KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION v. DENNIS CARRITHERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
2001 -SC-0430-KB
PETITIQNER
KEN’1 iJCKY @At? ASSOCIA’I-ION
v.
IN SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENT
DENNIS CARRITHERS
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Dennis Carrithers, (#10627)
of Louisville, Kentucky, was admiLted
to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1976. In June 1999, the
Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge against Respondent fat violation,, of:
(I) SCR 3.‘130(1.3),
failure to act with reasonable promptness in his represeniation of a
client. (II) SCR 3.130(1.4), failure to keep his client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter; and (III) SCR 3.130(1.16(d)) (Count III was dropped by the KBA at
the Trial Commissioner level).
An cvidentiary hearing was held on December 21, 2000. In February 2001, the
Trial Cornt-nissicner
issued her report finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and III and
recommending that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
sixty (SO) days.
The Board of Governors thereafter unanimously found Respondent
guilty of both charges. However, by a vote of 12-8, the Board voted for a public
reprimand. Pursuant to SCR 3.370(g), this Court entered a notice of review on
September 27, 2001.
The charges against Respondent stem from his representation of Joe &m-&s.
Samuels contacted Respondent on March 14, 1994, regarding two claims he wished to
pursue. One matter was to collect on a bill for plumbing services Samuels had
performed. The case was already pending and Samuels understood that Respondent
would take over the case from prior counsel. The second case involved a potential
malpractice claim against Samuels’ former dentist arising from a root canal procedure
which left Sarnuels with chronic numbness in his lower lip.
At the initial meeting between Samuels and Respondent, there was an
agreement that Satnuels’ former counsel would transfer a $400 fee which Respondent
would use to cover expenses on the two matters. Respondent acknowledged that he
thereafter opened a file for each case. Further, Respondent contacted another dentist
to evaluate the potential malpractice claim against Samuel’s dentist. Respondent
admitted that he never received a response from the dentist and took no further action
to acquire information.
On the collection case, the only action Respondent took was to check the
sheriff’s computer where he discovered that Samuels’ debtor did not own any real
property upon which a lien could be attached. Respondent acknowledged during the
evidentiary hearing that he forgot about both matters and the two cases remained
dormant for three and one half years. In November 1997, Samuels contacted
Respondent and demanded the return of his files along with the $400 fee. Resporrdent
did return both.
Respondent’s failure to act evidently did not prejudice the collection claim,
However, the statute of limitations on the malpractice claim ran in July 1994. Samuels
2
thereafter filed a bar complaint against Respondent.
There is no evidence that Respondent’s failure to pursue the claims was
intentional or willful. However, while Respondent states that he acknowledges and
accepts responsibility for his lack of diligence, he appears to shift the blame, at least in
part, to Samuels for his failure to inquire about his own case for such a long period of
time. In fact, Respondent seems to imply that his lack of diligence is somewhat less
egregious since he believes that Samuels would more than likely not have prevailed on
his medical malpractice claim.
We are of the opinion that a public reprimand is insufficient, especially in light of
the fact that Respondent’s conduct caused a statute to run on a potential malpractice
claim. In addition, the Board of Governors report indicates that Respondent previously
received a private admonition in 1982.
Therefore it is hereby ordered that:
1. Respondent, Dennis Carrithers, is suspended from the practice of law
in Kentucky for a period of thirty (30) days. This period of suspension
shall commence on the date of entry of this Opinion and Order.
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay the
costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said
sum being $1,464.16, and for which execution may issue from this Court
upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
Cooper, Graves, Stumbo, and Wintersheimer, J.J. concur. Lambert, C.J.,
Johnstone. and Keller, J.J. would adopt the Board of Governors recommendation
ENTERED: January 17, 2002.
3
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.