KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. ALECIA LOCOCO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AMENDED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
TO BE PUBLISHED
2006-SC-000388-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
APPELLANT
IN SUPREME COURT
ALECIA LOCOCO
KBA MEMBER NO. 84175
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
Appellant, Alecia Lococo, was admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1991 . Her bar roster address is P .O. Box 7044,
Hazard, Kentucky 41702.
Ms. Lococo was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on March
6, 2000. On September 27, 2001, she received a three year suspension from the
practice of law, with the effective date of suspension being March 6, 2000, the
same date as the temporary suspension . The suspension was the result of two
separate matters, KBA Files 7175 and 7664.
KBA File 8980
During 1999, Ms. Lococo represented Hilery Crouch in a personal injury
action, in which she settled for $25,000 . Medicaid and Crouch's medical services
provider, Dr. Gilbert, had liens on the settlement totaling $10;000 . Ms. Lococo
directed this amount to be withheld from the gross settlement distribution, along
with her fee and costs . However, Ms. Lococo's secretary, Donna Ritchie, wrote a
check from the escrow account to Crouch for $10,000, without Ms. Lococo's
knowledge or consent.
Unfortunately, what occurred in the present case is what also occurred in
the client matters, which were the subject of the earlier disciplinary case in which
Ms. Lococo received a three year suspension . As in Ms. Lococo's earlier
disciplinary case, funds which were ordered to be withheld in order to pay
Medicaid and the doctors were distributed erroneously by Donna Ritchie without
the knowledge or consent of Ms. Lococo.
Subsequently, Ms. Lococo has since taken the appropriate corrective
actions to remedy this mistake. She has satisfied the medical lien of Dr. Gilbert
and has corresponded with Medicaid for the purpose of addressing the lien .
Also, she has admitted that she did not have the proper safeguards in place
regarding her escrow account and her support staff.
KBA File 7944
In February of 2000, Ms. Lococo had a claim against her in which attorney
James Early represented the adverse party. Mr. Early and Ms. Lococo had been
corresponding directly with each other concerning the claim that his client had
against her. However, she decided to have an attorney, Phillip Wicker, who was
representing her in other matters, respond to Mr. Early on her behalf. Without
Mr. Wicker's consent or foreknowledge, Ms. Lococo drafted a letter for his review
and consideration . Under a preexisting arrangement, Ms. Lococo possessed
some of Mr. Wicker's stationery for this very reason .
After a period of time in which Ms. Lococo believed Mr. Wicker had
reviewed the letter, Ms. Lococo prematurely allowed her secretary to send the
letter. Ms. Lococo presumed that Mr. Wicker had read and approved the letter;
however, she did not confirm this with her, or his, secretary. Mr. Wicker was
unaware of the fact that the letter had been sent until he received a copy of the
letter from Mr. Early. There was no signature by Mr. Wicker or anyone on his
behalf on the letter.
Law & Discipline
Ms. Lococo recognizes that pursuant to SCR 3.130-5.3(b), she had direct
supervisory authority over her secretary . She acknowledges that by failing to
confirm Mr. Wicker's review and signature of the letter, she was in violation of
SCR 3 .130-5 .3(b). She also acknowledges that she violated SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b)
when she incorrectly distributed the funds on the settlement of a case.
Ms. Lococo made a motion for consensual discipline, proposing a six
month suspension, effective September 22, 2003, the date of the return charge in
KBA file 8980, with the period of suspension to be run concurrently with the
current suspension as set forth in the Court's order of September 27, 2001 .
Upon review of the facts in this case, the Kentucky Bar Association concluded
that the appropriate discipline should be a six month suspension, to commence
on September 22, 2003.
In cases where a non-lawyer employee caused a lawyer's property to be
commingled with the property of the lawyer's clients, the Court has found that the
lawyers' violation of SCR 3.130-1 .15(b) and SCR 3.130-5.3(b) warrant short-term
suspensions . The Court is willing to impose shorter suspensions when clients or
third parties are not injured as a result of such mismanagement; however, that
was not the case with Ms. Lococo's mismanagement .
Section 4.12 of the American Bar Association's Standard for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions provides that absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
a suspension is generally appropriate when the lawyer knows or should know
that she is dealing improperly with client property or causes injury or potential
injury to a client. Additionally, §7.2 similarly provides that if a lawyer knowingly
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession and
causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public or the legal system, a
suspension is generally appropriate.
Still, a mitigating factor is present. Here, there was a delay in the
prosecution of this case . The Inquiry Commission issued KBA file 7944 against
Ms. Lococo in April of 2000. No further steps were taken until August of 2003.
While this action was thus still pending, Ms . Lococo's previous cases, KBA Files
7175 and 7664 were resolved by the Court's suspension. Thus, her suspension
began in 2001 . Because of these two pending disciplinary matters, one of which
was not advanced to the docket until 2003, Ms. Lococo has not been able to
seek reinstatement. This delay from April of 2000 until August of 2003 is a
mitigating factor and was prejudicial toward Ms. Lococo.
This delay, combined with the prior suspension which addressed the same
conduct, may be applied to reduce the appropriate sanction in this case from
what might have been a suspension to serve in the future. Therefore, a six
month suspension, set to run concurrently is the appropriate sanction in
consideration of the unethical conduct and the mitigating factors. Such a
retroactive suspension was applied in Kentucky Bar Association v. Horn, 4
S.W.3d 135 (Ky. 1999) . This sanction is also consistent with Kentucky case law
and the ABA Standards for Imposina Lawver Sanctions.
The Motion for Suspension from the practice of law, along with the
relevant case law was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Inquiry
Commission and the Immediate Past President of the Kentucky Bar Association
before submission to the Court, pursuant to the Office of Bar Counsel's standard
procedure in consensual discipline cases.
Therefore, we adopt the finding by the KBA regarding the appropriate
discipline in this matter for her violations of SCR 3.130-5 .3(b) and SCR 3 .101.15(b) and order Ms . Lococo be suspended for six (6) months, commencing on
September 22, 2003, and to run concurrently with the current suspension as set
forth in this Court's order of September 27, 2001 .
Thus, it is ORDERED that:
1 .) Ms. Lococo be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months
for her violations in KBA Files 8980 and 7944.
2.) This period of suspension is effective as of September 22, 2003, and
the suspension is to run concurrently with the suspension set forth in
the Court's order of September 27, 2001 .
3.) Ms. Lococo shall pay the certification of costs in the amount of $86.45,
from which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of the
Opinion and Order.
ENTERED: August 24, 2006.
All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Bruce K. Davis
Executive Director
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Linda A. Gosnell
Chief Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Jenny D. Lafferty
Office of Bar Counsel
Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Peter L. Ostermiller
Kentucky Home Life Building
239 South Fifth Street, Suite 1800
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
,SuprsmE C~vurf n£ ftrufurhV
2006-SC-000388-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
APPELLANT
IN SUPREME COURT
ALECIA LOCOCO
KBA MEMBER NO. 84175
APPELLEE
ORDER AMENDING
The Kentucky Bar Association's motion to reconsider and amend the
Opinion and Order of August 24, 2006, is hereby granted .
The Opinion and Order in the above styled-case, entered August 24,
2006, is hereby amended . New pages one (1) and four (4), attached hereto, are
hereby substituted in place of pages one (1) and four (4), of the original Opinion
and Order. This amendment does not change the holding of the opinion and
order.
ENTERED : September 13
, 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.