KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. KEITH A. TRUMBO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
KENTUCKY B A R ASSOCIATION
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENT
KEITH A. TRUMBO
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Keith A. Trumbo, was admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in October of 1995. He was suspended from the practice
of law in March of 1999 for failure to comply with the continuing legal education
requirements of SCR 3.661, and he has not been reinstated to the practice of law as of
this date. In May and August of 1999, the Inquiry Commission issued charges against
Respondent regarding his representation of two separate clients. Both charges will be
dealt with in this single Opinion and Order.
First, in May of 1999, the Inquiry Commission charged that Respondent violated
SCR 3.130-I .I or, in the alternative, violated SCR 3.130-I .3 when he failed to
undertake reasonable, necessary, or appropriate action to advance or pursue the
appeal of his client, Thomas Bruce, Ph.D. Respondent admitted to the allegations set
forth in the charge, and the matter was submitted to the Board of Governors in
accordance with SCR 3.21 O(2).
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board of Governors found that
Dr. Bruce retained Respondent to file and prosecute an appeal from a judgment
entered against him by the Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Court. Respondent
filed a notice of appeal in connection with the case, but the appeal was dismissed by
the Ohio Court of Appeals because Respondent failed to undertake necessary or
appropriate action to advance the appeal. Based on these facts, the Board, by
unanimous vote, found Respondent guilty of violating SCR 3.130-I .3, failure to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness. Given his history of no prior discipline, the
Board recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
181 days, concurrent with the penalty imposed in the following case.
In August of 1999, the Inquiry Commission issued a two-count charge against
Respondent regarding his representation of William W. Florence. In the first count, the
Commission charged Respondent violated SCR 3.130-I .5(c) by failing to have a written
contingent fee agreement with Florence. In the second count, the Commission charged
Respondent violated SCR 3.130-I. 15 (a) by depositing settlement proceeds belonging
to Florence into his (Respondent’s) own personal checking account. Respondent
admitted to the allegations set forth in the charge, and the matter was submitted to the
Board of Governors in accordance with SCR 3.210(2).
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board of Governors found that
Mr. Florence retained Respondent to represent him on an employment claim against
Mr. Florence’s former employer, TechnoTrim, Inc. In December of 1997, Respondent,
Florence, and TechnoTrim, entered into a settlement agreement resolving Mr.
Florence’s claims against the company. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
TechnoTrim agreed to pay the sum of $22,500.00 in three separate financial
disbursements, two to Mr. Florence, and one to Respondent. In accordance with the
-2-
settlement agreement, a check dated December 23, 1997, in the amount of $3,000.00,
made payable to the order of William W. Florence, was sent to Respondent. A second
check, dated December 23, 1997, in the amount of $17,000.00, made payable to the
order of Mr. Florence, was also sent to Respondent. At the same time, a third check,
dated December 23, 1997, in the amount of $2,500.00, made payable to the order of
Respondent, was issued to Respondent.
Upon receipt of these three checks, Mr. Florence met Respondent at
Respondent’s law office, where Mr. Florence endorsed the checks in his name over to
Respondent. In turn, Respondent issued a personal check to Mr. Florence in the
amount of $16,000.00. Respondent then deposited the checks made payable to Mr.
Florence into his personal account. By unanimous vote, the Board found Respondent
violated SCR 3.130-I. 15(a) by depositing settlement proceeds belonging to Florence
into his (Respondents) own personal checking account, and violated SCR 3.130-I .5(c)
by failing to have a written contingency fee agreement with Mr. Florence. The Board
recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 181 days.
Respondent did not seek review of the Board’s decision in either of the above
cases. We believe the discipline the Board seeks to impose is appropriate given the
nature of Respondent’s violations of the code of professional conduct. Accordingly, this
Court hereby adopts the recommendation of the Board.
Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is ORDERED that:
1. Respondent, Keith A. Trumbo, is hereby suspended from the practice of law
for a period of 181 days from the date of this order. The suspension shall continue until
such time as he is reinstated to the practice of law by order of this Court pursuant to
SCR 3.510.
-3-
2. Respondent, Keith A. Trumbo, is directed to pay costs of this action in
accordance with SCR 3.450, said sum being $151.38 ($91.69 in KBA File 7397, and
$59.69 in KBA File 7422) for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of
this Opinion and Order.
3. In accordance with SCR 3.390, Trumbo shall within ten days from the entry of
this order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and also notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law, and
furnish copies of said letters of notice to the director of the Kentucky Bar Association.
All concur.
ENTERED: April 20,200O.
FOR MOVANT:
FOR RESPONDENT:
Bruce K. Davis
Executive Director
Kentucky Bar Association
Keith A. Trumbo
102 Main Cross
Flemingsburg, KY 41041
Reid Allen Glass
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
and
Keith A. Trumbo
100 Maple Leaf Road
Maysville, KY 41056
-4-
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.