KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. KENNETH W. LAMPE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,suprmut d1ourf of
2005-SC-0847-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENNETH W. LAMPE
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) moves this Court to declare Respondent,
Kenneth W . Lampe, guilty of several charges brought in two cases before the
Association . Respondent's last known address is P .O. Box 22847, Louisville, Kentucky,
The KBA also moves this Court to impose an appropriate sanction for these
40258 .
violations . We adopt the recommendations submitted by the Board of Governors and
impose the sanctions reflected herein .
l . KBA File 8712
Respondent was properly served a four (4) count charge issued by the Inquiry
Commission on March 20, 2003, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct in connection with his representation of Linda Fish.
Ms. Fish hired Respondent in November 1999 for the purpose of re-opening a
workers' compensation claim that was settled in March 1997 . Ms . Fish provided a copy
of her settlement agreement to Respondent . She contacted Respondent because she
saw a television commercial for Respondent's firm offering legal representation in
workers' compensation matters . Ms. Fish never made face-to-face contact with
Respondent, but rather, Respondent provided all consultations and communications
over the telephone. All contact between Respondent and Ms. Fish was initiated by Ms.
Fish . Respondent frequently failed to return Ms. Fish's telephone calls. When
Respondent did speak with Ms . Fish, he told her that he was working on her claim and
was simply waiting on an impairment rating from her physician .
In fact, Respondent was not actively working on Ms. Fish's case and had not
retained a physician to assess Ms. Fish's impairment rating . Respondent further failed
to file the necessary documents to re-open Ms. Fish's claim prior to the expiration of the
four (4) year statute of limitations which passed in March 2001 . On July 6, 2001,
Respondent's law partner sent Ms . Fish a letter terminating the representation . After
the termination and after receiving a bar complaint, Respondent sent a letter to Ms .
Fish's physician stating that he was representing her and requesting medical records .
Respondent also sent a medical authorization signed by Ms. Fish to the physician . On
the medical authorization form, Respondent falsely indicated that the form was signed
sometime after the representation was actually terminated .
At a hearing on the matter, Respondent claimed that he was not aware that there
was a four (4) year statute of limitations for re-opening workers' compensations claims
and that he had little experience in workers' compensation matters . The Trial
Commissioner found Respondent guilty of violating SCR 3 .130-1 .1, for failing to provide
competent representation to a client ; SCR 3.130-1 .3, for failing to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client; SCR 3.130-1 .4(a), for failing to keep
his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly complying
with reasonable requests for information ; and SCR 8.3(c),engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation during the course of Respondent's
representation of Ms . Fish and his response to her bar complaint .
Respondent was
also adjudicated guilty of all charges by a unanimous vote of twenty to zero (20-0) by
the Board of Governors .
11. KBA File 10845
Respondent was properly served a three (3) count charge issued by the Inquiry
Commission on February 11, 2004, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct in connection with his representation of Saeid Khosdel. Respondent failed to
respond to the initial bar complaint and a reminder letter. Respondent, nonetheless,
was permitted to defend the claim and did participate in a hearing on the matter.
Respondent claimed that he was suffering from a serious depression and that was a
factor in his initial failures to respond .
Respondent was hired by Mr. Khosdel in March 2001 for the purpose of
commencing a bodily injury claim. At this time, Mr. Khosdel was receiving medical
treatment for his injuries. Respondent corresponded with the insurance companies,
interviewed the police officer who completed a police report in the matter, interviewed
Mr. Khosdel, and interviewed a witness to the accident . On August 20, 2001, Mr.
Khosdel's medical provider sent a letter to Respondent stating that Mr. Khosdel had
reached maximum medical improvement (MMI).
After receiving the August 20, 2001, letter, Respondent failed to correspond with
the liability insurance company, file a lawsuit, or otherwise pursue Mr. Khosdel's claim .
Respondent made no attempts to contact Mr. Khosdel and when Mr. Khosdel contacted
him, he repeatedly stated that he was working on Mr. Khosdel's case . After sixteen
months of failing to take any action on his claim, Mr. Khosdel terminated Respondent's
representation . Mr. Khosdel hired another attorney and his matter is currently pending
in the Jefferson Circuit Court .
At a hearing on the matter, the Trial Commissioner found that Respondent
violated SCR 3.130-1 .3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client ; and SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) for failing to keep his client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter and promptly complying with reasonable
requests for information . The Trial Commissioner found Respondent not guilty of
violating SCR 8 .1(b), for knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information
from an admissions or disciplinary authority. On review, the Board of Governors
adopted the Trial Commissioners' determinations by a vote of eleven to nine (11-9) for
violating SCR 3.130-1 .3 and SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) and eight to twelve (8-12) for not
violating SCR 8.1(b).
Ill . Conclusion
The record in this case indicates a clear pattern of noncompliance with the rules
of Respondent's chosen profession . Upon the foregoing facts and charges, we find
sufficient evidence to find Respondent guilty of all counts charged in KBA File No . 8712
and guilty of violation of SCR 3 .130-1 .3 and SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) in KBA File No. 10845.
We further hold that Respondent should be sanctioned.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Respondent, Kenneth W. Lampe, is adjudicated guilty of all charges alleged in
KBA File 8712 and guilty of violation of SCR 3.130-1 .3 and SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) in KBA
File No . 10845 .
2.
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of
120 days. The period of suspension shall commence on the date of entry of this order.
3.
In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $2,188 .27 for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Order.
4.
In accordance with SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, within ten days from the entry
of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them,
and notify all courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice
of law. Respondent shall furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association . Upon the issuance of said Opinion and Order, Respondent
shall immediately, to the extent possible, cancel and cease any advertising activities in
which he is engaged .
All concur.
ENTERED : January 19, 2006 .
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.
