TO BE PUBLISHED
2019-SC-000110-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KIMBERLY SHAWN GEVEDON RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Kimberly Shawn Ison Gevedon was admitted to practice law on October
13, 1995. Gevedon’s bar roster address is P.O. Box 216, West Liberty, KY
41472, and her KBA number is 86102.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule SCR 3.210, a number of disciplinary
matters came before the Board of Governors (the Board) of the Kentucky Bar
Association (KBA) as default cases. The Board recommended that Gevedon be
suspended from the practice of law for 181 days; that she return the file and
refund a former client in the amount of $1,304.00; that she return the file and
refund another former client in the amount of $4,000.00; that she refund
another former client in the amount of $981.00; that she return the file to another former client; and that she pay the costs of this proceeding in the
amount of $1,354.35. Finding sufficient cause to do so, we accept the Board’s
recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
A. KBA File 17-DIS-0167
Kimberly Ratliff retained Gevedon to represent her in a contested divorce
action. Ratliff paid a retainer to Gevedon of $1,500. Gevedon filed a Petition for
Dissolution of Marriage on September 9, 2015. In response to a number of
inquiries from Ms. Ratliff about the fact that the divorce action was not moving,
Gevedon claimed to have been experiencing various health issues. In April of
2016, opposing counsel filed a motion for a final hearing which was set for
June 6, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. Gevedon filed a motion to continue the final
hearing and noticed it for June 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. She notified Ms. Ratliff
that she would not need to appear. Neither Gevedon nor Ratliff appeared on
June 6, and the motion to continue was denied. The divorce decree was entered
on June 10, 2016. Ms. Ratliff terminated Gevedon’s services, requested a
refund of the retainer less the amount paid for the filing fee and hired a new
attorney who pursued her pro se motion to vacate the decree. The retainer was
never returned nor was the file provided to Ms. Ratliff.
The Complaint in this matter was served on Gevedon on May 19, 2017.
Beginning the day her response to the complaint was due, Gevedon asked for
and received two continuances from Bar Counsel because her mother had a
knee replacement and a subsequent setback. Gevedon then asked for a third
2 continuance because she had been dealing with personal health issues and
hospitalized a couple of times. On September 9, 2017, Bar Counsel informed
Gevedon that any further continuance would only come by way of a motion
filed with the Inquiry Commission. No motion or response was filed.
The Commission then issued a Charge against Gevedon, alleging that she
violated: SCR 3.130(1.3), which states that “a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client;” SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), which
states that “a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status
of the matter;” SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), which states that “Upon 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;” and SCR 3.130(8. l)(b), which
states that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not
“knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
admissions or disciplinary authority.” The Charge was personally served on
Gevedon by the Morgan County Sheriffs Department on March 20, 2018. She
did not file an Answer to the Charge, and the Commission submitted the
matter to the Board.
B. KBA File 17-DIS-0326
Marsha Cox (formerly Ball) hired Gevedon in April 2014 to represent her
in a divorce action. Ms. Cox paid $4,000 to Gevedon which included $1,750 for
the taking of three depositions. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was
3 filed in May of 2014. After the court entered an order joining Ms. Cox’s parents
as indispensable parties, Gevedon filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the
order on June 20, 2015. She noticed it to be heard on July 6, 2015, but failed
to appear on that date. The court denied the motion. Gevedon then filed a
motion to set aside the court’s order claiming that she thought the hearing had
been continued because opposing counsel had filed a motion requesting a
continuance. On July 15, 2015, the court granted the motion to set aside the
prior order and set the matter for hearing on August 17, 2015. That hearing
was continued multiple times to allow Gevedon to take depositions.
On May 10, 2016, opposing counsel moved for a protective order to
prevent the taking of the husband’s deposition and for attorney’s fees because
Gevedon had scheduled and then canceled three prior depositions. At least one
of these cancellations was due to a death in her family. The motion was to be
heard on May 16, 2016. On May 16, Gevedon filed a motion to continue the
hearing already scheduled for that day and to continue the final hearing, which
had been scheduled for June 13. She noticed them for the same day but did
not appear. The court granted opposing counsel’s motion for a protective order
and attorney’s fees.
Gevedon then filed a motion to set aside the May 16 order and noticed it
for hearing on June 30. During this time period, Gevedon provided two doctors’
notes to opposing counsel and the trial court excusing her from work for two
weeks each. On June 13, the court rescheduled the final hearing for July 12.
Gevedon failed to appear at the June 30 hearing that she had set on her own
4 motion. On or about July 9, she sent Ms. Cox a text message saying that the
July 12 final hearing had been canceled. This hearing, in fact, had not been
canceled, and the court denied the motion to set aside the May 16 order and
conducted the final hearing without Gevedon or Ms. Cox being present. In
September, Ms. Cox received a Facebook message from Gevedon admitting that
she had been wrong about the cancellation of the July 12 hearing.
Gevedon subsequently filed an appeal of the findings and decree, paying
$150 for the filing fee. She then failed to file a prehearing statement, so the
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Ms. Cox learned of the dismissal
through a January 2017 letter from the court. Gevedon assured Ms. Cox that
she would file appropriate papers to reinstate the appeal, but the appeal was
finally dismissed on March 3, 2017, for failure to prosecute.
Ms. Cox requested her file on multiple occasions but did not receive it.
She also did not receive a refund of the $1,750 that was earmarked for the
taking of depositions which never occurred.
The Complaint in this matter was served on Gevedon via certified mail on
September 13, 2017. Gevedon requested and received an extension of time to
file a response because her basement flooded. She failed to file a response.
The Commission then issued a Charge against Gevedon, alleging that she
violated: SCR 3.130(1.3), which states that “a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client;” SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and
(4), which states that “a lawyer shall (3) keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matter; and (4) promptly comply with reasonable
5 requests for information;” SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), which states that “Upon
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;” and SCR
3.130(8.1)(b), which states that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information
from an admissions or disciplinary authority.” The Charge was personally
served on Gevedon by the Morgan County Sheriffs Department on April 16,
2018. She did not file an Answer to the Charge, and the Commission submitted
the matter to the Board.
C. KBA File 18-DIS-0048
Dallas Sparks hired Gevedon on June 2, 2016, to file a civil action on his
behalf over a right-of-way easement in Morgan County. Mr. Sparks paid
Gevedon $981.00, which included a $750.00 attorney’s fee and a combined
filing fee and service fee of $231.00. It does not appear that any lawsuit was
ever filed, and since the time he paid Gevedon, Mr. Sparks has been unable to
get in touch with her and has received no information on the status of any
lawsuit.
Gevedon was served with the bar complaint in this matter on April 18,
2018, by the Sheriff. She did not file a response.
The Commission then issued a Charge against Gevedon, alleging that she
violated: SCR 3.130(1.3), which states that “a lawyer shall act with reasonable
6 diligence and promptness in representing a client;” SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and
(4), which states that “a lawyer shall [3] keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matter; and [4] promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information;” SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), which states that “Upon
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;” and SCR
3.130(8.l)(b), which states that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information
from an admissions or disciplinary authority.” Service of the Charge was
completed by the Executive Director, pursuant to SCR 3.035(2), on August 28,
2018. The Charge was sent via certified mail to Gevedon’s bar roster address
and service address. Gevedon signed the certified mail cards at both addresses
She did not file an Answer to the Charge, and the Commission submitted the
D. KBA File 18-DIS-0094
Angelia Ross retained Gevedon to represent her in a contested divorce
proceeding. There was no written fee agreement, but on May 10, 2016, Ms.
Ross paid Gevedon $2,750, which included a $250.00 filing fee. Gevedon filed
the petition for dissolution of marriage in the Wolfe Family Court in June of
2016. Neither Gevedon nor Ms. Ross appeared at scheduled court proceedings
on December 20, 2016; July 11, 2017; or August 22, 2017. Gevedon did not
7 inform Ms. Ross of any of the aforementioned court dates but did assist her in
drafting responses to discovery requests and the client’s verified disclosure
statement. Gevedon and Ms. Ross did attend a July 6, 2017 informal
settlement conference.
Gevedon met with Ms. Ross only twice in twenty-two (22) months and
while Ms. Ross communicated with Respondent by text message on numerous
occasions, she was unable to obtain acceptable answers to her questions about
the status of her case.
Gevedon was suspended from the practice of law on January 19, 2018,
for non-payment of dues for the 2017-2018 fiscal year and for failure to comply
with the minimum CLE requirements for the 2016-2017 educational year. She
did not inform Ms. Ross that she had been suspended. After learning from
another source in March 2018 that Gevedon had been suspended, Ms. Ross
requested a return of her file. The file has not been returned.
Service of the Complaint was accomplished by service on the Executive
Director on July 16, 2018. The Executive Director then sent the Complaint to
Gevedon by certified mail both to her bar roster address and to her service
address. Gevedon signed the certified mail cards at both addresses - one on
July 18 and the other on July 31. No response has been submitted.
The Commission then issued a Charge against Gevedon, alleging that she
violated: SCR 3.130(1.3), which states that “a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client;” SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and
(4), which states that “a lawyer shall [3] keep the client reasonably informed
8 about the status of the matter; and [4] promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information;” SCR 3.130(1.4)(b), which states that “a lawyer shall
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to
make informed decisions regarding the representation;” SCR 3.130(1.16)(d),
which states that “Upon 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;” SCR 3.130(5.5)(a) which states that “a lawyer shall not practice law
in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction;” and SCR 3.130(8. l)(b), which states that a lawyer in connection
with a disciplinary matter, shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.” Service
of the Charge was completed via certified mail on October 11, 2018. She did
not file an Answer to the Charge, and the Commission submitted the matter to
the Board.
E. Prior Discipline
On May 23, 2012, Gevedon was issued a private admonition for her
violations of SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a) and (b), (1.16)(d), and (3.4)(c).
On June 22, 2012, Gevedon was issued a private admonition with
conditions for her violations of SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a)(3) and (4), and (1.16)(d).
The conditions were that she refund a $357 fee and attend and successfully
complete the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program.
9 On May 23, 2013, Gevedon was suspended for 30 days for violating SCR
3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a)(3) and (4), (1.16)(d), (8. l)(b), and (8.4)(c). In addition, she
was ordered to pay $750.00 in restitution to the client and to contact KYLAP
for assessment.
On July 20, 2015, Gevedon was issued a private admonition with
conditions for violating SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a)(3) and (4), and (1.16)(d). The
condition imposed was that she refund $800.00 to the client.
On January 19, 2018, Gevedon was administratively suspended for
nonpayment of dues for the 2017-2018 fiscal year and for noncompliance with
the minimum CLE requirements for the 2016-2017 educational year. As of
February 19, 2019, that suspension was still in place.
Additionally, the Board charged Gevedon with eight aggravating factors,
including dishonest or selfish motive and a pattern of misconduct.
F. Mitigating Factors
On January 17, 2019, one day before the Board was set to consider these
matters, Gevedon emailed Deputy Bar Counsel, stating that she had failed to
respond to the charges because she had experienced two strokes and three
parathyroid tumors which were surgically removed. She asked to be permitted
to voluntarily self-surrender her license to practice law. However, pursuant to
SCR 3.480(1), a member is permitted to withdraw from practice only when
there are no pending complaint or charge files against the member. Because
the charge files were pending, she had the option of filing a Motion to Resign
Under Terms of Permanent Disbarment under SCR 3.480(3). No additional
10 communication was received by the Office of Bar Counsel prior to presentation
of the cases to the Board.
G. Proceedings by the Board
On January 18, 2019, the Board considered the Charges against
Gevedon. Seventeen members considered the charges and voted unanimously
to find Gevedon guilty of all counts in KBA Files 17-DIS-0167, 17-DIS-0326,
and 18-DIS-0048. In KBA File 18-DIS-0094, the seventeen members voted
unanimously to find Gevedon guilty of Counts I through IV and Count VI.
Three members voted to find her guilty of Count V, while fourteen members
voted to find her not guilty of that count. In total, the Board voted unanimously
to find her guilty in seventeen Counts.
The Board of Governors further recommended that Gevedon be
suspended for a period of 181 days and be required to do the following:
In KBA File 17-DIS-0167: Return the file and refund $1,304.00;
In KBA File 17-DIS-0326: Return the file and refund the $4,000.00 fee;
In KBA File 18-DIS-0048: Refund the $981.00 fee; and
In KBA file 18-DIS-0094: Return the file.
Further, the Board recommended that Gevedon be held responsible for
payment of the costs associated with this action.
II. ANALYSIS.
Having reviewed the record, and noting Gevedon’s failure to respond, we
agree with and adopt the Board’s findings that Gevedon is guilty of all counts
in KBA Files 17-DIS-0167, 17-DIS-0326, and 18-DIS-0048 and of Counts I
11 though IV and Count VI in KBA File 18-DIS-0094. We find Gevedon not guilty
of Count V in KBA File 18-DIS-0094. Furthermore, we agree, for the most part,
with the Board’s recommended discipline. As noted above, Gevedon is
currently under suspension for failing to comply with CLE requirements and
failing to pay bar dues. The Board did not address whether its recommended
181-day suspension and Gevedon’s current suspension should run
concurrently or consecutively. We hold that the two suspensions should run
consecutively.
In Kentucky BarAss’n v. Edmondson, 493 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Ky. 2016)
this Court suspended an attorney from practicing law for allowing a paralegal
to practice law, failing to respond to a disciplinary authority, failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, among other
violations. This Court ordered that her 180-day suspension run consecutively
to her suspension for failure to pay dues and comply with CLE requirements.
Gevedon’s conduct here merits discipline consistent with Edmondson.
Therefore, we adopt the Board’s recommendation that Gevedon be suspended
for 181 days, return the file and refund $1,304.00 to Kimberly Ratliff, return
the file and refund $4,000.00 to Marsha Cox, refund $981.00 to Dallas Sparks,
return the file to Angelia Ross, and pay the costs associated with this action.
12 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) Kimberly Shawn Ison Gevedon, KBA Number 86102, is found guilty of
violating SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3), SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), and SCR
3.130(8.1)(b) as set out in KBA File 17-DIS-0167;
2) Gevedon is found guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3)
and (4); SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(d) as set out in KBA File
17-DIS-0326;
3) Gevedon is found guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3)
and (4), SCR 3/130(1.16)(d), and SCR 3.130(8.4)(b) as set out in KBA File
No. 18-DIS-0048;
4) Gevedon is found guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3)
and (4), SCR 3.130(1.4)(b), SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), and SCR 3.130(8. l)(b) as set
out in KBA File 18-DIS-0094. She is found not guilty of violating SCR
3.130(5.5)(a) in KBA File 18-DIS-0094;
5) Gevedon is suspended from the practice of law for 181 days to run
consecutively with her current suspension. That is to say, the 181-day
suspension we impose today shall not begin to run until such time as
Gevedon, upon compliance with the continuing legal education
requirements of SCR 3.661 and payment of bar dues, applies for and is
granted reinstatement from her previous suspension;
6) Pursuant to SCR 3.510(3), at the expiration of Gevedon’s 181-day
suspension, this matter shall be referred to the Character and Fitness
Committee for proceedings under SCR 2.300;
13 7) If she has not already done so, Gevedon is directed to promptly return all
file materials in her possession or control to each of her prior clients
involved in these charges;
8) Gevedon shall make restitution to Ms. Ratliff in the amount of $1,304.00;
9) Gevedon shall make restitution to Ms. Cox in the amount of $4,000.00;
10) Gevedon shall make restitution to Mr. Sparks in the amount of $981.00;
11) If she has not already done so, Gevedon shall, pursuant to SCR 3.390(b),
notify, in writing, within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Order,
all courts in which she has matters pending and all clients she is currently
representing of her inability to provide further legal services and provide the
Office of Bar Counsel with a copy of all such notice letters, or with a
certification that she has no active clients, whichever is applicable. To the
extent possible and to the extent she has not already done so, Gevedon
must immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which she is
engaged; and
12) Finally, pursuant to SCR 3.450, Gevedon is directed to pay the costs of
this action, $1,354.35, for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: JUNE 13, 2019.