KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. THOMAS WAYNE ROBERTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
V.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
THOMAS WAYNE ROBERTS
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
This disciplinary matter comes before the Court on the Kentucky Bar
Association’s Petition for Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to SCR 3.435. On September
8, 1999, the Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred the respondent, Thomas
Wayne Roberts, from the practice of law in the state of Ohio because he unlawfully
exercised control over funds mistakenly wired to his escrow account:
In October 1995, St. George Bank Limited (“St. George”),
an Australian limited banking partnership, received a request
from a customer to electronically transfer the equivalent of
$8,225.07 in United States currency to the Kentucky bank
account of respondent, Thomas Wayne Roberts of Erlanger,
Kentucky, Attorney Registration No. 0039832. St. George
mistakenly transferred $822,507 instead of $8,225.07 to
respondent’s account, which was his attorney trust account.
Shortly thereafter, respondent withdrew all of the incorrectly
transferred funds from his account and after taking $8,000 in
cash for himself, purchased cashier’s checks payable to
various individuals and companies, including mortgage and
credit card companies. St. George discovered its mistake,
and in November of 1995, it demanded that respondent
refund the erroneously transferred funds.
After respondent refused to return the funds, St. George
filed suit in Kentucky. In February 1996, the Kentucky court
entered judgment in favor of St. George and against
respondent in the amount of $814,281.93 plus interest. The
Kentucky court found that respondent had converted St.
George’s funds by wrongfully exercising dominion and
control over the funds exceeding the correct transfer. The
Kentucky court also issued a permanent injunction
precluding respondent, his bank, and their agents from
transferring any funds and noted that St. George was
entitled to immediate execution of the judgment.
Respondent ignored St. George’s discovery requests
relating to collecting on the judgment, as well as a subpoena
and court order compelling production of the requested
documents. In May, 1996, the Kentucky court found
respondent in contempt and ordered him to produce the
’
requested documents. When respondent again failed to
comply, the Kentucky court issued a bench warrant for his
arrest on contempt charges. Respondent, however, fled that
court’s jurisdiction.
In February 1996, St. George filed an action in the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas requesting that the
court make the Kentucky permanent injunction an Ohio
judgment. St. George later filed an amended complaint
naming additional defendants who had received funds
wrongfully converted from St. George by respondent. In
August 1996, the Hamilton County court entered a default
judgment and a permanent injunction against respondent.
On October 13, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary
Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with violating
several Disciplinary Rules. After respondent failed to
answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court (“board”) . . . .
The panel found the facts as previously set forth, and . . .
concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR l102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral
turpitude), l-l 02(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation), l-l 02(A)(5) (engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), l102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 9-102(A) (failing to
maintain client funds in identifiable bank accounts with no
funds belonging to lawyer or law firm disputed therein). The
panel further found no evidence of mitigation and
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred
from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.’
In its disbarment order, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that respondent’s
conduct violated each of the Disciplinary Rules identified by the board.*
Supreme Court Rule 3.435 outlines the procedure for imposing reciprocal
discipline in Kentucky:
(1) Any attorney subject to the provisions of this Rule shall,
upon being subjected to professional disciplinary action in
another jurisdiction, promptly inform the Bar Counsel of such
action. Upon being informed that an attorney subject to the’
provisions of these Rules has been subjected to discipline in
another jurisdiction, the Bar Counsel shall obtain a certified
copy of such disciplinary order and shall file the same with
this Court.
(2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order
demonstrating that an attorney admitted to practice in this
State has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, this Court
shall forthwith issue a notice directed to the attorney
containing:
(a) a copy of said order from the other
jurisdiction; and
(b) an order directing that the attorney inform
the Court, within twenty (20) days from the
service of the notice, of any claim by the
attorney predicated upon the grounds set forth
in paragraph (4) hereof that the imposition of
the identical discipline in this State would be
unwarranted and the reasons therefor.
(3) In the event the discipline imposed in the other
jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal discipline
imposed in this State shall be deferred until such stay
expires.
‘Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts, 86 Ohio St. 3d 551, 552-53, 715
N..E.2d 1138, 1138-9 (Ohio 1999).
‘Id.
-3-
(4) Upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from the service of
the notice issued pursuant to the provisions of (2) above,
this Court shall impose the identical discipline unless
Respondent proves by substantial evidence:
(a) a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-ofstate disciplinary proceeding, or
(b) that misconduct established warrants
substantially different discipline in this State.
(5) In all other respects, a final adjudication in another
jurisdiction that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct
shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a
disciplinary proceeding in this State.3
The Kentucky Bar Association filed this Petition for Reciprocal Discipline on
October 8, 1999 and supplemented it on January 25, 2000 with a certified copy of the
order from the Supreme Court of Ohio which permanently disbarred Roberts. On
February 24, 2000, this Court entered a confidential order which directed Roberts “to
inform the Court, within twenty (20) days from the service of this order, of any claim
pursuant to SCR 3.345(4) that the imposition of. . . identical discipline in this State
would be unwarranted.” An attempt to serve this order upon Roberts by certified mail
at his address on file with the Kentucky Bar Association failed, and, pursuant to SCR
3.175, the order was served upon the Kentucky Secretary of State as Roberts agent for
service of process on June 2, 2000.
Thirty (30) days have expired since service of the order directing Roberts to
show cause why this Court should not impose reciprocal discipline, and this Court has
received no response from Roberts. Therefore, pursuant to SCR 3.435(4), this Court
grants the Kentucky Bar Association’s Petition for Reciprocal Discipline and hereby
orders that:
3SCR 3.435.
-4-
(1) Respondent, Thomas Wayne Roberts shall be permanently disbarred from
the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
(2) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, this Court hereby orders Roberts to provide notice to
any clients he is currently representing of his inability to provide further legal services,
to notify all courts in which he has matters pending of this disbarment, and to provide
the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association with a copy of all such notice letters, or
with a certification that he has no active clients, whichever is applicable.
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
