WILLIAM YESOWITCH KBA MEMBER # 79410 v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,$UyrPmP Caurf of ~tufurhv
2002-SC-0860-KB
WILLIAM YESOWITCH
KBA MEMBER # 79410
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, William Yesowitch, of Louisville, Kentucky, was admitted to the practice
of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by order of this Court entered on October 3,
1979. On May 24, 2002, the Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge (KBA
File # 9113) against Movant that alleged violations of the Kentucky Rules of
Professional Conduct in connection with Movant's representation of a client in a
contemplated wrongful death action . Count I of the charge outlined the relevant factual
allegations :
On June 23, 1999, [Movant] entered into an attorney/client
relationship with Ruth Rummage . [Movant] agreed to
represent Ms . Rummage in the wrongful death action of her
husband, James Rummage, against his treating physicians .
Both [Movant] and Ms . Rummage signed [a written Contract
of Employment] on that date . . . . The agreement clearly
states that [Movant] must notify his client in writing of any
withdrawal at her last known address.
Between June, 1999 and October, 1999 [Movant]
investigated the circumstances regarding Mr. Rummage's
death . Part of the investigation included meeting with
Connie Light, a registered nurse, for the purpose of
reviewing medical records that [Movant] had secured on
behalf of Mr. Rummage . In October, 1999 he received a
report from Ms. Light. Ms . Light states in her report . . . that
the drug Propulsid was not a contributing factor to Mr.
Rummage's death by heart attack. However, she does
indicate that something could have been done by his doctors
to prevent his death.
On October 27, 1999, [Movant] met with Ms. Rummage
and her daughter in his office . That was the last time that he
spoke with his client regarding the medical malpractice
action until January, 2001 . In January, 2001, Ms. Rummage
called [Movant] asking him about the status of the medical
malpractice case. He informed her at that time that he was
not representing her in the medical malpractice action. By
this time, the statute of limitations had run on the case . Ms .
Rummage requested her file at that time and she was
provided it in February, 2001 .
Count I charged Movant with violating SCR 3.130-1 .3 ("A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client") by "fail[ing] to take any
action on behalf of his client in filing a medical malpractice action in the wrongful death
of her husband, and allowing the statute of limitations to run." Count 11 charged Movant
with violating SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) ("A lawyer should keep a client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information") by "fail[ing] to inform Ms . Rummage about the status of her medical
malpractice case" between November 1999 and January 2001 . Count III charged
Movant with violating SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) ("Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests . . . .")
by "failing to inform [Ms . Rummage] in writing of the termination, as he stated in the
'Contract for Employment'; failing to return to Ms . Rummage the client file and other
papers, including medical reports ; and failing to advise his client of the statute of
limitation and her need to obtain new counsel ."
Movant contests the accuracy of the Charges' factual allegations and contends
that : (1) he advised Ms . Rummage of the one-year statute of limitations on two
separate occasions prior to October 27, 1999 ; and (2) on that date, he verbally
terminated his representation of Ms. Rummage in connection with the medical
malpractice/wrongful death matter. Accordingly, Movant denies the allegations
contained in Counts I and (I of the Charge because he maintains that, until he
terminated his representation of Ms. Rummage, he acted with diligence and kept his
client informed as to his efforts in her regard . Movant, however, admits that his actions
violated SCR 3 .130- 1 .16(d) as alleged in Count III . Movant thus moves this Court to
issue a public reprimand and to terminate the disciplinary proceedings against him .
The Kentucky Bar Association, through bar counsel, advises the Court that it has no
objection to Movant's request .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) Movant, William Yesowitch, be and hereby is publicly reprimanded after
having acknowledged that he engaged in unprofessional conduct as charged in Count
III, and such discipline shall terminate the KBA File # 9113 disciplinary proceedings
against Movant.
(2) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Movant is directed to pay all costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $16 .50, and for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
Cooper, Graves, Johnstone and Wintersheimer, JJ ., concur . Lambert, C .J . ;
Keller and Stumbo, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion for a public reprimand
because the factual discrepancies between the charge and movant's motion make it
impossible to determine the appropriateness of that sanction .
Entered : December 19, 2002.
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.
