KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. RODNEY MCDANIEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
Sixpretctr alaurf of
'
ht"i
i
2005-SC-0172-KB
PETITIONER
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
IN SUPREME COURT
V.
RODNEY McDANIEL
KBA MEMBER NO. 46027
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Rodney McDaniel, KBA No. 46027, of Frankfort, Kentucky, was admitted to the
practice of law in Kentucky on October 1, 1976.
On August 2, 2004, the Inquiry Commission of the Kentucky Bar Association filed
a five-count charge against McDaniel . Count I alleges violation of SCR 3.130-1 .3 for
failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client . Count
II alleges violation of SCR 3.130-3 .2 for failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite
litigation consistent with the interests of the client . Count III alleges violation of SCR
3.130-3 .4(c) for allegedly knowingly or intentionally disobeying an obligation under the
rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on assertion that no obligation
exists. Count IV alleges violation of SCR 3 .130-3 .4(d) for deliberate failure to make a
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an
opposing party . Count V alleges that he knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority.
McDaniel has been privately admonished on two prior occasions for violations of
SCR 3.130-1 .3 and SCR 3 .130-1 .4(b) . In an order from the Inquiry Commission dated
November 6, 2000, he was informally privately admonished pursuant to SCR 3.185 for
failing to appear at a hearing as the attorney for defendant facing contempt charges for
failing to attend drug counseling. On July 10, 2002, he was again informally privately
admonished pursuant to SCR 3.185 for accepting appointment of a client, after which
he made a single attempt to contact the client .
The facts of the instant action concern the representation of eight prison inmates
who filed a civil rights complaint against the Franklin County Correctional Complex .
Originally, these inmates filed pro se. On October 18, 2001, McDaniel entered his
appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs and filed a motion to amend the complaint. The
motion was granted.
In March 2002, he met with opposing counsel and issued the joint status
conference report requested by the court. In August 2002, the defendants served
discovery requests on McDaniel . In a motion dated December 6, 2002, the defendants
asked to dismiss or, in the alternative, to alter and to compel discovery because
McDaniel had failed to respond to the August requests . On January 7, 2003, the court
dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to answer discovery requests .
On January 21, 2003, McDaniel answered a show cause order and motioned for
the establishment of new discovery deadlines . He explained that he was busy with a
capital murder case and requested that the court not dismiss the case, order sanctions
against him, and issue new scheduling deadlines . Two days later, the court set aside
the dismissal and ordered sanctions in the amount of the costs paid by defendants to
file the motion to dismiss . McDaniel paid those costs .
In the renewed case, McDaniel obtained the depositions of three of the plaintiffs,
but failed to respond to the earlier discovery requests . Later, on June 16, 2003, the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss citing that they had received no answers to
discovery requests and that the plaintiffs had not taken any depositions in order to
support their claims against the defendants . McDaniel did not respond to the motion .
The case was dismissed .
In February 2004, the Franklin County Sheriff served McDaniel with a copy of the
pending disciplinary complaint. Again, in March, the Sheriff served him a copy of the
complaint and a reminder letter. McDaniel did not answer the discipline complaint .
On August 18, 2004, he was served with the charges from the Inquiry
Commission, and again served a warning letter on September 8, 2004 . McDaniel did
not answer the Inquiry Commission Charges .
The Board of Governors received no explanation of his conduct from McDaniel,
and noted the facts outlined above. In a vote of 15-0, they found him guilty of Counts I,
II, III, and IV. In an 11-4 vote, the Board found him guilty of Count V.
The legal authorities regarding discipline cited by the KBA are unconvincing .
Previous discipline by the KBA has not been sufficient to cure the problem . A review of
this case demonstrates a pattern of neglect and disregard for the interests of his clients
and for the orders of the federal court as well as the disciplinary charges filed against
him . The past discipline in the form of two private admonitions has not rehabilitated this
pattern of conduct, nor has he approached the KBA with an explanation of his charged
deficiencies .
Accordingly, it is the finding of this Court that Rodney McDaniel has violated SCR
3 .130-1 .3 ; SCR 3 .130-3 .2; SCR 3.130-3 .4(C); SCR 3.130-3 .14(D) and SCR 3.1308 .1(B).
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED :
That Rodney McDaniel is suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of 30 days; pursuant to SCR 3.450, McDaniel
is directed to pay the costs associated with this matter in the sum of $498.26, for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
ENTERED : August 25, 2005 .
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:
Bruce K. Davis
Executive Director
Jay R. Garrett
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :
Rodney McDaniel
236 West Main Street
P.O . Box 1788
Frankfort KY 40602-1788
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.