INQUIRY COMMISSION V. STEPHEN P. ROBEY, ESQ.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
6*ixprems C-Ourf of
~~
LJ
2005-SC-000573-KB
INQUIRY COMMISSION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
STEPHEN P . ROBEY, ESQ .
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Inquiry Commission requests that Respondent Stephen P. Robey, KBA
Member No . 59230, whose last known address is 508 East Main Street, Providence, KY
41450, be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky as there is probable cause to believe, pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(d), that
Respondent is addicted to intoxicants or drugs and does not have the physical or
mental fitness to continue to practice law. The Inquiry Commission states, further, that
there is probable cause to believe, pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(b), that Respondent poses
a substantial threat of harm to his clients or to the public.
The Respondent is currently under indictment in the Hopkins Circuit Court having
been charged with three counts of First Degree Wanton Endangerment, one count of
DUI, one count of First Degree Traffickiing in a Controlled Substance, one count of
Third Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance, and one count of Possession of
Drug Paraphernalia . The indictment issued September 28, 2004 as a result of an
August 12, 2004 automobile accident .
The Respondent is also under indictment in the Webster Circuit Court having
been charged with having a Controlled Substance not in Original Container, one count
of Second Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance, and three counts of Third
Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance . The indictment and arrest warrant
issued October 21, 2004', were obtained by Sgt. Todd Jones of the Kentucky State
Police after Sgt. Jones arrested Respondent on the September 28, 2004 Hopkins
County arrest warrant and discovered the drugs and related items on the Respondent's
person. Sgt. Jones, having known Respondent for approximately seventeen years,
observed that the Respondent's speech was slow and halting and that his movements
were slower than normal.
On October 30, Sgt. Jones, in his affidavit to the Inquiry Commission, stated he
observed the Respondent drive slowly past his house and the house of his neighbor,
Tony Fletcher, a suspected drug trafficker. Sgt. Jones said he was off duty, but
followed the Respondent to Fletcher's house . He also stated he had heard a rumor that
the Respondent and his girlfriend had been purchasing illegal drugs at Fletcher's house.
When he arrived at Fletcher's house, he stated the Respondent appeared to be
impaired and under the influence of an intoxicant; the female passenger in the
Respondent's car was extremely impaired and incoherent . The Respondent assured
Sgt. Jones that he would not be driving .
The Respondent was charged on June 8, 2005, in Webster District Court, of two
charges of Theft by Deception stemming from the passing of two worthless checks ; one
in the amount of $24 .29 to the Webster County Clerk's Office on January 26, 2005 and
The October 21, 2004 indictment and arrest warrant was served on October 21, 2004.
one in the amount of $125 .75 to Redwood Market on April 11, 2005 . The Respondent
was provided written notice to pick up both checks, which he failed to do.
On February 3, 2004, the Respondent was appointed Executor of the Estate of
Edna Emma Miller in Webster District Court . The Respondent filed an Inventory on
March 22, 2004, and took no further action to finalize the estate . The Respondent was
removed as Executor of the Estate after refusing to finalize the estate or respond to
repeated inquiries from the heirs requesting information about the estate .
The Respondent obtained the client file for Mr. Van Nabb when he agreed to
cover an associate's cases during her prolonged medical leave in May - June of 2004 .
Mr. Nabb stated in his affidavit to the Inquiry Commission that, while in the possession
of his file, the Respondent failed to return Mr. Nabb's phone calls and was not keeping
regular office hours and that the Respondent was exhibiting erratic behavior .
Kenneth Shouse retained the Respondent to represent him in a criminal matter in
Union Circuit Court . Mr. Shouse spoke with the Respondent on April 12, 2005, and
advised him that he would have a preliminary hearing on April 14, 2005 . At that time,
Mr. Shouse paid the Respondent a retainer fee. The Respondent failed to appear in
court for the preliminary hearing with Mr. Shouse after agreeing to be there . Mr.
Shouse testified to this at his preliminary hearing .
The Respondent was retained to represent Stephen and Dee Watson as a result
of injuries suffered by Mr. Watson in an automobile accident . On February 27, 2004,
the Respondent filed a civil action in Lyon Circuit Court on behalf of Mr. Watson . The
Respondent filed an Amended Complaint on March 1, 2004, and thereafter failed to
take any further action in the case . The case was dismissed on May 2, 2005 after the
Respondent failed to answer interrogatories served on April 7, 2004, failed to appear for
the first status conference on January 6, 2005, failed to comply with an Order to Compel
entered January 7, 2005, failed to appear at a hearing on the Defendant's Motion for
Sanctions and the second status conference on April 4, 2005, and failed to appear at or
cancel a mediation held on April 14, 2005 .
In February of 2005, Benjamin Cruce retained the Respondent to represent him
in a criminal matter in the Henderson Circuit Court . Mr. Cruce paid the Respondent
approximately $2300.00 for his representation . Thereafter, the Respondent failed to
appear in court with Mr . Cruce on three separate occasions, including January 3, 2005,
February 7, 2005, and May 9, 2005. During the representation, the Respondent failed
to file a Motion to Reduce Bond on behalf of Mr. Cruce, despite being requested to do
so. Mr. Cruce was also unable to reach the Respondent by telephone. The
Respondent refused to refund any of the approximately $2300.00 paid by Mr. Cruce,
despite requests to do so . Mr. Cruce's mother stated in her affidavit to the Inquiry
Commission that a public defender was appointed to represent her son at one of his
hearings as a result of the Respondent's absence and that the Respondent never
notified her son of his need to be absent .
On June 8, 2005, the Office of Bar Counsel received a Client's Security Fund
Application sworn to by Dorothy Miers, one of the Respondent's Clients . Ms. Miers
asserts that she paid the Respondent $5000.00 on February 18, 2005, to represent her.
He advised her that he would appear in court with her, and he never appeared . She
went to his office to request a refund, but he would not return her money . She also
notes that the Respondent's phone has been cut off.
After becoming aware of certain of these criminal matters and client complaints,
due to information that has been provided regarding the Respondent's substance abuse
issues, the Office of Bar Counsel communicated with the Respondent through a series
of letters, asking whether he would be willing to address his substance abuse issues
and agree to allow the Office of Bar Counsel to communicate with KYLAP regarding his
substance abuse problem. According to the Inquiry Commission's Petition, the Office of
Bar Counsel had hoped that the Respondent was aggressively addressing any
substance abuse issues that he may have, and that proof he had seriously and
aggressively participated in rehabilitation would allow the Inquiry Commission to forego
temporary suspension proceedings .
In letters dated May 27, 2005 and June 17, 2005, the Office of Bar Counsel
asked whether the Respondent would be willing to communicate with KYLAP and allow
the Office of Bar Counsel to communicate with KYLAP in an effort to address his
substance abuse issues . The Office of Bar Counsel further questioned whether the
Respondent entered into a monitoring agreement with KYLAP, had attended any
rehabilitation program, and would be willing to provide releases permitting the Office of
Bar Counsel to review and use treatment records in disciplinary or temporary
suspension proceedings and to use KYLAP records in disciplinary or temporary
proceedings .
In response to the letters from the Office of Bar Counsel, the Respondent signed
releases permitting the Office of Bar Counsel to review and use his medical records and
KYLAP records in disciplinary or temporary suspension proceedings . He also enclosed
a report dated February 8, 2005, from a drug counselor, Lawrence Peyton, indicating
that he had been drug and alcohol free since September 15, 2004, and that the
Respondent had tested negative on a seven-panel drug test on January 27, 2005. In
his letters to the Office of Bar Counsel, dated June 3, 2005 and June 21, 2005, the
Respondent asserted that he went through a "complete drug evaluation, and this year
successfully completed the recommended twelve week program for rehabilitation ." He
also stated that he had attended weekly NA and AA meetings.
The Office of Bar Counsel obtained the Respondents's records from New
Horizon's Counseling and KYLAP. According to the New Horizon records obtained by
the Office of Bar Counsel, the Respondent completed twelve weeks of outpatient
counseling. The treatment contract indicated that the twelve week program was
required as a result of his conviction for DUI, First Offense . He was also required to
attend AA or NA meetings twice a week and obtain an AA or NA sponsor within thirty
days. The Respondent advised the Office of Bar Counsel of the identity of two
individuals, both volunteers with KYLAP, who he alleged were his sponsors.
The Respondent filled out a questionaire, wherein he described
methamphetamines as his favorite drug and indicated that he has used marijuana,
cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, and amphetamines . He also indicated that he did
not abuse prescription drugs . Mr. Peyton's notes indicate that the Respondent met with
him on approximately twelve occasions . Throughout the treatment, the Respondent
completed a written analysis of three steps of this twelve step program .
Mr. Petyon's
notes further reflect that on October 26, 2004, the Respondent told Mr. Peyton that he
had not used drugs since September 15, 2004 . On November 9, 2004, the Respondent
reported to Mr. Peyton the identity of one of the individuals he claimed were his
sponsors. On November, 30, 2004, the Respondent reported that he "was around
cocaine," but that he did not use any. Mr. Peyton advised him that that was very risky
behavior . Mr. Peyton's notes from January 22, 2005, reflect that both of the identified
KYLAP volunteers attended the Respondent's session with him, agreeing to be his
twelve-step sponsors. On March 9, 2005, Mr. Peyton's notes reflect that the
Respondent "has completed all of his treatment goals and has completed his outpatient
program ."
Although the Respondent has indicated that he has participated in a rehabilitation
program and that he has not used drugs since September of 2004, and his records from
New Horizons Counseling seem to corroborate his statements, the totality of the
evidence together with the records received from KYLAP indicate that the Respondent
has not aggressively sought treatment, has not taken his treatment seriously, and has
significant ongoing problems that affect his ability to represent his clients .
The Respondent's KYLAP records indicate that there were several
misrepresentations in the Respondent's records from New Horizons . For example, the
Respondent admitted to KYLAP representatives that he was taking non-prescribed
Valium on a daily basis. Further, on December 15, 2004, the Respondent indicated to a
KYLAP representative that he had been off drugs for a period of weeks rather than the
September 15, 2004, date that had been given to the counselor at New Horizons . The
KYLAP records also reflect that the Respondent avoided attending meetings, that the
Respondent is still surrounding himself with "druggie" clients and friends, and that he
may be living with a "well-known addict ." Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the
Respondent reported to KYLAP (as well as New Horizons) that one of the KYLAP
volunteers was his twelve-step sponsor. According to the KYLAP records, this
particular volunteer has vehemently denied this assertion, saying that he has not heard
from the Respondent in some time . There is no indication from the KYLAP records that
either KYLAP volunteer had ever attended a New Horizons Counseling session with the
Respondent, or that they had ever been successful in getting the Respondent to attend
a single AA or NA meeting.
Although the Respondent indicated in his June 21, 2005, letter to the Office of
Bar Counsel that he would immediately contact a local KYLAP member to enter into a
monitoring and oversight agreement with KYLAP, the Respondent's KYLAP records
indicate that he did not request such an agreement until July 6, 2005. A blank
agreement was forwarded to him on July 13, 2005 .
However, as of July 20, 2005, the
Respondent has not signed and returned that agreement .
Although the Respondent has asserted that he has refrained from using drugs
since September 15, 2004, the majority of the evidence discussed herein and relating to
the Respondent's criminal and client issues arises from the Respondent's conduct since
that time, indicating that the Respondent is being less than truthful in his assertion .
Thus, there is probable cause to believe pursuant to SCR 3.165(1)(b) and SCR
3 .165(1)(d), that Respondent continues to pose a substantial threat of harm to his
clients or to the public, and that he is currently addicted to intoxicants or drugs and does
not have the physical or mental fitness to continue to practice law.
The Respondent has failed to file a timely response to the Inquiry Commission's
petition, and finding probable cause exists, we hereby grant the petition for temporary
suspension in accordance with SCR 3 .165(1)(b) and SCR 3.165(1)(d) .2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
The Respondent, Stephen P. Robey, is temporarily suspended from the
practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky pending further orders from this
Court.
2.
Disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent shall be initiated by the
Inquiry Commission pursuant to SCR 3.160, unless already begun or unless the
Respondent resigns under terms of disbarment .
3.
Pursuant to SCR 3.165(5), the Respondent shall within twenty (20) days
of the date of entry of this order notify all clients in writing of his inablility to continue to
represent them and shall furnish copies of such letters of notice to the Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association .
4.
Pursuant to SCR 3.165(6), the Respondent shall immediately, to the
extent reasonably possible, cancel and cease any legal practices advertising activities
in which he is engaged .
All concur.
ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 .
2 The Respondent filed a Motion for Extension/Expansion of Time to File Response to
Petition For Temporary Suspension on August 30, 2005 which was denied August 31,
2005 by an Order of this Court.
COUNSEL FOR MOVANT :
Linda Gosnell
Chief Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :
Gardner L. Turner
Sturgill, Turner, Truitt
155 East Main St .
Lexington, KY 40507
Steve P . Robey
The Trader Building
508 East Main Street
P .O. Box 302
Providence, KY 42450
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.
