikely ” Id In this vein, consideration should also be given to
the attorney’s involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous and “earnest
participation in the Kentucky Lawyer’s Assistance Program ” KBA
v Hawkins 260 S W 3d 337 339 (Ky 2008) ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Section 9 32 13
Id at 884, see also Bratcher v Kentucky BarAssociation, 487 S W 3d 897 (Ky
2016) (citing Hill)
Here, although Grayson did not cite Hill when requesting a remand of the
disciplinary action before this Court in 2018, Grayson recognized the need to
prov1de mental health mitigation evidence In particular, she stated that she
recognized the need to establish an appropriate connection between the
conduct at issue in the Charges and any adverse health condition of hers
which existed during that time However, upon return of this case to the Court
through a verified motion for consensual discipline, neither Grayson nor the
KBA point to any medical proof in the record to sustain findings consistent
18 Standard 9 32 factors which may be considered in mitigation
Mitigating factors include (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (b)
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (0) personal or emotional
problems, ((1) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
consequences of misconduct; (6) full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, (1) inexperience in the
practice of law; (g) character or reputation; (h) physical disability, (i)
mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or dmg
abuse when (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected
by a chemical dependency or mental disability, (2) the chemical
dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct, {3) the
respondent’s recovery fiom the chemical dependency or mental disability
is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period ofsuccessful
rehabilitation, and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence
of that misconduct is unlikely; (1] delay in disciplinary proceedings; (k)
imposition of other penalties or sanctions, (1) remorse; (m) remoteness of
prior offenses (Emphasis added J
53
. ‘ 1’
with the rule expressed in Hill Indeed, no medical proof in the form of medical
records, a physician’s report or even a letter is offered Although it is Widely
known that depression is a serious mental illness, and lawyers are not immune
to its debilitating effects, without sufficient medical evidence to explain the
relationship between Grayson’s depression and her numerous serious ethical
violations, Grayson’s depression claim cannot be viewed as mitigating
III CONCLUSION
Although it may be that a five year suspension, with conditions, is
appropriate disc1pline for Grayson, the Court cannot make that determination
based upon Grayson’s verified motion, the KBA’s response, and the record
currently before it Therefore, the Court denies Grayson’s request for
imposition of the sanction negotiated with the KBA and this case is remanded
for hearing and further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order
All sitting All concur
ENTERED February 20 2020
CHIEF JUSTICE
54