In Re: F. Dennis Alerding

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky 2026-SC-0174-KB

IN RE: F. DENNIS ALERDING

IN SUPREME COURT

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon F. Dennis Alerding’s Motion for Probated Suspension, pursuant to SCR 3.480(2). His bar number is 00625. Alerding was admitted to practice in 1971. He is at this point, presumably, in his seventies with more than fifty years’ experience in the practice of law. Yet and still this is not the first time Alerding has come before this Court upon charges of violating SCR 3.130(1.15)(a), failing to hold client’s funds in a separate account, and SCR 3.130(1.15)(e), failure to deposit advance fees in a client account. This is his fourth violation of SCR 3.130(1.15) and fifth violation of our rules of professional conduct overall. Accordingly, we conclude the proposed sanction is inadequate and remand for further proceedings.

As represented by the Office of Bar Counsel’s (OBC) response, Alerding

received a $5,000 unearned fee in the form of a bail refund check in connection with his representation of Summer Oldham. There was no signed fee agreement. Instead of depositing that money into a trust account, he cashed the check and put the money into a drawer in his office, taking it out as he expended time on the case.

He kept no records in connection with the funds.

Alerding admits this conduct violated SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) 1 and SCR 3.130(1.15)(e). 2 Alerding and the OBC contend a sixty-one-day suspension, probated for two years, is consistent with previous cases. We disagree.

In Thompson v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, the attorney was given a sixty-one-

day suspension, with thirty-one days probated for two years, for several violations of our rules, including the two rules at issue here. 360 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Ky. 2012). But Thompson’s past disciplinary history was only a private reprimand in 2011. Id. at 240.

In Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Justice, we imposed a thirty-day suspension upon an attorney for violating five separate rules, including SCR 3.130(1.15)(a). 198 S.W.3d 583, 584 (Ky. 2006). That attorney’s disciplinary history was four private reprimands issued by the Inquiry Commission. Id.

In Forbush-Moss v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, we imposed a sixty-one-day suspension, probated for two years, for four separate violations of our rules, including the two rules at issue here. 458 S.W.3d 300, 300-01 (Ky. 2015). Although we noted the attorney “does have a past disciplinary record[,]” no detail was given. Id. at 302. There are no other published opinions or orders

1 “A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's

possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the lawyer's office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client, third person, or both in the event of a claim by each to the property.”

2 “Except for advance fees as provided in 1.5(f), a lawyer shall deposit into a

client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.”

3

from this Court regarding Mrs. Forbush-Moss other than the one just cited, so we can safely assume these must have been private reprimands. This assumption is buttressed by our citation to Thompson, 360 S.W.3d at 239 for support. Id.

Finally, the cases the OBC cites in support are all distinguishable as all involved first offenses. For example, the attorney in Snyder v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, “in his forty years of practice, has no disciplinary history in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.” 437 S.W.3d 141, 144 (Ky. 2014). For all the other cases, no prior disciplinary history is mentioned in the opinions, and a Westlaw search reveals that no previous cases involving attorney discipline exist for the attorneys. Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Bubenzer, 145 S.W.3d 842, 842 (Ky. 2004); Stanziano-Sparks v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 552 S.W.3d 507 (Ky. 2018); 3 Keen v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 386 S.W.3d 737 (Ky. 2012). 4 Alerding’s own disciplinary history is in stark contrast to the cases cited.

This is not his first offense, but rather his fifth overall offense, as well as his fourth offense for violating SCR 3.130(1.15). He was given a private reprimand for violating SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) in 2018. He was given a public reprimand for

3 Stanziano-Sparks is currently under temporary suspension for a separate violation. Inquiry Comm'n v. Stanziano-Sparks, 653 S.W.3d 881 (Ky. 2022).

4 Keen would subsequently violate the conditions of his probated sentence, and

we imposed the thirty-day suspension. Keen v. Ky. Bar Ass’n., 441 S.W.3d 89, 90 (Ky. 2014). The discipline for the new violations took into account his previous disciplinary history, imposing “a longer probationary period and a potentially longer suspension under these proposed disciplinary actions.” Keen v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 443 S.W.3d 607, 608 (Ky. 2014).

4

violating SCR 3.130(1.15)(e) in 2023. Alerding v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 671 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Ky. 2023). But Alerding was suspended from the practice of law for ninety days for violating SCR 3.130(1.15) in 2001. Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Alerding, 57 S.W.3d 297, 298 (Ky. 2001). Our opinion in 2023 made no mention of the 2001 case, and the OBC makes no mention of it in its response to Alerding’s motion now under consideration. Alerding made no mention of any of his past disciplinary actions in his motion. As the OBC accurately notes, “his disciplinary history demonstrates a pattern of similar violations related to these rules, occurring even after his participation in the Trust Account Management Program.” Lastly, Alerding was also publicly reprimanded for violating SCR 3.130(8.3)(c) in 1996. Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Alerding, 929 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Ky. 1996). No mention of this case is found in our 2023 opinion or the OBC’s response to Alerding’s present motion.

Given Alerding’s repeated violations of the same rule over the course of his career, a probated suspension for a fourth violation of the same rule is too lenient. Alerding paid the piper for his violation of SCR 3.130(1.15) back in 2001 with a ninety-day suspension, and his repeated violations of this rule since 2018 represent a backsliding that has heretofore been treated with leniency.

It is rare for an attorney to be disciplined four separate times involving the same rule over the course of his career. Nor are we aware of any other instance in which the first offense merited a suspension, yet subsequent offenses for violating the same rule were treated with the lesser sanction of

5

reprimands. Typically, the opposite occurs, and subsequent offenses are treated with increasing severity. See e.g., Justice v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 232 S.W.3d 527, 528 (Ky. 2007) (rejecting agreed upon sanction of thirty days’ suspension because attorney had previously received a thirty-day suspension “for conduct nearly identical to that recited herein.” A sixty-day suspension was instead imposed.). Whether our private and public reprimands of Alerding in 2018 and 2023, without seemingly taking into account the suspension in 2001, was done mistakenly or intentionally is of no moment. The fact remains Alerding has received lenient treatment the last two times he has violated SCR 3.130(1.15), yet he continues to violate the same rule. The camel’s back is now broken.

For the aforementioned reasons, we reject the proposed discipline.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. F. Dennis Alerding's motion for this Court to impose a sixty-one-day

suspension, probated for two years with conditions, is denied.

2. Alerding's KBA file shall be remanded to the KBA for further disciplinary proceedings pursuant to SCR 3.480(2). In the event Alerding and Bar Counsel fail to reach a different proposal for consensual discipline within ninety 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.

All sitting. Lambert, C.J.; and Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, and Nickell, JJ., concur. Keller, J., dissents by separate opinion which Thompson, J., joins.

6

KELLER, J., DISSENTING: Respectfully, I dissent. Based upon the facts surrounding payment of the fee contained in the record before us, I would honor the negotiated agreement and the recommendations of the OBC.

Thompson, J., joins.

ENTERED: August 20, 2026.

______________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE