KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. ALAN R . MILLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrrnte C~ourf of
2004-SC-0318-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
ALAN R. MILLER
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Respondent, Alan R. Miller, whose bar roster address is 141 Spring Street,
P. O. Box 81, New Albany, Indiana, was suspended for sixty days in Indiana for
professional misconduct under the provisions of the Indiana Admission and Discipline
Rules . Upon motion by the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), this Court issued a show
cause order directing Respondent to show cause, if any, pursuant to SCR 3 .435(2)(b),
why the imposition of identical discipline should not be imposed .
SCR 3 .435(4) states in pertinent part that this Court "shall impose the identical
discipline unless Respondent proves by substantial evidence : (a) a lack of jurisdiction
or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that misconduct established
warrants substantially different discipline in this State." Respondent did not respond to
this Court's Order and thus failed to show cause why identical discipline should not be
imposed in Kentucky.
Respondent, a public defender, entered his appearance for an incarcerated
client in a criminal matter. Thereafter, he failed to appear at the pre-trial hearing, did
not accept his client's collect telephone calls from jail, did not respond to his client's
letters, and failed to visit his client in jail . Furthermore, Respondent failed to respond to
the complaint for disciplinary action filed against him by the Indiana Disciplinary
Commission . The Supreme Court of Indiana found that Respondent violated Indiana
Professional Conduct Rules 1 .3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client), 1 .4 (failing to keep his client reasonably informed
about the status of the case, failing to respond to the client's requests for information,
and failing to explain the matter to the client to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), and 8.1 (b)
(failing to respond to the Disciplinary Commission's lawful demands for information
during its investigation) . Having found such violations, the Supreme Court of Indiana
suspended Respondent from the practice of law for a period of not fewer than sixty
days, at the conclusion of which he is required to apply for reinstatement .
Respondent's failure to communicate with his client violated SCR 3 .130-1 .3,
which provides that "a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client ." His conduct in Indiana also violates Kentucky's SCR 3.130-1 .4,
which requires a lawyer to "keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information" and to "explain a
matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation ." Finally, Respondent's failure to
respond to the Indiana Disciplinary Commission is a violation of SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b),
which requires an attorney to respond to a lawful demand for information from an
admissions or disciplinary authority.
Since Respondent failed to show cause why identical discipline should not be
imposed in this Commonwealth, Alan R. Miller is hereby suspended from the practice of
law for a period of sixty (60) days. Said suspension shall commence upon entry of this
Opinion and Order.
Pursuant to SCR 3 .450, Respondent is further ordered to pay all costs
associated with this disciplinary proceeding . Upon finality of this Opinion and Order, an
order of execution may issue from this Court for said costs.
All concur.
Entered: September 23, 2004.
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.
