TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky 2024-SC-0551-KB
IN RE: WALTER BEDFORD, JR.
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Walter Bedford Jr. moves this Court to enter a negotiated sanction
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) to resolve a pending
disciplinary proceeding against him. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has
no objection. After consideration, we conclude that the proposed sanction is
adequate. We note preliminarily that Bedford, KBA Member Number 04250,
was admitted to the practice of law on October 1, 1974. His bar roster address
is 1801 William E Summers III Court, Louisville, KY 40211.
BACKGROUND
In May 2016, Bedford prepared a will for Clara Howard Jackson.
According to the will, Bedford was to be appointed executor of her estate, and
the sole beneficiary was her niece, Margaret Hayes, a friend of Bedford’s wife.
When Jackson died on December 30, 2019, she had over $7,000 in her
checking account. Nevertheless, Hayes personally paid for her aunt’s funeral
totaling $3,000 without reimbursement.
On July 14, 2020, Bedford texted Hayes that the proceeds of Jackson’s
bank account would be deposited into a probate account and distributed to her, but that never occurred. Bedford signed the probate petition on July 20,
2020, but did not file it with the Fayette District Court until March 9, 2021.
Additionally, Bedford missed the first two scheduled court dates on March 25,
2021 and June 28, 2021. In fact, Bedford only made one court appearance on
behalf of the estate on July 12, 2021, and was appointed as executor at that
time. After the court appointed him as the estate’s executor, Bedford informed
Hayes that he would be able to set up the probate account and “move matters
along.”
Over the next several months, Bedford wrote four checks from Jackson’s
account: (1) a check written to himself in the amount of $3,500 with a memo
noting it was for “Retainer Atty./exec. Current fee and cost advance;” (2) a
check to the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office on December 30, 2021, in the
amount of $1,385.50, to pay the property tax on the estate’s real property; (3) a
check written to himself, in the amount of $2,500, with a memo noting it was
for “balance 1/2 20% fee (illegible)/Jackson estate (illegible) waived Exec. Fee;”
and (4) a check written to himself, in the amount of $250, with a memo noting
it was for “Atty (illegible) Request Dec. checks.” Bank statements from
Jackson’s account show her balance decreased from $7,771.38 to $172.31
during this time period.
Because Bedford never filed an inventory or settlement in the estate, a
show cause order was issued but returned to sender as undeliverable. The
order was not sent to Bedford’s KBA roster address, despite that address being
included on the probate petition he filed.
2 In November 2022, Hayes had to pay the property taxes for the estate
after asking Bedford for a copy of the tax bill. Since three years had passed
without her aunt’s estate being settled, Hayes hired an attorney to facilitate the
conclusion of the probate process. Her attorney filed a motion on February 1,
2023 asking that Bedford be removed as the executor of the estate. That
motion was granted on March 15, 2023, and again the court sent the order to
the wrong address. Bedford never produced any documentation regarding the
estate’s assets or his expenditures.
Hayes filed a bar complaint against Beford on September 7, 2023. The
Inquiry Commission issued a three-count Charge against Bedford. Count I
alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.3) for failure to act with diligence and
promptness in handling the estate matter. Bedford admits that his actions
violated this rule. Count II alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) for failing to
safekeep the estate property. Bedford admits that sufficient proof exists to
allow the Court to find he violated this rule by writing himself checks from
Jackson’s estate for unearned fees, although Bedford states that at the time he
believed he was properly compensating himself for prior legal work performed
in drafting the will and in anticipation of completing the settlement of the
Jackson estate. Count III alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) for failing to
return the estate funds after being removed as executor. Bedford admits that
his actions violated this rule.
On September 19, 2024, Bedford submitted a request to the KBA to be
placed on Honorary Membership Inactive Status, expressing his intent to retire.
3 On December 10, 2024, Bedford filed a motion for a negotiated sanction with
this Court, proposing that he be publicly reprimanded for his conduct and
ordered to repay the unearned fee to the estate. The KBA has no objection.
ANALYSIS
The negotiated sanction rule provides that “[t]he Court may consider
negotiated sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges” if
the parties agree. SCR 3.480(2). Upon receiving a motion under this Rule,
“[t]he 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.” Id.
Thus, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction falls within the
discretion of this Court.
Case law supports the imposition of the sanction Bedford proposes. In
Stanziano-Sparks v. Kentucky Bar Association, 552 S.W.3d 507, 508 (Ky. 2018),
the Court issued a public reprimand of an attorney for violations of SCR
3.130(1.3) (diligence), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) (communication), SCR 3.130(1.15)
(safekeeping of property), and SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) (termination). Stanziano-
Sparks improperly placed unearned fees in her operating account, failed to
attend a scheduled court appearance or timely file a notice of appeal, and did
not return unearned fees to her former client. Id. at 507. In addition to a
public reprimand, she was ordered to repay the unearned legal fees. Id. at 508.
Like Stanziano-Sparks, Bedford collected unearned fees and failed to attend
scheduled court dates.
4 The Court also issued a public reprimand in Kentucky Bar Association v.
Legg, 537 S.W.3d 819 (Ky. 2018). Legg was retained to represent a client
regarding two estates to which she was named as the personal representative.
Id. at 820. But Legg did not file any pleadings and lacked sufficient
communication with his client. Id. He was charged with three ethical
violations, including lack of diligence, and the Court issued a public reprimand
and ordered Legg to repay his client the legal fees he collected. Id. at 820-21.
Similarly, the Court issued a public reprimand in Kentucky Bar Association v.
Edwards, 123 S.W.3d 912 (Ky. 2004), after an attorney failed to serve a
defendant, failed to secure his client’s attendance at a deposition, failed to
respond to a motion for summary judgment, and failed to notify his client of
the adverse outcome in time for an appeal. These cases involved a lack of
diligence and insufficient representation of clients, similar to Bedford’s case.
In Kentucky Bar Association v.
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-0551-KB
IN RE: WALTER BEDFORD, JR.
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
Walter Bedford Jr. moves this Court to enter a negotiated sanction
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.480(2) to resolve a pending
disciplinary proceeding against him. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) has
no objection. After consideration, we conclude that the proposed sanction is
adequate. We note preliminarily that Bedford, KBA Member Number 04250,
was admitted to the practice of law on October 1, 1974. His bar roster address
is 1801 William E Summers III Court, Louisville, KY 40211.
BACKGROUND
In May 2016, Bedford prepared a will for Clara Howard Jackson.
According to the will, Bedford was to be appointed executor of her estate, and
the sole beneficiary was her niece, Margaret Hayes, a friend of Bedford’s wife.
When Jackson died on December 30, 2019, she had over $7,000 in her
checking account. Nevertheless, Hayes personally paid for her aunt’s funeral
totaling $3,000 without reimbursement.
On July 14, 2020, Bedford texted Hayes that the proceeds of Jackson’s
bank account would be deposited into a probate account and distributed to her, but that never occurred. Bedford signed the probate petition on July 20,
2020, but did not file it with the Fayette District Court until March 9, 2021.
Additionally, Bedford missed the first two scheduled court dates on March 25,
2021 and June 28, 2021. In fact, Bedford only made one court appearance on
behalf of the estate on July 12, 2021, and was appointed as executor at that
time. After the court appointed him as the estate’s executor, Bedford informed
Hayes that he would be able to set up the probate account and “move matters
along.”
Over the next several months, Bedford wrote four checks from Jackson’s
account: (1) a check written to himself in the amount of $3,500 with a memo
noting it was for “Retainer Atty./exec. Current fee and cost advance;” (2) a
check to the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office on December 30, 2021, in the
amount of $1,385.50, to pay the property tax on the estate’s real property; (3) a
check written to himself, in the amount of $2,500, with a memo noting it was
for “balance 1/2 20% fee (illegible)/Jackson estate (illegible) waived Exec. Fee;”
and (4) a check written to himself, in the amount of $250, with a memo noting
it was for “Atty (illegible) Request Dec. checks.” Bank statements from
Jackson’s account show her balance decreased from $7,771.38 to $172.31
during this time period.
Because Bedford never filed an inventory or settlement in the estate, a
show cause order was issued but returned to sender as undeliverable. The
order was not sent to Bedford’s KBA roster address, despite that address being
included on the probate petition he filed.
2 In November 2022, Hayes had to pay the property taxes for the estate
after asking Bedford for a copy of the tax bill. Since three years had passed
without her aunt’s estate being settled, Hayes hired an attorney to facilitate the
conclusion of the probate process. Her attorney filed a motion on February 1,
2023 asking that Bedford be removed as the executor of the estate. That
motion was granted on March 15, 2023, and again the court sent the order to
the wrong address. Bedford never produced any documentation regarding the
estate’s assets or his expenditures.
Hayes filed a bar complaint against Beford on September 7, 2023. The
Inquiry Commission issued a three-count Charge against Bedford. Count I
alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.3) for failure to act with diligence and
promptness in handling the estate matter. Bedford admits that his actions
violated this rule. Count II alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) for failing to
safekeep the estate property. Bedford admits that sufficient proof exists to
allow the Court to find he violated this rule by writing himself checks from
Jackson’s estate for unearned fees, although Bedford states that at the time he
believed he was properly compensating himself for prior legal work performed
in drafting the will and in anticipation of completing the settlement of the
Jackson estate. Count III alleges violation of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) for failing to
return the estate funds after being removed as executor. Bedford admits that
his actions violated this rule.
On September 19, 2024, Bedford submitted a request to the KBA to be
placed on Honorary Membership Inactive Status, expressing his intent to retire.
3 On December 10, 2024, Bedford filed a motion for a negotiated sanction with
this Court, proposing that he be publicly reprimanded for his conduct and
ordered to repay the unearned fee to the estate. The KBA has no objection.
ANALYSIS
The negotiated sanction rule provides that “[t]he Court may consider
negotiated sanctions of disciplinary investigations, complaints or charges” if
the parties agree. SCR 3.480(2). Upon receiving a motion under this Rule,
“[t]he 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.” Id.
Thus, acceptance of the proposed negotiated sanction falls within the
discretion of this Court.
Case law supports the imposition of the sanction Bedford proposes. In
Stanziano-Sparks v. Kentucky Bar Association, 552 S.W.3d 507, 508 (Ky. 2018),
the Court issued a public reprimand of an attorney for violations of SCR
3.130(1.3) (diligence), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) (communication), SCR 3.130(1.15)
(safekeeping of property), and SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) (termination). Stanziano-
Sparks improperly placed unearned fees in her operating account, failed to
attend a scheduled court appearance or timely file a notice of appeal, and did
not return unearned fees to her former client. Id. at 507. In addition to a
public reprimand, she was ordered to repay the unearned legal fees. Id. at 508.
Like Stanziano-Sparks, Bedford collected unearned fees and failed to attend
scheduled court dates.
4 The Court also issued a public reprimand in Kentucky Bar Association v.
Legg, 537 S.W.3d 819 (Ky. 2018). Legg was retained to represent a client
regarding two estates to which she was named as the personal representative.
Id. at 820. But Legg did not file any pleadings and lacked sufficient
communication with his client. Id. He was charged with three ethical
violations, including lack of diligence, and the Court issued a public reprimand
and ordered Legg to repay his client the legal fees he collected. Id. at 820-21.
Similarly, the Court issued a public reprimand in Kentucky Bar Association v.
Edwards, 123 S.W.3d 912 (Ky. 2004), after an attorney failed to serve a
defendant, failed to secure his client’s attendance at a deposition, failed to
respond to a motion for summary judgment, and failed to notify his client of
the adverse outcome in time for an appeal. These cases involved a lack of
diligence and insufficient representation of clients, similar to Bedford’s case.
In Kentucky Bar Association v. Bubenzer, 145 S.W.3d 842, 842-43 (Ky.
2004), an attorney was given a public reprimand and ordered to repay money
to his former client after violating SCR 3.130(1.15)(a) and SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).
Bubenzer deposited his unearned retainer into his operating account and failed
to refund the money when his client terminated representation. Id. at 842.
Bedford paid himself out of Jackson’s estate account and failed to perform the
work needed to complete the probate process. When Hayes successfully
petitioned to remove him as executor, he did not refund the unearned fees.
Bedford also committed additional misconduct by missing scheduled court
hearings and neglecting to file the proper probate pleadings.
5 The KBA notes that Bedford has substantial experience in practicing law
and was charged with multiple offenses, which constitute aggravating factors.
In proposing the negotiated sanction, Bedford explained that from 2016 to
2018, he cared for his wife during her terminal battle with cancer. His
caregiving responsibilities, coupled with his own physical infirmities, led him to
close his office and move his files to a bedroom in his family home. The
eventual loss of his wife led to depression and anxiety, and he sought medical
treatment for his conditions. He expresses sincere remorse for his actions in
handling the probate matter. Additionally, in mitigation, Bedford asserts there
was a lack of dishonest or selfish motive, personal problems, full disclosure
and cooperation with the disciplinary board, and a lack of prior disciplinary
history.
Bedford has practiced law in the Commonwealth for forty-nine years and
has no prior discipline. This, coupled with the caselaw, his candid explanation
of life stressors, and remorse, lead us to conclude that a public reprimand and
repayment of the unearned fee is an appropriate sanction.
CONCLUSION
After consideration of the disciplinary record, we find that the proposed
public reprimand and repayment of the unearned fee within one year is
appropriate.
6 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Walter Bedford Jr., KBA Member Number 04250, is hereby publicly
reprimanded for the above-described violations of SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR
3.130(1.15)(a), and SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).
2. Bedford shall repay $5,979.00 to the Estate of Clara Howard Jackson
within one year of the date of entry of this Order.
3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Bedford is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum
being $220.90, for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: February 20, 2025
__________________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE LAMBERT