JAMES A . RESKIN, KBA MEMBER NO . 84223 V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
JAMES A . RESKIN,
KBA MEMBER NO. 84223
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, James A. Reskin, of Louisville, Kentucky, was admitted to the practice
of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by order of this Court entered on February 21,
1992 .
On April 15, 2002, the Inquiry Commission issued a two (2) count Charge (KBA
File No . 8914) against Movant that alleged violations of the Kentucky Rules of
Professional Conduct in connection with Movant's representation of a plaintiff in a
Jefferson Circuit Court civil action .
Count I of the Charge outlined the relevant factual
allegations :
[Movant] represented Kenneth Gill in the case styled
Kenneth Gill v. Watson Wrecking Co., Inc. and Larry
Watson , Jefferson Circuit Court, Case No . 99-CI-01636. A
judgment was entered in the above referenced case on
October 24, 2000 in favor of Mr. Gill in the amount of
$7,500 .00, plus interest and court costs . . . .
Following the entry of the judgment, Respondent sent his
client a letter dated December 5, 2000, in which he enclosed
a copy of the judgment . In the letter, Respondent stated "we
now have a judgment to be enforced and part of my job is to
enforce the judgment. I have submitted garnishments to a
number of local banks and we will have answers and some
money within three (3) weeks ." . . . Mr. Gill received no
money within the three (3) week time period . [Movant] failed
to contact Mr. Gill and indicate that no money had been
received from the garnishments or that they were unable to
collect on the judgment.
Mr. Gill attempted to contact [Movant] numerous times
between December, 2000 and September, 2001 . Mr. Gill
received no response from [Movant] during this time period .
On September 29, 2001, Mr. Gill sent [Movant] a letter
stating that he would appreciate any information that he
would have on his case . He received no response to that
letter . . . .
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 diligently
take action to collect a judgment after informing his client that he would do so ." Count II
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 communicate with his client between
December, 2000 and September, 2001 regarding the status of his efforts to collect on a
judgment . . . and fail[ing] to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information
from his client regarding the collection efforts ."
Movant denies Count I's allegation that he failed to take action diligently to
collect his client's judgment and contends that, in late 2000 and early 2001, he and his
paralegal did in fact take steps, including preparing and serving a garnishment, to
collect the judgment . Although those measures ultimately proved unsuccessful, Movant
disputes Count I's suggestion that he ignored the matter . Movant admits, however, that
he violated SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) as alleged in Count II by failing to communicate with his
client or to respond to his client's reasonable requests for information . Movant thus
moves the 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, James A. Reskin, be and hereby is publically reprimanded after
having acknowledged that he engaged in unprofessional conduct as charged in Count II
of the Charge issued in KBA File No. 8914, and such discipline shall terminate the KBA
File No . 8914 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 $9 .53, and for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
Entered : March 20, 2003.
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.
