Eric Shane Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association
This text of Eric Shane Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association (Eric Shane Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Kentucky Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
~ “‘ I ‘~ R 1’1
TO BE PUBLISHED
fiupreme (11mm 11f flimfurkg , C"
2019 SC 000677 KB
ERIC SHANE GRINNELL MOVANT
V IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Eric Shane Grinnell was admitted to the practice of law on April 20, l
2011 H1s membership number is 94044, and h1s bar roster address IS 108 : I, Wh1spering Wood Drive, Richmond, Kentucky 40475 i
Grinnell moves thlS Court to impose upon him a 1 year suspension from g E
the practice of law, 180 days to serve, 185 days probated for 2 years math
conditions for the wolation of various Rules of Professional Conduct contained I
in 14 disc1plinary cases The Kentucky Bar Assoc1ation (KBA) states no 1 - i objection to Grmnell’s motion, which was negotiated under SCR;1 3 480(2) i i F1nding this sanctlon to be Inadequate, we reject Grinnell’s motion and remand
to the KBA for further proceedings
1 Rules of the Supreme Court I BACKGROUND
The current case spans 14 consolidated KBA files and 55 counts The
charges demonstrate a pattern of neglect and dlsregard for the interests of his
cl1ents We address each in turn
A KBA File Number 23669
Michael Johnson h1red Grinnell in April of 2014 to represent h1m in an ‘
Ind1ana custody matter and math related allegations made against Johnson and
his girlfriend Johnson paid Grinnell $5,300 for the representation Johnson
had difficulty getting Grinnell to file a motion for modification of custody, and
repeatedly requested Grinnell move forward with the motion
Johnson eventually requested a refund of the unearned port10n of hls fee,
and Grmnell offered to refund $3,800 on the condltion Johnson Slgn a letter 1
promismg not to sue Grinnell Johnson requested an accounting as to how the 3
fee might have been earned, but Grinnell failed to produce one When the KBA i
asked Grinnell to produce cop1es of his client file, Grinnell provided only cop1es E
of draft documents and an uns1gned, undated letter that he purportedly sent to :
Johnson .3
The Inqu1ry Commission filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for h1s g
misconduct 1n representing Johnson The charge alleges the followmg
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failmg to act W1th d1ligence and promptness
1n representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(5) (for failing to consult w1th
his client about any relevant limitation on hls conduct), (3) SCR 3 130(1 5) (for
collecting a fee unreasonable to services actually provided to his client), (4) SCR
3 130(1 16)(d) (for abandonmg the representation and fail1ng to return the 2 ‘ ( unearned portion of the advanced fee after promising to do so); and (5) SCR
3 130(8 4)(c) (for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, decelt or
misrepresentation by misrepresenting to Johnson that he could handle hIS
case)
Grinnell admits hls conduct violated SCR 3 130(1 3) SCR3 130(1 5) and
SCR 3 310(1 16) (d) but moves thlS Court to dismiss Counts II (SCR j
3 130(1 4)(a)(5)) and V (SCR 3 130(8 4,)(c)) Inquiry Commission s Charge
asserted that Grinnell was not licensed 1n Indiana and that Johnson had
contacted the Ind1ana Bar Assoc1ation and learned that Grinnell had never
sought temporary adm1ss1on in Ind1ana for hlS case The Charge also states i
that Grinnell had charged Johnson extra for seeking admiss1on in Indiana, but
Grinnell had not done so But 1n his Motion for Suspension, Grinnell q
represents to this Court that he was 1n fact admitted 1n Ind1ana pro hac v1ce 1'
B KBA File Number 23757 i
Lee Carol Mize paid Gnnnell $1,500 to represent her in a d1vorce action J;
in January of 2014 Mize paid Grinnell an additional $3 000 in October of 2014 1
but terminated the representation shortly thereafter M1ze stated that Grinnell t
gave her false 1nformation regarding her case, that he filed unnecessary ‘-
emergency motions, that he failed to adv1se her of her court dates, and that he .
directed her to lie during a ch11d support interv1ew by saying she dld not have
an attorney M126 requested a refund of her fees and a detailed invoice of
services Grlnnell did not prov1de an inv01ce
The Inquiry Commission filed a 2 count charge against Grinnell in Mize’s
case alleging Grinnell v1olated (1) SCR 3 130(1 5) (for charging a fee
3 , . K ,4 {I ,
unreasonable for services actually prov1ded) and (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for
failing to prov1de any portion of the unearned advanced fee payment) Grinnell
admits to violat1ng both rules as charged
0 KBA File 16 DIS 24251
Elizabeth Ann Griffin hired Grinnell to represent her in her divorce action
1n November 1, 2015, and paid Grinnell $3,000 by check Griffin requested a
copy of the fee contract that day but did not rece1ve 1t Grinnell adwsed Griffin
that he would file an entry of appearance once her payment cleared and that he
would meet with her again to obtain coples of relevant documents and de01de
how to proceed
On November 8, Griffin advised Grinnell that she had all the relevant
documents he requested, and on November 17, she told Grinnell sufficient
funds were available to cash the check she had given him for payment Griffin
again requested a copy of the fee contract on November 17 , but Grinnell offered
1nstead to send her an unsigned copy and provide the s1gned copy later
On December 1, 2, and 3, Griffin contacted Grinnell for an update but I
dld not rece1ve a response Grinnell finally called Griffin back, but he stated he I
was at the courthouse and would call her back later that day Grinnell d1d not
call her back
On December 7, Griffin spoke to Grinnell, and he claimed to have filed an
entry of appearance, a motion for temporary child support, and a motion to
change the date of a contested hearing scheduled for February 1 1 Griffin
requested copies of the motions, but Grinnell did not prov1de them
4 . g' k] {I ( E
On December 15, Griffin went to the clerk’s office and requested copies of
the filings in her case, only to be told nothing had been filed since the Order for
a Contested Hearing on October 16 Griffin left Grinnell a voicemail and text
message later that day but did not hear back She attempted to Contact
Grinnell again on December 16 and sent him a certified letter on December 17
Grinnell finally contacted Griffin on December 23 to tell her he was on
his way to pick up her certified letter Griffin was away from the phone, but her .
mother explained that Griffin wanted a refund of her $3,000 payment Grinnell I
said he would set up a conference call for December 29, but Griffin never heard
from him again J
The Inqu1ry Commission filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell 1n 1
Griffin s case alleging the following v101ations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to I
diligently. provide the agreed upon legal services) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for
failing to promptly comply w1th a reasonable request for information), (3) SCR
3 130(1 5) (for collecting a fee unreasonable for the services actually provided);
(4) SCR 3 130(1 6) (d) (for failing to return any portion of the unearned I
advanced fee payment after termination of representation): and (5) 3 130(8 4)(c) l
(for nnsrepresenting to the client the legal services he was actually providing .
her) Grinnell admits to all 5 rule violations
D KBA File 16 DIS 0176
Matthew Stevenson h1red Grinnell 1n May of 2015 to represent hurl 1n a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
~ “‘ I ‘~ R 1’1
TO BE PUBLISHED
fiupreme (11mm 11f flimfurkg , C"
2019 SC 000677 KB
ERIC SHANE GRINNELL MOVANT
V IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Eric Shane Grinnell was admitted to the practice of law on April 20, l
2011 H1s membership number is 94044, and h1s bar roster address IS 108 : I, Wh1spering Wood Drive, Richmond, Kentucky 40475 i
Grinnell moves thlS Court to impose upon him a 1 year suspension from g E
the practice of law, 180 days to serve, 185 days probated for 2 years math
conditions for the wolation of various Rules of Professional Conduct contained I
in 14 disc1plinary cases The Kentucky Bar Assoc1ation (KBA) states no 1 - i objection to Grmnell’s motion, which was negotiated under SCR;1 3 480(2) i i F1nding this sanctlon to be Inadequate, we reject Grinnell’s motion and remand
to the KBA for further proceedings
1 Rules of the Supreme Court I BACKGROUND
The current case spans 14 consolidated KBA files and 55 counts The
charges demonstrate a pattern of neglect and dlsregard for the interests of his
cl1ents We address each in turn
A KBA File Number 23669
Michael Johnson h1red Grinnell in April of 2014 to represent h1m in an ‘
Ind1ana custody matter and math related allegations made against Johnson and
his girlfriend Johnson paid Grinnell $5,300 for the representation Johnson
had difficulty getting Grinnell to file a motion for modification of custody, and
repeatedly requested Grinnell move forward with the motion
Johnson eventually requested a refund of the unearned port10n of hls fee,
and Grmnell offered to refund $3,800 on the condltion Johnson Slgn a letter 1
promismg not to sue Grinnell Johnson requested an accounting as to how the 3
fee might have been earned, but Grinnell failed to produce one When the KBA i
asked Grinnell to produce cop1es of his client file, Grinnell provided only cop1es E
of draft documents and an uns1gned, undated letter that he purportedly sent to :
Johnson .3
The Inqu1ry Commission filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for h1s g
misconduct 1n representing Johnson The charge alleges the followmg
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failmg to act W1th d1ligence and promptness
1n representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(5) (for failing to consult w1th
his client about any relevant limitation on hls conduct), (3) SCR 3 130(1 5) (for
collecting a fee unreasonable to services actually provided to his client), (4) SCR
3 130(1 16)(d) (for abandonmg the representation and fail1ng to return the 2 ‘ ( unearned portion of the advanced fee after promising to do so); and (5) SCR
3 130(8 4)(c) (for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, decelt or
misrepresentation by misrepresenting to Johnson that he could handle hIS
case)
Grinnell admits hls conduct violated SCR 3 130(1 3) SCR3 130(1 5) and
SCR 3 310(1 16) (d) but moves thlS Court to dismiss Counts II (SCR j
3 130(1 4)(a)(5)) and V (SCR 3 130(8 4,)(c)) Inquiry Commission s Charge
asserted that Grinnell was not licensed 1n Indiana and that Johnson had
contacted the Ind1ana Bar Assoc1ation and learned that Grinnell had never
sought temporary adm1ss1on in Ind1ana for hlS case The Charge also states i
that Grinnell had charged Johnson extra for seeking admiss1on in Indiana, but
Grinnell had not done so But 1n his Motion for Suspension, Grinnell q
represents to this Court that he was 1n fact admitted 1n Ind1ana pro hac v1ce 1'
B KBA File Number 23757 i
Lee Carol Mize paid Gnnnell $1,500 to represent her in a d1vorce action J;
in January of 2014 Mize paid Grinnell an additional $3 000 in October of 2014 1
but terminated the representation shortly thereafter M1ze stated that Grinnell t
gave her false 1nformation regarding her case, that he filed unnecessary ‘-
emergency motions, that he failed to adv1se her of her court dates, and that he .
directed her to lie during a ch11d support interv1ew by saying she dld not have
an attorney M126 requested a refund of her fees and a detailed invoice of
services Grlnnell did not prov1de an inv01ce
The Inquiry Commission filed a 2 count charge against Grinnell in Mize’s
case alleging Grinnell v1olated (1) SCR 3 130(1 5) (for charging a fee
3 , . K ,4 {I ,
unreasonable for services actually prov1ded) and (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for
failing to prov1de any portion of the unearned advanced fee payment) Grinnell
admits to violat1ng both rules as charged
0 KBA File 16 DIS 24251
Elizabeth Ann Griffin hired Grinnell to represent her in her divorce action
1n November 1, 2015, and paid Grinnell $3,000 by check Griffin requested a
copy of the fee contract that day but did not rece1ve 1t Grinnell adwsed Griffin
that he would file an entry of appearance once her payment cleared and that he
would meet with her again to obtain coples of relevant documents and de01de
how to proceed
On November 8, Griffin advised Grinnell that she had all the relevant
documents he requested, and on November 17, she told Grinnell sufficient
funds were available to cash the check she had given him for payment Griffin
again requested a copy of the fee contract on November 17 , but Grinnell offered
1nstead to send her an unsigned copy and provide the s1gned copy later
On December 1, 2, and 3, Griffin contacted Grinnell for an update but I
dld not rece1ve a response Grinnell finally called Griffin back, but he stated he I
was at the courthouse and would call her back later that day Grinnell d1d not
call her back
On December 7, Griffin spoke to Grinnell, and he claimed to have filed an
entry of appearance, a motion for temporary child support, and a motion to
change the date of a contested hearing scheduled for February 1 1 Griffin
requested copies of the motions, but Grinnell did not prov1de them
4 . g' k] {I ( E
On December 15, Griffin went to the clerk’s office and requested copies of
the filings in her case, only to be told nothing had been filed since the Order for
a Contested Hearing on October 16 Griffin left Grinnell a voicemail and text
message later that day but did not hear back She attempted to Contact
Grinnell again on December 16 and sent him a certified letter on December 17
Grinnell finally contacted Griffin on December 23 to tell her he was on
his way to pick up her certified letter Griffin was away from the phone, but her .
mother explained that Griffin wanted a refund of her $3,000 payment Grinnell I
said he would set up a conference call for December 29, but Griffin never heard
from him again J
The Inqu1ry Commission filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell 1n 1
Griffin s case alleging the following v101ations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to I
diligently. provide the agreed upon legal services) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for
failing to promptly comply w1th a reasonable request for information), (3) SCR
3 130(1 5) (for collecting a fee unreasonable for the services actually provided);
(4) SCR 3 130(1 6) (d) (for failing to return any portion of the unearned I
advanced fee payment after termination of representation): and (5) 3 130(8 4)(c) l
(for nnsrepresenting to the client the legal services he was actually providing .
her) Grinnell admits to all 5 rule violations
D KBA File 16 DIS 0176
Matthew Stevenson h1red Grinnell 1n May of 2015 to represent hurl 1n a
dlvorce action Stevenson paid Grinnell $1,100 Grinnell filed the divorce ‘
petition on July 27, 2015 Stevenson d1d not hear much from Grinnell once the
petition was filed, and Stevenson had trouble reaching Gnnnell over the next 5 i g k j
few months Stevenson eventually learned that Grinnell had moved to
Richmond, Kentucky, and had closed h1s northern Kentucky office without
providing notice to Stevenson
Stevenson finally reached Grinnell to schedule a court date in June of
2016 Stevenson was unable to reach Grinnell from June of 20 16 until
Stevenson filed a bar complaint on August 19, 2016 1
Grinnell was personally served W1th a copy of the bar complaint on
November 2 1 2016 by the Mad1son County Sherriff’s Office Grinnell dld not ‘
respond to the bar complaint despite rece1v1ng a notification, through the Office }
of Bar Counsel, that 1nformation regardlng the complaint was needed and I
receiving a warning that faillng to respond to that demand for information ‘
could result 1n addltional charges
The Inquiry Commiss10n filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for h1s
misconduct in representing Stevenson The charge alleges the followlng
wolations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to diligently and promptly represent
h1s client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for failing to promptly respond to
reasonable requests for mformation from h1s Ghent); (3) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for
abandoning representation of h1s client with no notice, and for failing to return
any unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of the
representation) and (4) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for failing to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or dlsc1plinary authority) Grinnell
admits to all 4 of the rule violations
E KBA File 17 DIS 0370
Christy Whipple hired Grinnell in January of 2017 and paid h1m $1 700 6 for h1s representation in her d1vorce Grinneli filed the d1vorce petition in
March of 2017 Whipple requested mformation regarding her case from
Grinnell, but he d1d not reasonably communicate with her or respond to her
requests Whipple’s last communication with Grinnell was in July of 2017, and
she filed her own d1vorce forms with the court, pro se, in September of 2017 1
Whipple filed a bar complaint against Grinnell in October of 2017 1
Grinnell was served With the bar complaint by the Madison County Sherriffs
Office on November 13, 2017, and again by the KBA Executive D1rector on 1
November 17, 2017 Grinnell d1d not respond to the complaint 1
The Inquiry Comrmss1on filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for h1S 1
misconduct in representing Wh1pp1e The charge alleges the followmg 1
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for faihng to di11gent1y and promptly represent '1
his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(2) (for failing to consult with his c11ent about
accompl1shing her objectives in the d1vorce case); (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for
failing to respond to hls client’s reasonable requests for information); (4) SCR '
3 130(1 16)(d) (for abandoning representation of 1118 client math no notice, and 1
for failing to refund the unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon 1
termination of representation) and (5) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for knowneg faillng ‘
to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admlssions or 1
disciplinary authority) Gnnnell adm1ts to all 5 of the rule Vlolations
F KBA File 17 DIS 0425
Amy Crowder h1red Grinnell 1n March of 2017 and paid h1m $500 for
representation m an uncontested divorce action Grmnell did llttle, if anything,
to advance Crowder’s case until she prov1ded him w1th a Notice to Dismiss for
7 i; \{ i
Lack of Prosecution issued by the court on May 1, 2017 Upon receipt of the
Notice: Grinnell called the court, and an Order to Remain on the Docket was
entered on May 24 2017
Crowder provided Grinnell With all the relevant documents she had in
her case and attempted to obtain information from Grinnell regarding her case
Grinnell did not prov1de Crowder With any information and did not reasonably
respond to her requests Grinnell did not file or prepare any documents in the
case or provide Crowder any legal adVice Crowder’s divorce was finalized on
February 14, 2018, after she filed her own Motion to Submit the matter to the
court ‘
The Inquiry Comm1ss1on filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for his ‘
misconduct in representing Crowder The charge alleges the following rule :
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act With reasonable diligence and I
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) (for failing to i
keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her pending case); (3) 1
SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(4) (for failing to promptly comply With reasonable requests i
for information from his client) and (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to refund
the unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of
representation) Grinnell admits to all 4 of the rule Violations
G KBA File 17 DIS 0258
Terry Whitney hired Grinnell in April of 20 16 and paid him $1 000 for
representation in a divorce action Grinnell later asked for an additional $200
filing fee which Whitney paid From April to June of 20 16 Whitney tried
unsuccessfully to get an update on the matter from Grinnell Grinnell finally
8 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in August of 2016 Whitney asked
Grinnell to advance the divorce matter several times and to update the court
with Whitney’s new address in Florida, but Grinnell did neither
Grinnell filed nothing else in the case after the initial petition, and
Whitney was left to file a pro se Motion and Order for Final Decree in his case i
The court then set the matter for a Case Management Conference in August of i
2019, but because Grinnell had not adv1sed the court of Whitney’s new 1
address, Whitney never received the court’s order, and he missed the court
date The Court advised the parties they could retain jurisdiction if they wished
to pursue the matter in Kentucky, or they could do nothing, and the case
would be dismissed The divorce has not been resolved
Grinnell was served With a bar complaint on August 23, 2017, as well as
a letter, from the Office of Bar Counsel, requesting more information regarding
the complaint and advismg him that failure to respond to the request could 3
result in additional charges of misconduct Grinnell did not respond to the bar .
complaint 1
The Inquiry Commiss10n filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Whitney The charge alleges the followmg rule
Violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) (for failing to
consult with his client about his objectives in the case), (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4)
(for failing to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable request for
information); (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for abandoning representation of his client
With no notice, and for failing to refund the unearned portion of the advanced 9 . r i ‘ g M) ,
fee payment upon termination of representation); and (5) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for
knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
admisSions or disc1plinary authority)
Grinnell adrmts to all 5 of the rule violations
H KBA File 18 DIS 0055
Samuel Stokley hired Grinnell in July of 2017 and paid him $2 000 to I
represent him in a divorce action In August of 2017, Stokley asked Grinnell if i
he had filed a Motion to Obtain a Contribution toward the maintenance of the ;
res1dence Stokley had shared with his wife Grinnell told Stokley that he had I3
filed the motion and that the hearing was set for September 8, 2017 Grinnell
provided Stokley With an un51gned copy of a motion
Stokley, having his doubts about Grinnell’s representation, contacted
another attorney The new attorney discovered nothing had been filed in the .
divorce matter Since March of 2017 Stokley then met With Grinnell who could i
not prov1de an explanation for his failing to file anything in the case—and i
requested a refund of his $2,000 fee Grinnell did not refund any portion of the
fee
The Inquiry CommiSSion filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Stokley The charge alleges the following rule
Violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to
refund any unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of
representation), and (3) SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) (for engaging in conduct involv1ng
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by misleading his client that a
10 l (a l. :3)
motion had been filed and that the client’s interests were being advanced in the
case) Grinnell adm1ts to all 3 of the rule violations
I KBA File 18 DIS 0178
Rhonda Honaker hired Grinnell 1n April of 2017 and paid h1m $3 090 for
his representation m a divorce action Grinnell adwsed Honaker that he would
have matters completed by December of 2017 Gnnnell dld not file any
documents on behalf of Honaker and has provided no ev1dence that he
completed any work 111 her case Honaker filed a bar complaint against ‘
Grinnell, which Gnnnell was served with by the Madison County Sheriff’s
Office on August 2, 2018 along with a letter, through the Office of Bar Counsel,
requesting more mformation regarding the complaint and adv1sing him that
failure to respond to the request could result in additional charges of J
misconduct Grinnell did not respond to the complaint i
The Inquiry Commissmn filed a 5 count charge against Gnnnell for his '
m1sconduct in representing Honaker The charge alleges the following rule
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing h1s client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a) (3) (for failing to
keep his client reasonably informed about her pending matter); (3) SCR
3 130(1 4) (a)(4) (for failing to promptly comply math a reasonable request for
1nforrnation from h1s client) (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to refund the
unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of the
representation) and (5) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b_) (for failing to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admiss1ons of dlsc1plinary authority)
Grinnell admlts to all 5 of the rule v101ations 11 . - x, g; <' :3 J KBA File 18 DIS 0232
Krystal Fast hired Grinnell in May of 2017 and paid him $2 500 for h1s
representation in getting full custody of her daughter Grinnell filed a motion
for shared parenting, but the representation was termlnated shortly thereafter
Grinnell agreed to refund the unearned fee of $1,800, but he never did
Fast filed a bar complaint in August of 2018 Grinnell was served with
the complaint, as well as a letter adv151ng him that a failure to respond to the
complaint could result m an add1tional charge of misconduct, by the Madison
County Sherriffs Office on September 18, 2018 Grinnell did not respond to the
complaint
The Inquiry Commissmn filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for h1s i
m1sconduct 1n representing Fast The charge alleges the followlng Violations (1) ‘5
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for failing to promptly reply to Fast s requests to refund A
the unearned fee) (2) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) (for failing to refund the unearned i
portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of the representation), 1
and (3) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for failing to respond to lawful demand for lf
information from an admissions or dis01plinary authority)
Grinnell adm1ts to all 3 rule v101ations
K KBA File 18 DIS 0269
Grinnell represented Nicholas D1’I‘11001 in a dissolution of marriage action
in Kenton County between August 26 2015 and April 28, 2017 D1Tucci paid
Grinnell $1,250 for the representation In May of 2018, Di’l‘ucci contacted
Grinnell to represent h1m to modify h1s custody and Vlsltation Gnnnell quoted
a fee of $2,000, which D1Tucci paid On July 16, 2018, D1Tucc1 Informed
12 . x g V J
Grinnell that he and hIS ex wife had come to an agreement, he would therefore
not need Grinnell’s serv1ces Grinnell stated that he would need a few weeks to
process a refund of the unearned fee, but he never returned the fee
In November of 2018, D1’I‘ucc1 filed a bar complaint against Grinnell In I
Grinnell’s response to the complaint, he stated that the $2,000 fee he rece1ved
from D1Tucc1 in May of 2018 was for an outstanding balance that DiTucc1 owed
from the previous representation But D1’I‘ucci was never informed that the
$2,000 was for any outstanding balance, and Grinnell had never tried to collect
any outstandmg balance between April of 2017 and May of 2018 Instead the
$2,000 fee was quoted for the post decree representation I
The Inquiry Commissmn filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for his !
misconduct in representing Di’l‘ucci The charge alleges the followmg violations 1
(1) SCR 3 130(1 4) (b) (for failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably :
necessary to permit the client to make informed deals10ns regard1ng the :
representation when Grinnell told his chent the quoted fee was for the post
7 decree representation, and failed to explain the fee was for an outstanding ‘
balance from the previous representation) (2) SCR 3 130(1 5) (b) (for failing to I
communicate with h1s client that the bas1s for a quoted fee was for an
outstandlng balance of a previous representation and, instead, telling his client
the fee Was for his current representation)' and (3) SCR 2 130(1 16)(d) (for
failing to return the unearned portion of an advanced fee when he was told h1s
services were not needed and when he told his client he would refund the fee)
Grinnell admits to all 3 rule Violations
13 . : \ g' ‘1: )
L KBA File 18 DIS 0291
Pamela Leirey h1red Grinnell in a custody matter in Kenton CiI'CLIlt Court
in April of 2017 Leirey paid Grmnell $3,500 for the representation Grinnell 1
filed a Response to a Verified Petition for Custody and Support on May of 2017, I
and, on July 14, 2017, he made one court appearance for a Motion for 1
Temporary Joint Custody and Shared Parenting and Vis1tation
After this appearance, L61rey requested that Grinnell file motions on her
behalf regarding holiday vis1tations, medical expenses for her child, weekend
Visitatlon, and to schedule medlation between the parties Grinnell dld not file i
any of these motions, and he did not respond when Le1rey sent h1m emails i
about the motions In March of 2018, Leirey met WIth Grinnell and left |
paperwork necessary for Gnnnell to file the motions on her behalf Grinnell 1
took no action, and Leirey met w1th another Kenton County attorney, who filed l
a Request for Production of Documents and a Motlon for Modlfication of Child A
Support and Notice of Pre Tnal Conference of July 5 2018
In September of 2018, Le1rey contacted Grinnell to terminate his
representation When he did not return her call, she sent h1m an email two
days later terminating the representation and requesting he return her file and
unearned fee Grinnell did not return the file or the unearned fee
The Inquiry Comm1ss1on filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Le1rey The charge alleges the folloWing wolations
(1) SCR 3 130(1 2)(a) (for failing to ab1de by the client’s demsions to file motions
and other pleadings that she requested he prepare and file) (2) SCR 3 130(1 3)
(for failing to act “71th reasonable diligence and promptness in representlng h1S 14 q x. , ( . /g x ! I
client) (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a) (4) (for failing to promptly comply with reasonable I
requests for information from his client) and (4) SCR 3 130(1 l6)(d) (for failing
to return his clients file and unearned fee upon termination of his I
representation)
Grinnell admits to all 4 rule violations
M KBA File 18 DIS 0330
Christopher Lewis hired Grinnell in September of 2018 to represent him
in a child custody and support case in Jessamine County Lewis paid Grinnell
$2,500 for the representation Grinnell made one court appearance on behalf of
Mr Lewis in September of 2018, where the matter was continued by agreement I
and later set for October 31, 2018 On that day, Lewis was in court, but
Grinnell failed to appear, and the matter was continued until November 7, - 2018 Grinnell again failed to appear on November 7, and the matter was again
continued to November. 21, 2018 Grinnell failed to appear on that date as well I
At this final hearing, Lewis explained to the judge that Grinnell had not !
responded to any of his text messages Grinnell had never contacted the Circuit
Court Clerk or Lewis to find out when the court dates were scheduled Lewis 3
terrmnated the representation soon after
The Inquiry Commiss10n filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Laws The charge alleges the following Violations
(1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a) (4) (for failing to promptly comply
With his client’s reasonable requests for information), and (3) SCR
15 ,. (T g 3 , 3 130(1 16) (d) (for failing to return the unearned portion of an advanced fee I upon term1nation of the representation)
Grinnell admits to all 3 rule violations i
1! KBA File 19 DIS 0101
Stephame Jackson h1red Grinnell 1n July of 20 18 to represent her in a
divorce action in Fayette County Jackson paid Gr1nnell $1 , 150 for the
representation Grinnell filed a Response to the petition for D1ssolution and a
Motion for Enlargement of Time in July of 2018 but took no other action 1n the
case Grinnell d1d not communicate the basis of his fee or return any of
Jackson’s calls about the status of her case Jackson terminated the
representation in April of 2019, and Grinnell has not returned the unearned !
1 portion of her fee } The Inquiry Comm1ss10n filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for hIS
misconduct in representing Jackson The charge alleges the follow1ng
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing hls client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(4) (for failing to
comply with hIS client’s reasonable requests for information); (3) SCR
and 3 130(1 5)(b) (for failing to communicate to h1s client the basis of h1s fee);
(4) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) (for failing to return the unearned portion of an
advanced fee when the representation was terminated)
0 Grinnell’s Disciplinary Record
Grinnell’s disciplinary record mcludes a private admonition with the 2017 condition that he refund an advanced fee payment to a client 1n January
16 ' i C. :, 1 :/
for failing to act With reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the
client, failing to comply With the client’s reasonable request for information,
and for failing to deposit a fee payment into an escrow account Further,
Grinnell had a private admonition in December 2017 for failing to respond to a
lawful demand for information from an admiss10ns or disciplinary authority
Grinnell received another private admonition in November 2018 for failing to :
communicate properly with a client and inform the client of a court’s rulmg in
his case and for failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
adrnisSions or disciplinary authority Finally, Grinnell received a private
admonition in November 2019 for failing to comply promptly with a client’s
reasonable request for information
I! ANALYSIS
Grinnell moves this Court to enter an order suspending him from the '
practice of law for one year, 180 days to serve, 185 days probated for 2 years
with conditions that Grinnell attend the next scheduled Ethics and
Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP) offered by the Office of Bar E
Counsel; he not incur any further charges of profeSSional misconduct in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky; he enroll in KY_LAP to address his anx1ety and
depressmn, and that he pay back all of the unearned fees to his clients
Grinnell also moves this Court to dismiss Counts II and V of KBA File 23669
The KBA states no objection to Grinnell’s motion, and recommends that
we impose the disc1pline Grinnell seeks, which was negotiated under SCR
3 480(2) As mitigation, Grinnell states that he suffers from anxiety and
17 i ‘ a t depression because of family matters and agrees, as part of the negotiated
disc1pline above, to seek professional help with KYLAP
In support of the negotiated sanction, the KBA Cites to this Court’s recent
opinion in Kentucky Bar Ass’n v Howell 2 In that case, Howell was found to
have committed Similar ethical violations as Grinnell but faced 10 consolidated I
charges and 31 counts of misconduct 3 Howell also had 3 prior admonitions 4
We suspended Howell for 181 days and ordered her to refund a total of $7, 197
to 5 clients
By contrast, Grinnell faces 14 charges and 55 counts of misconduct and
will be required to refund a total of $26,440 to 14 clients Gn'nnell also has 5 i
prior admonitions While the negotiated sanction proposed in this case is for ’
one year, Gnnnell would be required to serve only the first 180 days—one day
less than the suspensmn in Howell—as the remaining 185 days would be ‘
probated for 2 years with conditions And this one day variance makes a big
difference Under SCR 3 510(3),5 Howell Will not be reinstated to the practice of
2 568 s w 3d 857 (Ky 2019) 3 Id at 863 4 Id at 858 5 SCR 3 510(3) prov1des the followmg If the period of suspens10n has prevailed for more than 180 days, the matter shall be referred to the Character and Fitness Comm1ttee for proceedings under SCR 2 300 The Character and Fitness Committee will determine whether the application of a member who has been suspended 180 days or less but whose termination of suspens10n has been objected to, or a member who has been suspended for more than 180 days, should be approved The Character and Fitness Committee shall file With the Director and the Clerk the entire record, including a written report and recommendation by the Character and Fitness Committee Thirty days after the filing of the report, Bar Counsel and the applicant may each file briefs, not to exceed 30 pages in length No further briefs may be filed Upon motion of the parties or upon the Board's own motion, oral 18 .~ |' it {’ ,
law until she is first approved by the Character and Fitness Committee, the
KBA cons1ders her case and makes a recommendation to this Court, and
finally, this Court approves her application for reinstatement to the practice of
law Under the negotiated sanction in this case, Grinnell would be
automatically reinstated to the practice of law at the end of his 180 day
suspension, per SCR 3 510(2), if the Bar Counsel does not file an objection 6
Given the fact that Grinnell’s Violations were both more numerous and
caused greater economic harm to his clients—SS 19,243 more in un refunded
fees than in Howell We find Howell distinguishable from the present case We }
note also that this Court has imposed sanctions surpassing the 180 day
threshold in cases with far fewer Violations than were present even in Howell 7 i I As such, we find the negotiated sanction in this case to be inadequate
arguments may be scheduled before the Board The Board shall review i i the record, report and briefs and recommend approval or disapproval of the application to the Court The Court may enter an order reinstating ' the Applicant to the practice of law or deny the application . 5 SCR 3 510(2) provides the followiiig in relevant part If the period of suspensmn has prevailed for 180 days or less, the suspenSion shall expire by its own terms upon the filing with the Clerk and Bar Counsel of an affidavit of compliance with the terms of the suspension, which must include a certification fi‘om the CLE Commission that the Applicant has complied with SCR 3 685 The Registrar of the Ass001ation will make an appropriate entry in the records of the Association reflecting that the member has been reinstated, prowded, however, that such suspension shall not expire by its own terms if, not later than 10 days preceding the time the suspension would expire, Bar Counsel files with the Inquiry Commiss1on an opp031tion to the termination of suspensmn wherein Bar Counsel details such information as may crust to indicate that the member does not, at that time, possess suffic1ent professional capabilities and qualifications properly to serve the public as an active practitioner or is not of good moral character a 7 See Kentucky Bar Ass n v Thornton 392 S W 3d 399 (Ky 2013) (imposmg suspension of 181 days where the attorney was found guilty of 14 counts of ethical to Violations contained in 3 disc1p1inary charges, including, among others, failing 19 ' 1 K ‘ t" C) III CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein; we reject the negotiated sanction and
remand the case to the KBA for further proceedlngs IV ORDER
Therefore the Court ORDERS that ice of 1 Eric Shane Grmnell’s Motion for the Suspens1on from the Pract i Law, Probated with Condltions, 1s DENIED 17 DIS ; 2 Grinnells KBA Files 23699 23757 16 DIS 24251 16 DIS 0176 if 0370 17 DIS 0425 17 DIS 0258 18 DIS 055 18 DIS 0178 18 DIS shall i 0232 18 DIS 0269 18 DIS 0291 18 DIS 0330 and 19 DIS 0101 ant to ' be remanded to the KBA for further dlsciplinary proceedings pursu i SCR 3 480(2) In the event Howell and Bar Counsel fail to reach a the date 3 different proposal for consensual d1s01p1ine w1th1n 90 days after
of 121118 order, the matter shall proceed as a contested matter in orders of accordance mth the Supreme Court Rules and any subsequent
thlS Court
All sitting All concur
ENTERED FEBRUARY 20 2020
Q I Q% a CH 35" USTICE
diligence and prov1de competent representation, failing to act with reasonable about the status of a promptness, and failing to keep a client reasonably informed claim) 20 K ( fl, 3
for his representatlon in her divorce Grinnell filed the d1vorce petit10n in
March of 2017 Whlpple requested information regarding her case from
Gnnnell, but he did not reasonably communlcate w1th her or respond to her
requests Whipple’s last communication with Grmnell was in July of 2017, and ,
she filed her own divorce forms with the court, pro se, in September of 2017 i
Whipple filed a bar complaint agalnst Grinnell 1n October of 2017 j
Grinnell was served with the bar complaint by the Madison County Sherriffs 1
Office on November 13, 2017, and agaln by the KBA Executive Director on
November 17, 2017 Grinnell did not respond to the complaint
The Inquiry Comnnss1on filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for hls
misconduct in representing Whipple The charge alleges the followmg
v101at10ns (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to diligently and promptly represent ,
his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) (for failing to consult with h1s client about i
accomplishing her objectives 1n the divorce case), (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(4) (for i
failing to respond to his client’s reasonable requests for 1n1'ormation), (4) SCR
3 130(1 16) (d) (for abandoning representation of his client with no notice, and
for failing to refund the unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon
termination of representatwn); and (5) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for knowmgly failing
to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or
d1sciplinary authority) Gr1nnell adm1ts to all 5 of the rule wolattons
F KBA File 17 DIS 0425 .
Amy Crowder hired Grmnell in March of 2017 and paid h1m $500 for
representation In an uncontested divorce act1on Grinnell did little, if anytl'ung,
to advance Crowder’s case until she provided him Wlth a Notice to D1srniss for
7 Lack of Prosecution issued by the court on May 1, 2017 Upon receipt of the
Notice, Grinnell called the court, and an Order to Remain on the Docket was
entered on May 24, 2017
Crowder prov1ded Grinnell with all the relevant documents she had in I
her case and attempted to obtain information from Grinnell regarding her case
Grinnell did not provide Crowder With any information and did not reasonably
respond to her requests Grinnell did not file or prepare any documents in the
case or prov1de Crowder any legal advice Crowder’s divorce Was finalized on E
February 14, 2018 after she filed her own Motion to Submit the matter to the E
court l
The Inquiry Comn'ussmn filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for his E
misconduct in representing Crowder The charge alleges the following rule E
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and E
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 8 130(1 4E(a)(3) (for failing to E
keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her pending case), (3) E
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for failing to promptly comply With reasonable requests E
for information from his client) and (4) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) (for failing to refund E
the unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of E
representation) Grinnell admits to all 4 of the rule violations ‘
G KBA File 17 DIS 0258 E
Terry Whitney hired Grinnell in April of 2016 and paid him $1 000 for E
representation in a divorce action Grinnell later asked for an additional $200 E filing fee, which Whitney paid From April to June of 20 16, Whitney tried E unsuccessfully to get an update on the matter from Grinnell Grinnell finally 8 {
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in August of 20l6 Whitney asked
Grinnell to advance the divorce matter several times and to update the court i
With Whitney’s new address in Florida, but Grinnell did neither !
Grinnell filed nothing else in the case after the initial petition, and i
Whitney was left to file a pro se Motion and Order for Final Decree in his case
The court then set the matter for a Case Management Conference in August of
2019, but because Grinnell had not adVised the court of Whitney’s new
address, Whitney never received the court’s order, and he missed the court
date The Court adv1sed the parties they could retain jurisdiction if they wished
to pursue the matter in Kentucky, or they could do nothing, and the case
Grinnell was served _w1th a bar complaint on August 23, 2017, as well as
a letter, from the Office of Bar Counsel, requesting more information regarding
the complaint and adv1s1ng him that failure to respond to the request could
result in additional charges of misconduct Grinnell did not respond to the bar
The Inquiry Commiss10n filed a 5 count charge against Gnnnell for his %
rmsconduct in representing Whitney The charge alleges the followmg rule I
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and I
promptness in representing his client), (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) [a)(2) (for failing to {
consult with his client about his objectives in the case) [3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) %
(for failing to promptly comply with his clients reasonable request for 1.
information), (4) SCR 8 130(1 16) (d) (for abandoning representation of his client
with no notice, and for failing to refund the unearned portion of the advanced '
9 fee payment upon termination of representation), and (5) SCR 3 180(8 1)(b) (for
knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
admiss1ons or disciplinary authority)
Grmnell admits to all 5 of the rule violations ‘
H KBA File 18 DIS 0055 1
Samuel Stokley hired Grinnell in July of 2017 and paid him $2 000 to
represent him in a divorce action In August of 2017, Stokley asked Grinnell if
he had filed a Motion to Obtain a Contribution toward the maintenance of the
residence Stokley had shared with his wife Grinnell told Stokley that he had
filed the motion and that the hearing was set for September 8, 2017 Grinnell
prov1ded Stokley with an uns1gned copy of a motion
Stokley, having his doubts about Grinnell’s representation, contacted
another attorney The new attorney discovered nothing had been filed in the
divorce matter Since March of 2017 Stokley then met with Grinnell who could '
not prowde an explanation for his failing to file anything in the case—and I
requested a refund of his $2,000 fee Grinnell did not refund any portion of the i
The Inquiry Commiss1on filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Stokley The charge alleges the following rule
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) (for failing to
refund any unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of
representation), and (3) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) (for engaging in conduct involvmg
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by misleading his client that a 10 , z : " )4
motion had been filed and that the client’s interests were being advanced in the
case) Grinnell admits to all 3 of the rule violations
I KBA File 18 DIS 01.78 I
Rhonda Honaker hired Grinnell in April of 2017 and paid him $3,090 for .
his representation in a divorce action Grinnell advised Honaker that he would
have matters completed by December of 2017 Grinnell did not file any
documents on behalf of Honaker and has provided no ev1dence that he
completed any work in her case Honaker filed a bar complaint against
Grinnell, which Grinnell was served with by the Madison County Sheriff’s
Office on August 2, 2018 along with a letter, through the Office of Bar Counsel,
requesting more information regarding the complaint and advising him that
failure to respond to the request could result in additional charges of
misconduct Grinnell did not respond to the complaint
The Inquiry Commission filed a 5 count charge against Grinnell for his
misconduct in representing Honaker The charge alleges the following rule
violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act With reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client); (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a) (3) (for failing to
keep his client reasonably informed about her pending matter); (3) SCR - 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for failing to promptly comply With a reasonable request for
information from his client) (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to refund the
unearned portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of the
representation) and (5) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) (for failing to respond to a lawful i
demand for information from an admissions of disciplinary authority) >3
Grinnell adm1ts to all 5 of the rule Violations 11 l 1 4.
1 J KBA File 18 DIS 0232
Krystal Fast hired Grinnell 1n May of 2017 and paid him $2 500 for his
representation in getting full custody of her daughter Grmnell filed a motion
for shared parenting, but the representation was terminated shortly thereafter
Grmnell agreed to refund the unearned fee of $ 1,800, but he never did
Fast filed a bar complaint in August of 2018 Grinnell was served w1th
the complamt, as well as a letter advising him that a failure to respond to the
complaint could result 1n an add1t1onal charge of misconduct, by the Madison
County Sherriffs Office on September 18, 2018 Grmnell did not respond to the
The Inquiry Commiss1on filed a 3 count charge against Grmnell for h1s
misconduct in representing Fast The charge alleges the followmg violations (1)
SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) (for failing to promptly reply to Fast’s requests to refund
the unearned fee), (2) SCR 8 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to refund the unearned I portion of the advanced fee payment upon termination of the representation); a} and (3) SCR 3 130(8 l)(b) (for failing to respond to lawful demand for % informat1on from an admlss1ons or disciphnary authority)
Grmnell admits to all 3 rule Violations
Grinnell represented Nicholas Di’l‘u001 111 a dissolution of marriage action
1n Kenton County between August 26, 2015 and April 28 2017 D1’I‘ucm paid
Grmnell $1,250 for the representatlon In May of 2018, DiTucci contacted
Grmnell to represent him to modify his custody and v1s1tation Grmnell quoted
a fee of $2,000, which DiTucc1 paid On July 16, 2018, DiTucc1 informed 12 9 (
Grinnell that he and his ex wife had come to an agreement, he would therefore
not need Grinnell’s services Grinnell stated that he would need a few weeks to 5 process a refund of the unearned fee, but he never returned the fee
In Novemb'er of 2018, D1’I‘ucc1 filed a bar complaint against Grinnell In -
Grinnell’s response to the complaint, he stated that the $2,000 fee he rece1ved I owed from DiTu001 1n May of 2018 was for an outstanding balance that D1’I‘uCC
from the prev10us representation But D1’l‘11001 was never informed that the
$2,000 was for any outstandmg balance, and Grinnell had never tr1ed to collect the any outstandlng balance between April of 2017 and May of 2018 Instead
$2,000 fee was quoted for the post decree representation
The Inquiry Comm1ss10n filed a 3 count charge against Grmnell for his ons misconduct in representing D1Tucci The charge alleges the following v101ati
(1) SCR 3 130(1 4)(b) (for failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably the necessary to perm1t the client to make informed de01s1ons regardmg post I representation when Grmnell told h1s client the quoted fee was for the 1 decree representation, and failed to explain the fee was for an outstanding to balance from the previous representation), (2) SCR 3 130(1 5)(b) (for failing
communlcate with his client that the basis for a quoted fee was for an his Ghent outstanding balance of a prev1ous representation and, instead, telling (for the fee was for his current representatlon), and (3) SCR 2 130(1 16)(d) was told his failing to return the unearned portion of an advanced fee when he the fee) semces were not needed and when he told his client he would refund
Grmnell adm1ts to all 3 rule Violations
13 ‘ if
L KBA File is DIS 0291 Pamela Le1rey hired Grinnell in a custody matter in Kenton Circuit Court
in April of 2017 Leirey paid Grinnell $3,500 for the representation Grinnell 2017, _ filed a Response to a Verified Petition for Custody and Support on May of for i and, on July 14, 2017, he made one court appearance for a Motion
Temporary Jomt Custody and Shared Parenting and ViSitation
After this appearance, Le1rey requested that Grinnell file motions on her nd behalf regarding holiday m51tations, medical expenses for her child, weeke
Vis1tat10n, and to schedule mediation between the parties Grinnell did not file emails any of these motions, and he did not respond when Leirey sent him left about the motions In March of 2018, Leirey met With Grinnell and Grinnell _ paperwork necessary for Grinnell to file the motions on her behalf y, who filed took no action, and Leirey met With another Kenton County attorne of Child a Request for Production of Documents and a Motion for Modification
Support and Notice of Pre Trial Conference of July 5, 2018
In September of 2018, Le1rey contacted Grinnell to terminate his an email two representation When he did not return her call, she sent him her file and days later terminating the representation and requesting he return
unearned fee Grinnell did not return the file or the unearned fee his The Inquiry Commission filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for 1ng Violations misconduct in representing Leirey The charge alleges the follow ons to file motions (1) SCR 3 130(1 2)(a) (for failing to abide by the client’s deciSi (2) SCR 3 130(1 3) and other pleadings that she requested he prepare and file) representing his (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 14 ' t K" L z 2
client) (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(4) (for failing to promptly comply WIth reasonable
requests for 1nt‘ormation from his client) and (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing
to return his clients file and unearned fee upon termination of his
Christopher Lew1s hired Grinnell 1n September of 20 18 to represent him
in a child custody and support case in Jessamine County Lewis paid Grinnell
$2,500 for the representation Grinnell made one court appearance on behalf of
Mr Lewis in September of 2018, where the matter was continued by agreement
and later set for October 31, 2018 On that day, Lewis was in court, but
Gr1nne11 failed to appear? and the matter was continued unul November 7,
2018 Grinnell again failed to appear on November 7, and the matter was again ‘
continued to November 21, 2018 Grinnell failed to appear on that date as well i
At this final heating, Lew1s explained to the judge that Grinnell had not )
responded to any of his text messages Grinnell had never contacted the Clrcuit
Court Clerk or Lew1s to find out when the court dates were scheduled LeW1s
terminated the representation soon after
The Inquiry Commiss1on filed a 3 count charge against Grinnell for h1S
misconduct in representing Lew1s The charge alleges the followmg violations
(1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act w1th reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) (for failing to promptly comply
truth his client’s reasonable requests for information); and (3) SCR
15 '- (
3 130(1 16)(d) (for failing to return the unearned portion of an advanced fee ' upon termination of the representation)
N KBA File 19 DIS 0101
1‘ Stephanie Jackson hired Grinnell in July of 2018 to represent her in a
divorce action in Fayette County Jackson paid Grinnell $1,150 for the
representation Grinnell filed a Response to the petition for Dissolution and a
Motion for Enlargement of Time in July of 2018 but took no other action in the
case Griniiell did not communicate the basis of his fee or return any of
Jackson’s calls about the status of her case Jackson terminated the
representation in April of 2019, and Grmnell has not returned the unearned
portion of her fee
The Inquiry Commission filed a 4 count charge against Grinnell for his I misconduct in representing Jackson The charge alleges the following I violations (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) (for failing to act With reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing his client) (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (for failing to
comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information); (3) SCR and 3 130(1 5)(b) (for failing to communicate to his client the ba51s of his fee);
(4) SCR 3 139(1 16) (d) (for failing to return the unearned portion of an
O Grinnellis Disciplinary Record \
Grinnell’s diSCiplinary record includes a private admonition W1th the January 2017 condition that he refund an advanced fee payment to a client in
16 ‘ | L . < t ,
for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the
client, failing to comply With the client’s reasonable request for information, '
and for failing to deposit a fee payment into an escrow account Further,
Grinnell had a private admonition in December 2017 for failing to respond to a ‘
lawful demand for information from an admissions or dismplinary authority
Grinnell received another private admonition in November 2018 for failing to
communicate properly with a client and inform the client of a court’s ruling in
his case and for failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
admiss1ons or dissiplinary authority Finally, Grinnell received a private
admonition in November 2019 for failing to comply promptly With a client’s
11 ANALYSIS
Grinnell moves this Court to enter an order suspending him from the 5 practice of law for one year, 180 days to serve, 185 days probated for 2 years 1 With conditions that Grinnell attend the next scheduled Ethics and 7 1 Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP) offered by the Office of Bar : Counsel, he not incur any further charges of professional misconduct in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, he enroll in KYlAP to address his anxiety and 7" depress10n, and that he pay back all of the unearned fees to his clients : Grinnell also moves this Court to dismiss Counts II and V of KBA File 23669
The KBA states no objection to Grinnell’s motion, and recommends that
we impose the disc1pline Grinnell seeks, which was negotiated under SCR
3 480(2) As mitigation, Grinnell states that he suffers from anxiety and
17 <
depress1on because of family matters and agrees, as part of the negotiated
discipline above, to seek profess1onal help w1th KYLAP
In support of the negotiated sanction, the KBA cites to this Court’s recent t opinion in Kentucky Bar Ass’n v Howell 2 In that case, Howell was found to ' have committed similar ethical Violations as Grinnell but faced 10 consolidated 3 charges and 31 counts of misconduct 3 Howell also had 3 prior admonitions 4
We suspended Howell for 181 days and ordered her to refund a total of $7,197
By contrast, Grinnell faces 14 charges and 55 counts of misconduct and
will be required to refund 9. total of $26,440 to 14 clients Grinnell also has 5
prior admonitions While the negotiated sanction proposed in this case is for
one year, Grinnell would be required to serve only the first 180 days one day
less than the suspenSion in Howell as the remaining 185 days would be
probated for 2 years With conditions And this one day variance makes a big of difference Under SCR 3 510(3),5 Howell will not be reinstated to the practice
2 568 S W 3d 857 (Ky 2019) 3 Id at 863 4 Id at 858 5 SCR 3 510(3) provides the following If the period of suspenSion has prevailed for more than 180 days, the matter shall be referred to the Character and Fitness Committee for proceedings under SCR 2 300 The Character and Fitness Committee will determine whether the application of a member who has been suspended 180 days or less but whose termination of suspension has been objected to, or a member who has been suspended for more than 180 days, should be approved The Character and Fitness Committee shall file mth the Director and the Clerk the entire record, including a written report and recommendation by the Character and Fitness Committee Thirty days after the filing of the report, Bar Counsel and the applicant may may each file briefs, not to exceed 30 pages in length No further briefs the Board's own monon, oral be filed Upon motion of the parties or upon 18 (
law until she is first approved by the Character and Fitness Committee, the
KBA considers her case and makes a recommendation to this Court, and
finally, this Court approves her application for reinstatement to the practice of
law Under the negotiated sanction in this case, Grinnell would be ‘ automatically reinstated to the practice of law at the end of his 180 day 1 suspension, per SCR 3 510(2), if the Bar Counsel does not file an objection 6 I Given the fact that Grinnell’s Violations were both more numerous and
$19,243 more in un refunded : caused greater economic harm to his clients i g fees than in Howell we find Howell distinguishable from the present case We V note also that this Court has imposed sanctions surpassing the 180 day - threshold in cases With far fewer Violations than were present even in Howell 7
As such, we find the negotiated sanction in this case to be inadequate
arguments may be scheduled before the Board The Board shall renew the record, report and briefs and recommend approval or disapproval of the application to the Court The Court may enter an order reinstating the Applicant to the practice of law or deny the application 6 SCR 3 5 10(2) provides the following in relevant part If the period of suspensmn has prevailed for 180 days or less, the Clerk suspension shall expire by its own terms upon the filing With the and Bar Counsel of an affidav1t of compliance With the terms of the suspensmn, which must include a certification from the CLE Commission that the Applicant has complied With SCR 3 685 The Registrar of the Association will make an appropriate entry in the records of the Association reflecting that the member has been reinstated, prov1ded, however, that such suspension shall not expire by its own would terms if, not later than 10 days preceding the time the suspensron expire, Bar Counsel files with the Inquiry Commiss1on an opposrtion to the termination of suspensmn wherein Bar Counsel details such that information as may crust to indicate that the member does not, at time, possess sufficient profess1onal capabilities and qualifications properly to serve the public as an active practitioner or is not of good moral character a 7 See Kentucky Bar Ass’n v Thornton 392 S W 3d 399 (Ky 2013) (imposmg of 14 counts of ethical suspension of 181 days where the attorney was found guilty among others, failing to violations contained in 3 dismplinary charges, including, 19 f \ K .
. \
III CONCLUSION .
For the reasons stated herein, we reject the negotiated sanction and
remand the case to the KBA for further proceedings
IV ORDER _
Therefore the Court ORDERS that
1 Eric Shane Grinnell’s Motion for the Suspens1on from the Practice of
Law, Probated With Conditions, 1s DENIED
2 Gnnnells KBA Files 23699 23757 16 DIS 24251 16 DIS 0176 17 DIS
0370 17 DIS 0425 17 DIS 0258 18 DIS 055 18 DIS 0178 18 DIS
0232 18 DIS 0269 18 DIS 0291 18 DIS 0330 and 19 DIS 0101 shall
be remanded to the KBA for further disc1p1inary proceedings pursuant to
SCR 3 480(2) In the event Howell and Bar Counsel fail to reach a I
different proposal for consensual discipline Within 90 days after the date
of this order, the matter shall proceed as a contested matter in
accordance with the Supreme Court Rules and any subsequent orders of
this Court
ence and promde competent representation, failing to act with reasonable dilig promptness, and failing to keep a client reasonably informed abou t the status of a claim) 20
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Eric Shane Grinnell v. Kentucky Bar Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-shane-grinnell-v-kentucky-bar-association-ky-2020.