r KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION PETITIONER V. ROBERT M . BEAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
sixprsma
0
(190urf of
2005-SC-0620-KB
r
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
PETITIONER
IN SUPREME COURT
ROBERT M . BEAL
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Beal, KBA No. 03887, whose last bar roster address was P.O. Box
70051, Louisville, KY, 40270, was admitted to practice on October 25, 1982 .
In March 2003, the Inquiry Commission received a complaint from an individual
alleging that Beal had abandoned representation of the client in the middle of
adversarial proceedings . The investigation revealed that Beal had accepted
representation of a client facing non-wage garnishments and possible liens against
property in a collection action . At the time of retaining the client agreement, the client
was already in default in answering a Non-Wage Garnishment Order and the sum of
$2300 had been paid to the judgment creditor from the client's bank account . Beal filed
an appropriate motion to set aside the default order, resulting in the order being set
aside in part and granting additional time to respond to the original Non-Wage
Garnishment Order.
Beal failed to make any further appearances or filings on behalf of his client. As
a result of this failure, a motion to reinstate the judgment was filed by the adverse party .
Beal did not file any response to either motion. The reinstatement was granted
resulting in a judgment against the client for the amount of $13,232 .21 . Beal failed to
respond to any of these actions .
Upon notification of another levy against his bank account, the client became
aware of Beal's inaction . The client immediately retained new counsel and filed the
complaint .
On May 17, 2004, the Inquiry Commission served Beal with a copy of the Bar
Complaint by certified mail. On September 3, 2004, a reminder letter was sent because
no response had been received . On December 28, 2004, with no response from Beal,
the Inquiry Commission filed a four count Charge against Beal .
On January 26, 2005, Beal was notified by certified letter of the following four
disciplinary charges filed .
Count I alleged violation of SCR 3.130-1 .3, failure to diligently represent his
client by failing to answer a garnishment order and failure to respond to
correspondence from opposing counsel .
Count II alleges violation of SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) and (b) for failure to keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, failure to comply with
reasonable requests for information, and failure to adequately explain the matter to his
client by failing to respond to numerous phone calls from the client and by failing to
inform and explain to the client that motions to reinstate the garnishment order had
been filed that could result in the client being held in contempt of the garnishment order
again .
Count III alleges violation of SCR 3 .130-1 .1 for failure to provide competent
representation to his client by failure to respond to a motion and failure to answer a
garnishment order.
Count IV alleges violation of SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) for failure to respond to a lawful
demand for information from a Disciplinary Authority.
Beal failed to respond to any of these charges .
On January 27, 2005, Beal was suspended for non-payment of bar dues . On
February 17, 2005, this Court entered an order privately reprimanding Beal for violation
of SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) for failure to respond . On March 11, 2005, the Board found Beal
guilty on another count of SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) .
The Board of Governors found Beal guilty on each count of the instant charge by
a vote of 17-0 for each count . They concluded that Beal undertook representation of a
client and then failed to timely file appropriate pleadings that caused the client to be
held in contempt of the court and in default . Additionally, Beal failed to keep his client
reasonably informed of the events which had transpired including the contempt findings
as well as the levy of substantial sums in the client's bank account.
On the matter of appropriate discipline, the Board recommended by 15 votes to
suspend Beal from the practice of law for 60 days. One vote recommended a 30-day
suspension and there was one abstention .
Based on the foregoing, we find that Beal's lack of response to the instant
charges coupled with the nature of the violations presents a cause for temporary
suspension under SCR 3.165(1)(b), which provides that a suspension is appropriate
where "it appears that probable cause exists to believe that an attorney's conduct poses
a substantial threat of harm to his clients or to the public."
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows :
(1) Respondent, Robert M . Beal, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of sixty (60) days.
(2) In accordance with SCR 3.450 and SCR 3.480(3), respondent is directed to
pay all costs associated with this disciplinary proceeding against him in the amount of
$206.40, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this order.
(3) Pursuant to SCR 3 .390, respondent is hereby ordered to provide notice to
any clients, if applicable, he currently represents, of his inability to provide further legal
services, to notify all courts in which he has matters of his pending suspension and to
provide the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association with a copy of all such letters
simultaneously to their mailing .
(4) This suspension shall run immediately from the date of this Order and
concurrent to any other disciplinary suspension affecting Beal .
All concur.
ENTERED : October 20, 2005 .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Bruce K. Davis
Executive Director
Robert Mark Beal
P .O. Box 70051
Louisville, KY 40270-0051
Jay R . Garrett
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.
