TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0489-KB
IN RE: SCOTT WHITE
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Scott White was admitted to the practice of law with the Kentucky Bar
Association (KBA) on November 17, 1994. His KBA number is 85595, and his
bar roster address is 184 S. Main Street Versailles, KY 40383.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2), White has filed a
motion requesting that this Court enter an order suspending him from the
practice of law for thirty days, probated for one year, for the misconduct alleged
in Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) files No. 22-DIS-0216 and 22-DIS-0278.
OBC File 22-DIS-0216
Dorothea Wingo hired White on March 15, 2018, to represent her in
post-divorce matters related to child custody and support, the division of
retirement investments, and the division of proceeds from the sale of the
marital home in Woodford Circuit Court. 1 On the same day, White sent an
email to Ms. Wingo confirming the representation. Ms. Wingo paid White a
1 Wingo v. Wingo, No. 15-CI-0303. $3,000.00 up front fee and another $3,000.00 nearly a year later on January 3,
2019.
On October 24, 2020, Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a Motion to Modify Child
Support and for Accounting. Mr. Wingo’s counsel emailed White a copy of the
motion on the day it was filed, but White did not file a response. On November
19, 2020, the circuit court entered an order requiring the parties to attend
mediation within 60 days, with the costs to be divided equally by the parties.
On February 17, 2021, Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a renewed Motion to Modify
Child Support. The motion noted that it had been well-over 60 days since the
court had ordered the parties to attend mediation and that her repeated
attempts to contact White had gone unanswered. Counsel specified that White
had sent her emails on January 6, 2021, and February 8, 2021, indicating that
he was “on it,” but he had not yet followed through with scheduling mediation.
On March 4, 2021, White requested a continuance to file a response to
Mr. Wingo’s renewed motion, and the court entered an order requiring White to
file and serve his response by March 15. White never filed a response. On
April 2, 2021, the court entered an order granting Mr. Wingo’s Motion to Modify
Child Support. The court further ordered an equal division of the $10,000.00
being held in White’s escrow account from the sale of the marital home. The
order directed White to transfer $5,000.00 to Mr. Wingo within ten days of the
entry of the order. Three days after the deadline for the money transfer, Mr.
Wingo told Ms. Wingo about the April 2 order. Ms. Wingo emailed White the
2 next morning regarding the order and he responded that he had received it, but
he did not inform Ms. Wingo about it until she contacted him.
On the same day Mr. Wingo informed Ms. Wingo of the April 2 order, Mr.
Wingo’s counsel sent White a letter with a courtesy copy via email stating that
neither she nor her client had received the $5,000.00 from White’s escrow
account and that he needed to send it immediately. White responded by email
that he would “get the check right out.”
The following day, April 16, Ms. Wingo filed a pro se motion for a hearing
and a motion to alter, amend, or vacate. The court placed her motion on the
docket for May 6. On April 19, White sent Ms. Wingo an email stating his
intention to file a CR 60.02 motion “immediately.” Three days later White still
had not filed the motion and told Ms. Wingo that he “[hoped] to have the draft
ready tomorrow.”
On April 24, 2021, Mr. Wingo’s counsel field a motion to hold White in
contempt for failing to distribute the funds from the escrow account and
requested that he be ordered to pay $500.00 in attorney’s fee. On May 5,
White filed a Response to Motion for Contempt, Motion Under CR 60.02, and
Motion to Shorten Time and Hear Motion on May 5, 2021. The hearing for the
contempt matter was originally scheduled for June 17, 2021. One day prior to
that hearing White requested a continuance until July 1. In the email
requesting the continuance, White claimed he was not receiving timely notice
from the court because mail was being sent to his former law firm. White
contacted the court and verified the address. Ms. Wingo had previously
3 emailed White about the June 17 hearing twice, but he did not respond. On
June 17 White sent Ms. Wingo a text message admitting that he “100%
dropped the ball.”
A hearing was held on July 1, 2021. In relevant part, the court denied
Ms. Wingo’s pro se motion to alter, amend, or vacate because it was not filed
within ten days of the entry of the order; found there were no pending CR
60.02 motions and no grounds for modification pursuant to that rule; and
ordered White to issue Mr. Wingo a $5,000.00 check from his escrow account
and have it available to be picked up by Mr. Wingo’s counsel the following day.
White and Mr. Wingo’s counsel signed an order agreeing to the foregoing terms,
including that the motion for contempt was overruled.
On July 29, 2021, White filed a Motion to Set Aside Contempt Order and
Hold Hearing on Substantive issues, including the division of the $10,000.00
proceeds from the sale of the marital home. Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a
response on August 9, 2021. On August 19 the court ordered White to file his
reply to that response by August 27. White filed his reply on August 26.
OBC sent Ms. Wingo’s bar complaint to White by certified mail and a
return receipt was received by OBC on August 23, 2022. White did not sign
the receipt. On November 3, 2022, White sent OBC a motion for additional
time to respond to the complaint. OBC did not object to White’s motion and
the Inquiry Commission entered an order giving White until the end of
November to respond and advised him that failure to respond could result in
an additional charge of misconduct. White never responded to the complaint.
4 Before this Court, White admits his actions violated the following rules:
1.) SCR 3.130(1.3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,” by failing to
provide the necessary work toward his client’s case.
2.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter,” by failing to keep
his client updated about the status of her case.
3.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(4), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . promptly
comply with reasonably requests for information,” by failing to reply to his
client’s communications about the representation.
4.) SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall not . . .
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an
open refusal bases on an assertion that no valid obligation exists,” by failing to
comply with court orders relating to his representation of his client.
5.) SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), which states in relevant part, in connection with
a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,” by
failing to file a response to the Bar Complaint despite receiving notification the
Inquiry Commission, through the OBC counsel, required information
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-0489-KB
IN RE: SCOTT WHITE
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Scott White was admitted to the practice of law with the Kentucky Bar
Association (KBA) on November 17, 1994. His KBA number is 85595, and his
bar roster address is 184 S. Main Street Versailles, KY 40383.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2), White has filed a
motion requesting that this Court enter an order suspending him from the
practice of law for thirty days, probated for one year, for the misconduct alleged
in Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) files No. 22-DIS-0216 and 22-DIS-0278.
OBC File 22-DIS-0216
Dorothea Wingo hired White on March 15, 2018, to represent her in
post-divorce matters related to child custody and support, the division of
retirement investments, and the division of proceeds from the sale of the
marital home in Woodford Circuit Court. 1 On the same day, White sent an
email to Ms. Wingo confirming the representation. Ms. Wingo paid White a
1 Wingo v. Wingo, No. 15-CI-0303. $3,000.00 up front fee and another $3,000.00 nearly a year later on January 3,
2019.
On October 24, 2020, Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a Motion to Modify Child
Support and for Accounting. Mr. Wingo’s counsel emailed White a copy of the
motion on the day it was filed, but White did not file a response. On November
19, 2020, the circuit court entered an order requiring the parties to attend
mediation within 60 days, with the costs to be divided equally by the parties.
On February 17, 2021, Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a renewed Motion to Modify
Child Support. The motion noted that it had been well-over 60 days since the
court had ordered the parties to attend mediation and that her repeated
attempts to contact White had gone unanswered. Counsel specified that White
had sent her emails on January 6, 2021, and February 8, 2021, indicating that
he was “on it,” but he had not yet followed through with scheduling mediation.
On March 4, 2021, White requested a continuance to file a response to
Mr. Wingo’s renewed motion, and the court entered an order requiring White to
file and serve his response by March 15. White never filed a response. On
April 2, 2021, the court entered an order granting Mr. Wingo’s Motion to Modify
Child Support. The court further ordered an equal division of the $10,000.00
being held in White’s escrow account from the sale of the marital home. The
order directed White to transfer $5,000.00 to Mr. Wingo within ten days of the
entry of the order. Three days after the deadline for the money transfer, Mr.
Wingo told Ms. Wingo about the April 2 order. Ms. Wingo emailed White the
2 next morning regarding the order and he responded that he had received it, but
he did not inform Ms. Wingo about it until she contacted him.
On the same day Mr. Wingo informed Ms. Wingo of the April 2 order, Mr.
Wingo’s counsel sent White a letter with a courtesy copy via email stating that
neither she nor her client had received the $5,000.00 from White’s escrow
account and that he needed to send it immediately. White responded by email
that he would “get the check right out.”
The following day, April 16, Ms. Wingo filed a pro se motion for a hearing
and a motion to alter, amend, or vacate. The court placed her motion on the
docket for May 6. On April 19, White sent Ms. Wingo an email stating his
intention to file a CR 60.02 motion “immediately.” Three days later White still
had not filed the motion and told Ms. Wingo that he “[hoped] to have the draft
ready tomorrow.”
On April 24, 2021, Mr. Wingo’s counsel field a motion to hold White in
contempt for failing to distribute the funds from the escrow account and
requested that he be ordered to pay $500.00 in attorney’s fee. On May 5,
White filed a Response to Motion for Contempt, Motion Under CR 60.02, and
Motion to Shorten Time and Hear Motion on May 5, 2021. The hearing for the
contempt matter was originally scheduled for June 17, 2021. One day prior to
that hearing White requested a continuance until July 1. In the email
requesting the continuance, White claimed he was not receiving timely notice
from the court because mail was being sent to his former law firm. White
contacted the court and verified the address. Ms. Wingo had previously
3 emailed White about the June 17 hearing twice, but he did not respond. On
June 17 White sent Ms. Wingo a text message admitting that he “100%
dropped the ball.”
A hearing was held on July 1, 2021. In relevant part, the court denied
Ms. Wingo’s pro se motion to alter, amend, or vacate because it was not filed
within ten days of the entry of the order; found there were no pending CR
60.02 motions and no grounds for modification pursuant to that rule; and
ordered White to issue Mr. Wingo a $5,000.00 check from his escrow account
and have it available to be picked up by Mr. Wingo’s counsel the following day.
White and Mr. Wingo’s counsel signed an order agreeing to the foregoing terms,
including that the motion for contempt was overruled.
On July 29, 2021, White filed a Motion to Set Aside Contempt Order and
Hold Hearing on Substantive issues, including the division of the $10,000.00
proceeds from the sale of the marital home. Mr. Wingo’s counsel filed a
response on August 9, 2021. On August 19 the court ordered White to file his
reply to that response by August 27. White filed his reply on August 26.
OBC sent Ms. Wingo’s bar complaint to White by certified mail and a
return receipt was received by OBC on August 23, 2022. White did not sign
the receipt. On November 3, 2022, White sent OBC a motion for additional
time to respond to the complaint. OBC did not object to White’s motion and
the Inquiry Commission entered an order giving White until the end of
November to respond and advised him that failure to respond could result in
an additional charge of misconduct. White never responded to the complaint.
4 Before this Court, White admits his actions violated the following rules:
1.) SCR 3.130(1.3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,” by failing to
provide the necessary work toward his client’s case.
2.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter,” by failing to keep
his client updated about the status of her case.
3.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(4), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . promptly
comply with reasonably requests for information,” by failing to reply to his
client’s communications about the representation.
4.) SCR 3.130(3.4)(c), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall not . . .
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an
open refusal bases on an assertion that no valid obligation exists,” by failing to
comply with court orders relating to his representation of his client.
5.) SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), which states in relevant part, in connection with
a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,” by
failing to file a response to the Bar Complaint despite receiving notification the
Inquiry Commission, through the OBC counsel, required information
regarding the complaint, and despite having received a warning that failure to
respond to the demand for information could result in additional charges
under this rule.
5 OBC File 22-DIS-0278
In December 2021, Justin Tomey hired White to represent him and his
sister in a sexual abuse case. Mr. Tomey paid White a $5,000.00 retainer.
They did not have a written representation agreement. White filed a complaint
on Mr. Tomey’s behalf in the Fayette Circuit Court in May 2022. Mr. Tomey
had requested that the complaint be filed in Woodford County where an estate
case he was involved in was also pending. 2 White did not notify Mr. Tomey
that he filed the complaint in Fayette County until after it was filed.
White did not provide the necessary work to pursue Mr. Tomey’s case in
Fayette County, and the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties after
the Woodford Circuit Court case was settled. Mr. Tomey requested, by email,
text, and phone, an accounting of the retainer he paid White. White never
provided an accounting nor did he refund any unearned portion of the prepaid
fee. White likewise did not provide Mr. Tomey copies of the pleadings from the
Fayette Circuit case upon his request nor did he provide Mr. Tomey with a copy
of his client file.
White was served with Mr. Tomey’s bar complaint via certified mail,
which White signed for, on November 14, 2022. A letter from the Inquiry
Commission accompanying the complaint informed him that a failure to
respond could result in an additional count of misconduct. Ostensibly, White
did not respond to the complaint.
2 Mr. Tomey was represented by other counsel in the estate case.
6 White admits his actions violated the following rules:
1.) SCR 3.130(1.3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,” by failing to
provide the necessary work to pursue his client’s case.
2.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter,” by failing to keep
his client updated about the status of the case.
3.) SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(4), which provides, “[a] lawyer shall . . . promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information,” by failing to reply to his
4.) SCR 3.130(1.15)(b), which provides, in relevant part, “[e]xcept as
stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the
client a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client any funds or other property
that the client is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property,” by failing to deliver
to his client an accounting of the prepaid fees despite receiving multiple
requests.
5.) SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), which provides, in relevant part, “[u]pon
termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . surrendering
papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance
payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred,” by failing to
7 provide his client a copy of the file and any unearned portion of the prepaid fee
after the representation was terminated.
6.) SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), which states in part, in connection with a
disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,” by
failing to respond to the Bar Complaint, despite receiving notification the
Inquiry Commission, through the OBC, required information regarding the
complaint, and despite having received a warning failure to respond to that
demand for information could result in additional charges under this rule.
Pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), 3 White asks this Court to impose a negotiated
sanction of thirty days suspension, probated for one year, for his misconduct in
22-DIS-0216 and 22-DIS-0278 in lieu of further proceedings against him. The
OBC’s response to White’s motion states that it has no objection to White’s
recitation of the facts or his requested sanction and highlights that White has
no previous disciplinary history despite practicing since 1994. OBC provides
KBA v. Bader, 529 S.W.3d 774 (Ky. 2017) in support of the sanction. In Bader,
a circuit court judge filed a bar complaint against Bader after holding him in
3 SCR 3.480(2) provides in relevant part: “The Court may consider negotiated
sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges prior to the commencement of a hearing before a Trial Commissioner under SCR 3.240. Any member who is under investigation pursuant to SCR 3.160(2) or who has a complaint or charge pending in this jurisdiction, and who desires to terminate such investigation or disciplinary proceedings at any stage of it may request Bar Counsel to consider a negotiated sanction. If the member and Bar Counsel agree upon the specifics of the facts, the rules violated, and the appropriate sanction, the member shall file a motion with the Court. . . .The Court may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or may remand the case for hearing or other proceedings specified in the order of remand.”
8 contempt on three separate occasions for failing to appear to represent the
interests of his clients. Id. at 775. Bader failed to respond to requests for
information filed by KBA counsel and the trial commissioner during the KBA’s
proceedings against him. Id. This Court adjudged Bader guilty of violating one
count of SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) and one count of SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) and imposed a
thirty-day suspension with costs. Id. at 776.
This Court holds the parties’ negotiated sanction is appropriate for the
misconduct alleged and finding no reason to remand for further proceedings,
hereby orders:
1.) Scott White shall be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, probated for one year, subject to the conditions listed herein;
2.) Scott White shall receive a KYLAP assessment and provide proof to the OBC within 30 days of this Order;
3.) Scott White shall comply with all recommendations of any KYLAP monitoring agreement, if recommended, and shall provide quarterly status updates to OBC confirming his compliance;
4.) Scott White shall sign authorizations allowing the OBC to review his records held by KYLAP, mental health professionals, social workers, and any and all medical records and mental health records;
5.) Scott White shall provide an accounting of the prepaid fee he received from Justin Tomey, refund any unearned portion of that fee, and provide proof of refund to OBC withing 30 days of this Order;
6.) Scott White shall receive no new disciplinary charges issued by the Inquiry Commission;
7.) Scott White shall timely pay his Kentucky Bar Association membership dues;
8.) Scott White shall timely satisfy all continuing legal education requirements; and
9 9.) Scott White shall pay the certified costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $534.89 pursuant to SCR 3.450.
Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, Nickell, and Thompson, JJ., sitting. All
concur. VanMeter, C.J., not sitting.
ENTERED: December 19, 2024.
______________________________________ DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE