ROBERT MANCHESTER V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
r
2000-SC-1106-KB
ROBERT MANCHESTER
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, Robert C. Manchester, of McCracken County, Kentucky, was admitted
to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on July 1, 1960.
On September 15, 2000, the Inquiry Commission issued a two-count charge
against Movant, arising from his representation of a county in New York attempting to
collect a judgment against a Paducah, Kentucky, resident. In April 1999, Michael
Schnittman, an attorney in Rochester, New York, contacted Movant to represent the
Monroe County Department of Social Services in collecting on a judgment against Della
Binion. Movant accepted the representation and instructed Schnittman to remit the
required filing fee of $98.00 and a sheriffs fee of $20.00. Schnittman sent Movant a
check dated May 3, 1999, in the amount of $118.00. The check reflects that Movant
deposited the funds into his escrow account on May 26, 1999.
Thereafter, Movant admits that he failed to take any action on behalf of
Schnittman or the Monroe County Department of Social Services, despite letters of
inquiry from Schnittman’s law firm in November 1999 and February 2000.
In Count I of the charge, the Inquiry Commission charged Movant with a violation
of SCR 3.130-I .3, for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client. Count II charges Movant with a violation of SCR 3.130-I .4(a), for
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly
responding to requests for information.
Movant admits that his actions were in violation of SCR 1 .I 30-I .3 and SCR
3.130-I .4(a), and moves this Court for the issuance of a public reprimand and
termination of disciplinary proceedings against him. The KBA states no objections to
Movant’s motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Movant, Robert C. Manchester, with no objections stated by the KBA, be and
hereby is publically reprimanded after having acknowledged that he engaged in
unprofessional conduct as charged in Counts I and II.
All concur.
ENTERED: January 25,200l.
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.
