TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0331-KB
IN RE: GLENN MARTIN HAMMOND
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Glenn Martin Hammond, whose Kentucky Bar Association
(KBA) Member Number is 86174, was admitted to practice law in Kentucky on
May 1, 2006. His bar roster address is 5476 North Mayo Trail, P.O. Box 1109,
Pikeville, Kentucky 41502. The Board of Governors of the KBA (Board)
considered multiple charges of professional misconduct arising from two
separate disciplinary actions and, by a vote of 13-5, found Hammond guilty of
three ethical violations. By the same vote, the Board has recommended
Hammond receive a public reprimand, attend ethics school involving
supervision of employees and keeping clients informed, and bear the costs of
these proceedings. Neither the KBA nor Hammond have requested further
review pursuant to SCR 1 3.370(8), and we decline to conduct independent
review pursuant to SCR 3.378(9). Thus, we adopt the decision of the Board
pursuant to SCR 3.378(10).
1 Rules of the Supreme Court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. KBA File 18-DIS-0256
William Compton and Donald Bentley hired Hammond to pursue various
personal injury claims against Signature Healthcare and others on behalf of a
deceased relative’s estate. While Hammond initially met with both Compton
and Bentley, he primarily communicated with Compton. Compton and Bentley
purportedly filled out an intake form and signed a contingency fee agreement.
However, Hammond claims these documents, which his office routinely
handles, were lost during the transition from a paper-based filing system to
electronic recordkeeping.
Hammond obtained the decedent’s medical records and evaluated the
facts of the matter. Because the estate had been administratively closed,
Hammond took the appropriate steps to revive any potential claims and
eventually filed suit in Floyd Circuit Court.
Upon commencing the action, Hammond prosecuted the case by taking
depositions, retaining experts, answering interrogatories, and otherwise
preparing for trial. He also pursued settlement negotiations. Four years
elapsed between the filing of suit and the beginning of trial. The delay was
attributed to several continuances, including the unavailability of expert
witnesses and a tampered jury pool.
During the discovery phase, Hammond sent medical records and bills to
Signature Healthcare but failed to provide a requested itemization of the total
amount of damages until the night before the first day of trial. Signature
2 Healthcare moved the trial court to preclude any claim for damages at trial
pursuant to CR 2 8.01(2) 3 and the trial court’s discovery orders. 4 At the hearing
on the motion, Hammond argued his production of medical bills and other
records placed Signature Healthcare on notice as to the amount of damages.
The trial court disagreed and concluded Hammond’s failure to timely
supplement his responses to interrogatories materially prejudiced Signature
Healthcare’s defense. Thus, the trial court granted Signature Healthcare’s
motions to preclude the claims for damages. Faced with this bleak prospect,
Hammond conferred with his clients and, after a short break, moved to dismiss
the case in open court. 5 The trial court orally granted Hammond’s motion to
dismiss and ordered Signature Healthcare to tender a proposed order to that
effect. Signature Healthcare tendered the required order, however, the trial
court did not immediately sign the order of dismissal for reasons undisclosed
by the record.
At this point, Hammond advised Compton and Bentley that they could
contact his malpractice insurance carrier to pursue recovery for their claims,
2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3 CR 8.01(2) provides in pertinent part that the amount of unliquidated
damages claimed by a plaintiff “shall not exceed the last amount stated in answer to interrogatories; provided, however, that the trial court has discretion to allow a supplement to the answer to interrogatories at any time where there has been no prejudice to the defendant.” 4 The trial court ordered the parties to disclose estimates of damage totals 30
days prior to trial. 5 Hammond specifically told his clients “the judge dismissed everything because
of the paperwork not being in . . . time.” He also told the clients he believed the judge was biased for political reasons.
3 although they did not avail themselves of this option. Approximately four
months later, Signature Healthcare filed a motion for a status conference to
address the lack of a final order dismissing the case. Hammond responded
and filed a motion pursuant to CR 60.02 requesting the trial court to re-docket
the case. As grounds for the motion, Hammond again argued that he had
complied with the applicable rules and orders and further accused Signature
Healthcare’s trial attorneys of fraudulently misrepresenting the pertinent facts.
The trial court refused to re-docket the case and entered an order of dismissal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hammond’s subsequent appeal as being
improperly taken from a voluntary dismissal.
Despite the dismissal of the appeal, Hammond subsequently secured a
settlement with Signature Healthcare for $35,000.00, to be paid to Compton
and Bentley in five installments. In addition to the settlement, Hammond
secured a waiver of Medicare lien that had been placed upon the estate.
Hammond did not take any fee from the settlement but requested
reimbursement of expenses. Compton was the only administrator of the estate
who signed the settlement release. Bentley had no knowledge of the settlement
or the terms of the distribution. The record is unclear whether Hammond
failed to properly inform Bentley or whether Bentley voluntarily ceased
communicating with Hammond.
Bentley filed a bar complaint on September 7, 2018. Following an
investigation, the Inquiry Commission charged Hammond with violating:
4 (1) SCR 3.130(1.1) and (1.3) by failing to provide competent representation to the estate and by failing to diligently proceed with its case;
(2) SCR 3.130 (1.5)(b) and/or (1.5)(c) by failing to communicate the basis or rate of the fee within a reasonable time after commencing the representation and/by failing to reduce a contingent fee agreement to a writing signed by the client; and
(3) SCR 3.130 (8.1)(a) and (8.4)(c), by knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with this disciplinary matter.
The Inquiry Commission later amended the charges to allege an additional
count of violating of SCR 3.130(8.1)(a) and (8.4)(c) by submitting fraudulent
documents in connection with this disciplinary matter. Prior to a hearing on
the matter, the KBA agreed to dismiss the charges pertaining to false
statements and fraudulent documentation.
B. KBA File 20-DIS-0012
In 2016, Johnny and Cindy Patton 6 contacted Hammond about a
possible claim relating to defective coal dust masks. Johnny left the last mask
he used with Hammond. After Johnny passed away in 2017, Cindy contacted
Hammond’s office and executed the necessary paperwork to continue the
pursuit of the case. For over a year, she repeatedly attempted to contact
Hammond for additional information but did not receive a response other than
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0331-KB
IN RE: GLENN MARTIN HAMMOND
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Glenn Martin Hammond, whose Kentucky Bar Association
(KBA) Member Number is 86174, was admitted to practice law in Kentucky on
May 1, 2006. His bar roster address is 5476 North Mayo Trail, P.O. Box 1109,
Pikeville, Kentucky 41502. The Board of Governors of the KBA (Board)
considered multiple charges of professional misconduct arising from two
separate disciplinary actions and, by a vote of 13-5, found Hammond guilty of
three ethical violations. By the same vote, the Board has recommended
Hammond receive a public reprimand, attend ethics school involving
supervision of employees and keeping clients informed, and bear the costs of
these proceedings. Neither the KBA nor Hammond have requested further
review pursuant to SCR 1 3.370(8), and we decline to conduct independent
review pursuant to SCR 3.378(9). Thus, we adopt the decision of the Board
pursuant to SCR 3.378(10).
1 Rules of the Supreme Court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. KBA File 18-DIS-0256
William Compton and Donald Bentley hired Hammond to pursue various
personal injury claims against Signature Healthcare and others on behalf of a
deceased relative’s estate. While Hammond initially met with both Compton
and Bentley, he primarily communicated with Compton. Compton and Bentley
purportedly filled out an intake form and signed a contingency fee agreement.
However, Hammond claims these documents, which his office routinely
handles, were lost during the transition from a paper-based filing system to
electronic recordkeeping.
Hammond obtained the decedent’s medical records and evaluated the
facts of the matter. Because the estate had been administratively closed,
Hammond took the appropriate steps to revive any potential claims and
eventually filed suit in Floyd Circuit Court.
Upon commencing the action, Hammond prosecuted the case by taking
depositions, retaining experts, answering interrogatories, and otherwise
preparing for trial. He also pursued settlement negotiations. Four years
elapsed between the filing of suit and the beginning of trial. The delay was
attributed to several continuances, including the unavailability of expert
witnesses and a tampered jury pool.
During the discovery phase, Hammond sent medical records and bills to
Signature Healthcare but failed to provide a requested itemization of the total
amount of damages until the night before the first day of trial. Signature
2 Healthcare moved the trial court to preclude any claim for damages at trial
pursuant to CR 2 8.01(2) 3 and the trial court’s discovery orders. 4 At the hearing
on the motion, Hammond argued his production of medical bills and other
records placed Signature Healthcare on notice as to the amount of damages.
The trial court disagreed and concluded Hammond’s failure to timely
supplement his responses to interrogatories materially prejudiced Signature
Healthcare’s defense. Thus, the trial court granted Signature Healthcare’s
motions to preclude the claims for damages. Faced with this bleak prospect,
Hammond conferred with his clients and, after a short break, moved to dismiss
the case in open court. 5 The trial court orally granted Hammond’s motion to
dismiss and ordered Signature Healthcare to tender a proposed order to that
effect. Signature Healthcare tendered the required order, however, the trial
court did not immediately sign the order of dismissal for reasons undisclosed
by the record.
At this point, Hammond advised Compton and Bentley that they could
contact his malpractice insurance carrier to pursue recovery for their claims,
2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3 CR 8.01(2) provides in pertinent part that the amount of unliquidated
damages claimed by a plaintiff “shall not exceed the last amount stated in answer to interrogatories; provided, however, that the trial court has discretion to allow a supplement to the answer to interrogatories at any time where there has been no prejudice to the defendant.” 4 The trial court ordered the parties to disclose estimates of damage totals 30
days prior to trial. 5 Hammond specifically told his clients “the judge dismissed everything because
of the paperwork not being in . . . time.” He also told the clients he believed the judge was biased for political reasons.
3 although they did not avail themselves of this option. Approximately four
months later, Signature Healthcare filed a motion for a status conference to
address the lack of a final order dismissing the case. Hammond responded
and filed a motion pursuant to CR 60.02 requesting the trial court to re-docket
the case. As grounds for the motion, Hammond again argued that he had
complied with the applicable rules and orders and further accused Signature
Healthcare’s trial attorneys of fraudulently misrepresenting the pertinent facts.
The trial court refused to re-docket the case and entered an order of dismissal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hammond’s subsequent appeal as being
improperly taken from a voluntary dismissal.
Despite the dismissal of the appeal, Hammond subsequently secured a
settlement with Signature Healthcare for $35,000.00, to be paid to Compton
and Bentley in five installments. In addition to the settlement, Hammond
secured a waiver of Medicare lien that had been placed upon the estate.
Hammond did not take any fee from the settlement but requested
reimbursement of expenses. Compton was the only administrator of the estate
who signed the settlement release. Bentley had no knowledge of the settlement
or the terms of the distribution. The record is unclear whether Hammond
failed to properly inform Bentley or whether Bentley voluntarily ceased
communicating with Hammond.
Bentley filed a bar complaint on September 7, 2018. Following an
investigation, the Inquiry Commission charged Hammond with violating:
4 (1) SCR 3.130(1.1) and (1.3) by failing to provide competent representation to the estate and by failing to diligently proceed with its case;
(2) SCR 3.130 (1.5)(b) and/or (1.5)(c) by failing to communicate the basis or rate of the fee within a reasonable time after commencing the representation and/by failing to reduce a contingent fee agreement to a writing signed by the client; and
(3) SCR 3.130 (8.1)(a) and (8.4)(c), by knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with this disciplinary matter.
The Inquiry Commission later amended the charges to allege an additional
count of violating of SCR 3.130(8.1)(a) and (8.4)(c) by submitting fraudulent
documents in connection with this disciplinary matter. Prior to a hearing on
the matter, the KBA agreed to dismiss the charges pertaining to false
statements and fraudulent documentation.
B. KBA File 20-DIS-0012
In 2016, Johnny and Cindy Patton 6 contacted Hammond about a
possible claim relating to defective coal dust masks. Johnny left the last mask
he used with Hammond. After Johnny passed away in 2017, Cindy contacted
Hammond’s office and executed the necessary paperwork to continue the
pursuit of the case. For over a year, she repeatedly attempted to contact
Hammond for additional information but did not receive a response other than
more time was needed because the case was being pursued as a class action.
Cindy spoke to another lawyer who advised her in a hypothetical situation that
a statute of limitations issue could affect her ability to pursue the claim.
6 For clarity, we will refer to the Pattons by their first names.
5 On September 24, 2019, Cindy went to Hammond’s office and spoke with
a staff person who informed her that another staff member, Daniel Thacker,
would call her the following day. At the time, Thacker had graduated from law
school but had not passed the bar exam. Thacker called Cindy on September
30. On October 8, 2019, Cindy met with Thacker to discuss the statute of
limitations issue and other matters pertaining to the case. It later became
apparent that Thacker had provided Cindy inaccurate information. At Cindy’s
request, Thacker returned the dust mask Johnny had previously left with
Hammond.
A week after the meeting, Cindy sent a certified letter to Hammond and
Thacker asking whether the suit had been filed. Thacker was either fired or
resigned in late 2019. Cindy filed a bar complaint in December 2019, after her
letter to Hammond and Thacker went unanswered.
Following an investigation, the Inquiry Commission charged Hammond
with violating:
(1) SCR 3.130(5.3) by failing to appropriately instruct and/or supervise his unlicensed law clerk; and
(2) SCR 3.130(1.4) by failing to communicate and adequately respond to a client’s requests for information.
In May 2020, Hammond filed the class action suit, including the claim
for the estate of Johnny Patton. This matter remains ongoing, and
Hammond continues to represent Cindy.
6 C. Proceedings before the Trial Commissioner and Board
By order, the Inquiry Commission determined the charges arising from
the separate disciplinary files should be consolidated and heard together before
a trial commissioner. Pertinent to KBA File 18-DIS-0256, the trial
commissioner found Hammond did not violate the rules on competence and
diligence essentially reasoning that simple negligence, without more, does not
establish an ethical violation. Additionally, the trial commissioner noted any
delay caused by the multiple continuances were due to legitimate reasons
beyond Hammond’s control. The trial commissioner further found Hammond
guilty of violating SCR 3.130 (1.5)(b) and/or (c) with regard to his failure to
communicate the fee agreement to Bentley based on the lack of written
documentation and the clear evidence that Bentley had no knowledge of the
settlement or how the proceeds would be distributed.
Relative to KBA File 20-DIS-0012, the trial commissioner found
Hammond guilty of violating SCR 3.130(5.3) by failing to appropriately instruct
and/or supervise his unlicensed law clerk, and SCR 3.130(1.4) by failing to
communicate and adequately respond to a client’s requests for information.
These findings were based on Hammond’s testimony that he had no idea what
Thacker had told Cindy at the time of the meeting, but admitted he later
learned Thacker provided her with inaccurate information and inappropriately
returned key evidence. Additionally, the trial court commissioner found
Hammond did not adequately communicate with Cindy for an extended period
of time despite her repeated requests for updates and information.
7 After considering Hammond’s prior disciplinary history including a
private reprimand for similar misconduct, the trial commissioner recommended
a cumulative sanction in the form of a public reprimand, attending ethics
school, and bearing the costs of these proceedings. On review, the Board
determined, by a vote of 13-5, that the trial commissioner’s findings were
supported by substantial evidence and should be adopted. By the same vote,
the Board accepted the trial commissioner’s recommended sanction.
ADOPTION OF THE BOARD’S ORDER
The Board’s findings appear to be adequately supported by the record
and its recommended sanction of a public reprimand with conditions is
appropriate. Riley v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 262 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2008)
(concluding public reprimand was an appropriate sanction for failing to keep a
client adequately informed); Webster v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 183 S.W.3d 174,
176 (Ky. 2006) (“[W]e expect that with this public reprimand [attorney] will not
take such [contingency] fees again without a written client agreement as stated
in that rule.”); Croley v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 176 S.W.3d 136, 137 (Ky. 2005)
(concluding public reprimand was an appropriate sanction for failure to
supervise nonlawyer staff). We find additional support for the Board’s
imposition of a public reprimand based on Hammond’s disciplinary history.
Previously, Hammond received a private admonition for similar misconduct
when he failed to keep a client adequately informed and failed to reduce a
contingency fee agreement to writing.
8 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:
(1) Glenn Martin Hammond is publicly reprimanded for violations
of SCR 3.130 (1.4); SCR (1.5)(b) and/or (1.5)(c); and SCR 3.130(5.3);
(2) Hammond shall attend, at his own expense, ethics school
involving supervision of employees and keeping clients informed; and
(3) Pursuant to SCR 3.450, Hammond is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of
$3,822.26, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality
of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: October 24, 2024.
______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE