In Re: Dale Anthony Brinker

CourtKentucky Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 2025
Docket2025-SC-0105
StatusUnpublished

This text of In Re: Dale Anthony Brinker (In Re: Dale Anthony Brinker) 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.

Bluebook
In Re: Dale Anthony Brinker, (Ky. 2025).

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky 2025-SC-0105-KB

IN RE: DALE ANTHONY BRINKER

IN SUPREME COURT

OPINION AND ORDER

Dale Anthony Brinker was admitted to the practice of law in the

Commonwealth on October 1, 1982. His KBA Member Number is 07614, and

his bar roster address is 301 Pike Street, Covington, KY 41011. He has been

temporarily suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky since 2013. 1 The

Board of Governors requests that this Court adopt its recommendations and

find Brinker guilty of violating two rules of professional conduct, permanently

disbar him from the practice of law in Kentucky, and assess against him the

certified costs associated with these proceedings.

On or about May 11, 2022, Brinker entered a guilty plea to three counts

of theft by unlawful taking, more than $10,000 but less than $1,000,000. 2

Those criminal charges arose when Brinker took money or property from two

1 Although the record provided by the Board of Governors is unclear, we

presume this to be true based on Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Brinker, 397 S.W.3d 398 (Ky. 2013), which was the most recent opinion and order from this Court suspending Brinker and also on the KBA’s website continuing to list Brinker’s status as “suspended.” https://www.kybar.org/members/?id=32256347&hhSearchTerms=%22Dale+and+Ant hony+and+Brinker%22 (last accessed April 3, 2025). 2 Theft by unlawful taking of property worth more than $10,000 but less than

$1,000,000 is a Class C felony. KRS 514.030(2)(g). different estates for which he was serving as the executor and trustee in

Campbell County. It is unclear from the record what sentence he received as a

result of these convictions.

In a separate matter, on an unspecified date, Brinker entered guilty pleas

to two counts theft by unlawful taking, more than $10,000 but less than

$1,000,000 and one count of theft by unlawful taking, more than $500 but less

than $10,000. 3 Those charges arose from Brinker taking money from an estate

in Kenton County. Brinker received ten-year suspended sentences to be served

concurrently on the charges of theft by unlawful taking, more than $10,000

but less than $1,000,000, and received a five-year suspended sentence for his

conviction of theft by unlawful taking, more than $500 but less than $10,000

to be served consecutively with his sentence on the other two counts.

On or about May 4, 2023, approximately one year after his guilty plea to

the criminal charges out of Campbell County, the Inquiry Commission issued a

Complaint to Brinker which was served on July 19, 2023. 4 The Complaint

informed Brinker that the Commission required additional information

regarding his foregoing actions and charges and that failure to respond could

result in additional charges. Brinker did not respond to the Complaint.

3 Theft by unlawful taking of property worth more than $500 but less than

$10,000 is a Class A misdemeanor. KRS 514.030(2)(d). 4 It is unclear why the Inquiry Commission process did not begin until one year

later.

2 On October 23, 2023, the Inquiry Commission filed a two count Charge

against Brinker asserting he violated SCR 3.130(8.4)(b)(“It is professional

misconduct for a lawyer to. . .commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on

the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”)

and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b)(“A lawyer in connection with. . . a disciplinary matter

shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an

admissions or disciplinary authority.”). Service of the Charge was attempted

via certified mail to Brinker’s bar roster address on November 6, 2023. It was

returned as “not deliverable as addressed unable to forward.” Service of the

Charge was attempted at numerous other addresses and the Office of Bar

Counsel also tried to serve Brinker via the Kenton County Sheriff and the

Campbell County Sheriff to no avail. Brinker did not file an answer or

otherwise respond to the Charge and an order of submission was filed on

September 30, 2024.

As Brinker failed to respond, the Charge went before the Board of

Governors by default. SCR 3.210. The Board of Governors unanimously found

Brinker guilty of both SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b). It then

considered his ample prior discipline. Brinker’s history began on March 29,

1991, when he received a private admonition for violating SCR 3.130(1.10)

regarding imputed disqualification. On October 21, 2010, he was suspended

for CLE noncompliance. On June 14, 2011, he received a private admonition

for violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) by continuing to practice law after his

suspension and by failing to notify clients of his suspension, violating SCR

3 3.130(5.5)(a) by practicing law after his license was suspended, and violating

SCR 3.130(5.5)(b)(2) by holding himself out as a licensed attorney after his

suspension. On an unspecified date he received a one-year suspension to run

consecutively with his suspension for CLE noncompliance, plus restitution of

$7,500 to the Dinsmore & Shohl IOLTA account and a $1,500 fine ordered by

Boone Circuit Court for violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) by knowingly disobeying the

rules of a tribunal, SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) by failing to respond to a bar complaint,

and SCR 3.130(8.4)(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

deceit or misrepresentation by representing to the court he would not prevent a

check from clearing and then revoking it. On April 25, 2013, he received yet

another one-year suspension to run consecutive to the others for violating SCR

3.130(5.5)(a) by practicing law while suspended and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) by

failing to respond to a bar complaint. Finally, on December 19, 2013, he

received a public reprimand for violating SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) by failing to

respond to a bar complaint.

The Board of Governors then considered the aggravating and mitigating

factors in the case. It concluded the applicable aggravating factors were: prior

disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, bad faith

obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings, substantial experience in the

practice of law, and illegal conduct. As Brinker did not participate in the

proceedings, the Board was unaware of any mitigating factors.

Based on the foregoing, as well as Section 5.11(a) of the American Bar

Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions which states that

4 “[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious

criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes. . . misrepresentation,

fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft[,]” the Board unanimously voted to

recommend to this Court that Brinker be permanently disbarred from the

practice of law in Kentucky and that he pay the costs associated with the

proceedings against him.

As neither Brinker nor the Office of Bar Counsel has filed a notice of

review in this Court, we may choose to either review the Board’s decision

further or adopt its recommendations. See SCR 3.370(9),(10). There is of

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Matthews
131 S.W.3d 744 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2004)
Caudill v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n
155 S.W.3d 725 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2005)
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Brinker
397 S.W.3d 398 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Dale Anthony Brinker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dale-anthony-brinker-ky-2025.