KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. PATRICK HERMAN NOBLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ENTERED: OCTOBER 23, 2003
AMENDED : NOVEMBER 25, 2003
AMENDED : JANUARY 8, 2004
TO BE PUBLISHED
,SuyumE
Courf of
2003-SC-0613-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
APPELLANT
IN SUPREME COURT
PATRICK HERMAN NOBLE
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
Patrick Herman Noble, KBA No .87354, of Henderson, Kentucky, was
charged by the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Inquiry Commission with two separate
incidents of misconduct, KBA File 9657 and 9911, alleging four disciplinary violations
each . The KBA consolidated both matters for review before this Court . Upon Noble's
default, the matter was considered by the Board of Governors (Board) and this review is
of its final recommendation .
On February 4, 2003, the KBA alleged that Noble violated: (1) SCR
3.130-1 .3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client; (2) SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) for failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter and promptly complying with reasonable requests for information ; (3)
SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) by failing to adequately protect the interests of his former client after
the termination of the attorney-client relationship when he did not promptly return the
unearned fee ; and (4) SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) for having knowingly failed to "respond to a
lawful demand for information from an admission or disciplinary authority."
In December of 2001, Noble was hired by Client A to file a bankruptcy
petition and she paid $200 upon the fee. The following March, Client A paid Noble
$450, the remainder of the fee . Noble neither worked to complete nor filed his client's
petition for bankruptcy relief. After two contacts by the client, Noble informed her that
he would check on the matter and call her back. Noble did not follow up and did not
contact Client A.
On July 3, 2002, Client A contacted Noble with a certified letter requesting
a refund of the fee. Noble did not respond after signing for the letter on July 5, 2002.
Respondent was served by certified mail with the four count Complaint from Client A on
August 19, 2002 and again by the Sheriff on September 30, 2002 . Respondent filed no
response to the charges .
On October 16, 2002, approximately a month and a half
after service of the Complaint, Noble returned his client's fee along with her documents .
On February 4, 2003, the Inquiry Commission issued a charge and on February 28, the
Respondent was served . No answer was filed and default proceedings were presented
to the Board .
On Charges 1 through 3, the Board voted 17-0 for guilt and on Charge 4
voted 16-1 in favor of guilt .
On February 18, 2003, the KBA alleged with respect to Client B that Noble
violated : (1) SCR 3.130-1 .1 for failing to provide competent representation to a client;
(2) SCR 3 .130-1 .3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; (3) SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) for failing to keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly complying with reasonable requests
for information ; and (4) SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) for "failing to take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to
the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that
has not been earned ."
Client B hired Noble on January 19, 2001 to file a bankruptcy case . Noble
filed the case but without the appropriate paperwork. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed
the case on August 14, 2002 . Client B repeatedly contacted Noble's office to check on
the status of the case, but did not receive any response .
On October 17, 2002, Client B filed a KBA Complaint against Noble. He
was served on October 30, 2002 and filed a response admitting the allegations of the
Complaint and stating that he was going through a divorce and would consider paying
any damages that his client suffered . In his answer filed November 25, 2002, Noble
stated that he was no longer accepting bankruptcy clients and that he had taken
employment as an assistant County Attorney with no private clients .
The Inquiry Commission issued a four-count charge with respect to Client
B on February 15, 2003, which Noble did not answer . In Charges 1 through 4, the
Board voted 17-0 for guilt. In a consolidated decision and recommendation concerning
both cases, The Board voted 11-6 in favor of a public reprimand and return of fees and
costs to Client B . The Board noted that the disputed fees in the first incident were
returned .
Noble made no request pursuant to SCR 3.370(8) that this Court review
the Board's recommendation, and this Court declines to undertake such review .
Consequently, pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), this Court adopts the recommendation of
the Board of Governors .
Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is therefore ordered that:
1 . Respondent, Patrick Herman Noble, be and hereby is publicly
reprimanded for his violations in KBA File 9657 of SCR 3.130-1 .3, SCR 3.130-1 .4(a),
SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d), SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) and in KBA File 9911 of SCR 3.10-1 .1, SCR
3.130-1 .3, SCR 3.130-1 .4(a), SCR 3.130-1 .16(d).
2 . Respondent, Patrick Herman Noble, shall return all fees and costs to
Client B .
3. Respondent, Patrick Herman Noble, in accordance with SCR 3.450, is
directed to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him,
said sum being $105.06, and for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
ENTERED : October 23, 2003 .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Bruce K. Davis, Executive Director
Linda Gosnell
Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Patrick Herman Noble
223 First Street
P . O. Box 618
Henderson, KY 42419-0618
,Sixyxtmr (gourf of
tnfixrkV
2003-SC-0613-KB
Kentucky Bar Association
APPELLANT
IN SUPREME COURT
APPELLEE
Patrick Herman Noble
ORDER
The Opinion and Order in the above-styled case, entered October 23, 2003 and
amended on, November 25, 2003 is hereby amended to correct typographical errors on
pages 1 and 2 . This amendment does not change the holding of the Opinion and Order.
ENTERED : January 8 . 2004 .
CHIEF JUSTICE
F
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.