KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. CHARLES LEADINGHAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,$UYrrMr (~Vurf
of
2009-SC-000765-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
V.
RESPONDENT
CHARLES LEADINGHAM
OPINION AND ORDER
Charles Leadingham, KBA Member No. 82296, was admitted to the
practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 30, 1987 . His
Bar Roster address is 215 15th St., P.O . Box 387, Ashland, Kentucky, 41105 .
Before the Court is the Trial Commissioner's Amended Report of October 5,
2009, covering two files consolidated for this report. KBA File No. 12458
concerns Respondent's representation of Allen Walker and KBA File No. 12559
concerns Respondent's representation of Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue.
Neither party to this case filed a notice of appeal pursuant to SCR 3.360(4) .
According to said rule, in the event no appeal is filed, the entire record is to be
forwarded to this Court for entry of a final order pursuant to SCR 3.370(10).
After reviewing the record and being of the opinion that further briefing is not
necessary, this Court adopts the decision of the Trial Commissioner .
Charges' were initially filed against the Respondent on March 29, 2007
(KBA File No. 12559). Charges were also filed against the Respondent on June
5, 2007 (KBA File No . 12458) . The files were consolidated on June 4, 2008.
The Trial Commissioner made the following Findings of Fact which, pursuant
to SCR 3.370(10), we adopt as our own :
Allen Walker
l . Allen Walker hired the Respondent to represent
him in a divorce case, and paid the sum of $600 at the
beginning of the matter. There was no written fee
agreement between the Respondent and Mr. Walker.
2 . The Respondent prepared initial pleadings for Mr.
Walker, including a response to the petition for
dissolution of marriage, a verified response to motion
(for possession of the marital residence and various
property) and response to motion for restraining order.
The Respondent further proceeded to initiate an
appraisal of Walker's marital residence by sending a
letter requesting same to Mr. Dale Hensley. All of the
initial paperwork in Walker's case was completed as
part of Walker's first meeting with the Respondent on
August 25, 2004.
3. A motion for various relief, including temporary
possession of the marital residence, was scheduled to
be heard on September 3, 2004, before Judge
Hagerman of the Boyd Circuit Court. The motion had
been filed by counsel for Walker's wife.
4. The pleadings prepared by the Respondent on
Walker's behalf were filed with the Boyd Circuit Court
on September 2, 2004, the day before the scheduled
hearing.
1 Not the same date that the initial complaint was filed.
5. Judge Hagerman announced a ruling on the
pending motions on Friday, September 3, 2004 .
Walker was present in court. The Respondent was not
present. Mrs. Walker's attorney was present, but Mrs .
Walker did not attend. No testimony was heard and
no other evidence was presented . A written order
memorializing Judge Hagerman's ruling was entered
on September 3, 2004, at 9:21 a.m.
6 . The Respondent failed to advise Walker, prior to
September 3, 2004, that neither the Respondent nor
anyone from his office would . . . be attending court on
Walker's behalf. There were no other attorneys
practicing with the Respondent at the time.
7. The Order of the Boyd Circuit Court entered on
September 3, 2004, granted relief requested by both
the Petitioner and the Respondent to that action,
indicating that the Court took notice of the pleadings
filed by the Respondent herein on Mr. Walker's behalf.
Specifically, the Court restrained both parties from
disposing of any marital property, which relief was
requested in the pleadings filed by the Respondent for
Mr. Walker.
8. Mr. Walker did not understand the proceedings
that occurred on September 3, 2004, and the
Respondent never spoke to him directly concerning
same before or after that date.
9 . Walker discharged the Respondent on September 4,
2004. He thereafter received an invoice dated October
31, 2004, from the Respondent for the sum of $150
reflecting 1 .25 hours worked on August 25, 2004, at
the rate of $120 per hour. Walker never paid the bill.
The Respondent never refunded any money to Walker.
10. Walker filed a bar complaint, which was mailed to
the Respondent by certified mail on January 18, 2005.
The Respondent personally signed for same on
January 19, 2005. The Respondent was later
personally served with the bar complaint by the local
sheriffs office .
11 . The Respondent failed to respond to the bar
complaint filed against him by Allen Walker.
Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue
12. Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue hired the
Respondent to represent their interests in a
bankruptcy action in June, 2003 . The Respondent
quoted a fee of $800 for the case. 4n or about July
14, 2003, Mr. & Mrs . Perdue paid $500, leaving a
$300 balance owing.
13. The Respondent and/or his office staff prepared
the initial pleadings in the Perdues' Chapter 7
bankruptcy case following a series of three meetings
that occurred in June and July of 2003 . The
Respondent met with Mr. & Mrs. Perdue in June,
2003, and the final two meetings occurred between the
Perdues and the Respondent's office staff.
14. The Respondent never filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy for Mr. & Mrs . Perdue, though the bulk of
the work was complete in the case by the clients' third
meeting with the Respondent's office .
15. After meeting with the Respondent in June, 2003,
Mr. & Mrs. Perdue never again spoke directly with the
Respondent until the hearing conducted in the present
case on June 15, 2009.
16. Mr. & Mrs. Perdue never paid the remaining $300
originally owed to the Respondent . They requested a
refund of the initial $500 they paid to the Respondent
sometime in November, 2003, after they decided at
that time not to proceed with filing bankruptcy
because Mr. Perdue was rehired at his job.
17. During the time from June, 2003, to November,
2003, the Respondent experienced significant
difficulties at his office, including (1) a change in filing
requirements of the bankruptcy court necessitating
use of a corporate credit card, which the Respondent
did not have, and (2) a sabotaged computer system
due to the termination of a disgruntled employee . The
Respondent admits that neither difficulty was
attributable to fault of the Perdues, but argues that
neither were the circumstances his fault.
18. Of the initial $500 received by the Respondent
from Mr. & Mrs. Perdue, $200 was designated as `filing
fee' in the Statement Pursuant to Rule 2016(8)
prepared for the Perdues by the Respondent. The
bankruptcy was never filed, and the filing fee was
never paid to the bankruptcy court. The $200 filing
fee was never refunded to Mr. & Mrs. Perdue.
19. The Perdues' bar complaint was mailed to the
Respondent on February 28, 2005, by certified mail.
He personally signed the return receipt for same on
March 1, 2005. The Respondent did not respond to
the bar complaint prior to the initiation of the present
charges against him.
20. The Trial Commissioner was appointed in June of
2008, and a pretrial conference was held on August
14, 2008. At the pretrial a hearing date was set and
dates for filing of Witness & Exhibit Lists were also
established. The case was then delayed until April
2009, when the KBA filed an additional Motion for
Telephonic Pretrial Conference. While the reason for
that delay is not a matter to be considered by the Trial
Commissioner, it appears that the KBA can state that
the delay was occasioned by good faith discussions
with the Respondent . The Respondent's suspension in
another matter was effective March 19, 2009, and he
could not be reinstated while this pending matter
existed.
The Trial Commissioner also made the following Conclusions of Law
which we adopt as our own:
Allen Walker
1 . The Respondent did not violate SCR 3 .130-1 .3, in
that he promptly prepared the initial pleadings in Mr.
Walker's case and presented same to the Court in a
manner sufficiently timely to allow consideration of
same by the trial judge.
2 . The Respondent violated SCR 3 .130-1 .4 by failing
to keep Mr. Walker reasonably informed about the
status of his case, and further by failing to explain
Judge Hagerman's motion proceedings to Mr. Walker
in advance of September 3, 2004, to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit Mr . Walker to make
informed decisions concerning the case .
3. The Respondent violated SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) by
failing to return to Mr. Walker the unearned portion of
the $600 fee he had paid at the beginning of the
representation .
4. The Respondent violated SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) by
failing to respond to a lawful demand for information
from a disciplinary authority.
Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue
5 . The Respondent violated SCR 3.130-1 .3 by failing
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing Mr. & Mrs. Perdue, in that he did not
complete the filing of their bankruptcy case during the
period of time from July, 2003, when they signed the
completed bankruptcy petition, to November, 2003,
when they finally decided to forego the bankruptcy
altogether .
6. The Respondent violated SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) by
failing to keep Mr. & Mrs. Perdue reasonably informed
concerning the status of their case, in that the
Respondent never spoke to the Perdues again after his
first meeting with them, and did not personally
address with them the difficulties he now relies upon
to excuse his failure to file their bankruptcy case.
7 . The Respondent did not violate SCR 3.130-1 .5(a),
in that he did not charge the Perdues an unreasonable
fee for the work he performed . The Respondent was
paid the sum of $300 for the preparation of a
bankruptcy petition and for his time spent consulting
with the Perdues, which amount is not unreasonable .
8. The Respondent violated SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) by
failing to refund to the Perdues the filing fee that was
advanced in the amount of $200, but which was never
paid to the court clerk because the case was never
filed.
9 . The Respondent violated SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) by
failing to respond to a lawful demand for information
from a disciplinary authority.
After concluding that the Respondent had violated certain Rules of
Professional Conduct, the Trial Commissioner considered possible sanctions,
together with aggravating and mitigating circumstances which were presented
in a joint exhibit. Aggravating circumstances included: a public reprimand on
May 24, 2001 (2001-SC-000275-KB) ; a thirty day suspension on November 26,
2008, probated on the condition that Respondent attend the Ethics and
Professionalism Program during 2009 (2008-SC-000522-KB) ; and a sixty day
suspension on March 19, 2009 (2008-SC-000934-KB) . A mitigating
circumstance was the fact that Respondent was not reinstated to practice law
after the last suspension (which was due to expire on May 19, 2009) because of
the within pending case. The Trial Commissioner recommended a 120 day
suspension, retroactive to May 20, 2009, which would have expired September
15, 2009. The Trial Commissioner further recommended that the Respondent
be ordered to refund to Allen Walker, the sum of $450.00, and to refund to
Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue, the sum of $200.00. This Court did not give
the parties notice that it would require briefs and re-evaluate the
recommendation, pursuant to SCR 3.370(9) . Therefore, this Court adopts the
recommendations of the Trial Commissioner, pursuant to SCR 3.370(10) .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Respondent, Charles C . Leadingham, is suspended from the practice
of law in this Commonwealth for a period of 120 days ;
2) Said period of suspension shall commence retroactively to May 20,
2009 ;
3) Respondent shall refund to Allen Walker, the sum of $450 .00, before
he is reinstated to practice law;
4) Respondent shall refund to Michael and Leigh Ann Perdue, the sum of
$200.00, before he is reinstated to practice law; and
5) Respondent is directed to pay all costs associated with this
disciplinary proceeding, pursuant to SCR 3.450, certified to be in the sum of
$1,318.62, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this
Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED : JANUARY 21, 2010.
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.
