Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Albert

668 S.W.2d 62, 1984 Ky. LEXIS 231
CourtKentucky Supreme Court
DecidedApril 19, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 668 S.W.2d 62 (Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Albert) 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
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 668 S.W.2d 62, 1984 Ky. LEXIS 231 (Ky. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

In a disciplinary proceeding, the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association concluded that Albert was guilty of unethical and unprofessional conduct calculated to bring the bench and bar of Kentucky into disrepute. The Board recommended that Albert be privately admonished and that he be required to pay the costs of this action.

Pursuant to SCR 3.370(7), this Court reviewed the record and the briefs and concludes that so much of the Board’s decision as to the finding of guilt is adopted. However, it is the opinion of this Court that the punishment as recommended is insufficient and this Court finds an appropriate punishment to be and it is hereby Ordered that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. He is further Ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding.

Albert was charged with unethical conduct because he did not accurately advise his client of the status of litigation.

In July of 1982, a notice to dismiss a complaint for lack of prosecution was filed in circuit court. The suit was for a claim in excess of $6,000 for a client who had been referred to attorney Albert by an out-of-state collection agency.

The bar association investigation indicates that Albert filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and later wrote his client that he was taking various procedural and pretrial actions. He did not mention that the case had been dismissed for lack of prosecution or that he was attempting to have the dismissal set aside. This letter gave a false impression to the client that the lawsuit was progressing in a normal or routine fashion. The principal concern is Albert’s failure to truthfully and accurately inform his client about the dismissal of the suit and the status of the claim. Consequently, we set his punishment at a public reprimand.

This is the second public reprimand of the respondent. KBA v. Albert, Ky., 549 S.W.2d 295 (1976). We will not ignore the cumulative effect of previous acts should there be any future instances of misconduct.

All concur.

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

Related

Frazer v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n
860 S.W.2d 775 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1993)
Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Cowden
727 S.W.2d 403 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
668 S.W.2d 62, 1984 Ky. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kentucky-bar-assn-v-albert-ky-1984.