DAVID KAPLAN V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
~Cix~r~s
(911urt
of
2006-SC-000521 -KB
~Y"~-3
Ola
'
'~
MOVANT
DAVID KAPLAN
V.
[0
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
David Kaplan, Movant, whose Bar Roster Address is Chestnut Center Plaza, 410
West Chestnut Street, 8th Floor, Room 632, Louisville, KY 40202 and whose KBA
Member Number is 37240, filed a motion for consensual discipline in this Court,
pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), asking that the Court suspend him from the practice of law
for thirty days. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed its response to the motion,
stating that it had no objection to the motion and agreeing "that the appropriate
discipline in this matter is a (30) day suspension ."
Movant admits that he is guilty of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as
set out in Counts I, 11, 111, IV, and V of the Charge .in KBA File 13385. The facts and
circumstances follow. Kelsie Thompson was injured at a Ryan's Steakhouse in August
2003. In August 2004, Movant filed a personal injury action in Jefferson County.
Ryan's Steakhouse filed its answer in September 2004, asserting as a defense that the
complaint should be dismissed for insufficient service of process .' In October 2004, the
defendant filed a Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss Complaint.
Movant did not respond to the motion and failed to appear at a hearing on the matter
that was held in November 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice .
Between November 2004 and August 2005, however, Thompson believed that
her case was still ongoing. Although she spoke with Movant on a regular basis to
inquire about his progress on the case, he did not inform her that the case had been
dismissed until August 2005, when he told her, without explanation, that they had "lost
the case."
Movant admits that his handling of Thompson's case violated the following Rules
of Professional Discipline: (1) SCR 3 .130-1 .1, failing to provide "competent
representation" to his client ; (2) SCR 3.130-1 .3, failing to act with "reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client" ; (3) SCR 3.130-1 .4(b), failing to "explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation"; (4) SCR 3.130-3 .2, failing to "make reasonable efforts to
' Movant admits that service of process was flawed. In both the Civil Complaint
and the Summons the defendant is identified as Ryan's Steakhouse, this despite the
fact that there was no such entity registered with the Kentucky Secretary of State and
the restaurant was not owned by an entity with that name . At the time the complaint
was filed the registered owner of the restaurant was Ryan's Family Steakhouses East,
Inc., a Delaware corporation that was registered with the Kentucky Secretary of State as
an "inactive foreign corporation in good standing ." This corporation was listed as
inactive presumably because it had filed an amendment in January 2004 to change its
name to Fire Mountain Restaurants, Inc. At the time of the complaint, Fire Mountain
was listed as an active Delaware Corporation in good standing . The agent for service of
process for both corporations was CT Corporation Systems in Louisville, Kentucky.
Rather than serving the complaint on the registered agent of Ryan's Family
Steakhouses East, Inc. and Fire Mountain Restaurants, Inc ., Movant states that he
erroneously served the complaint via certified mail on the Ryan's Steakhouse location
where his client was injured .
-2-
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client"; and (5) SCR 3.130-8 .3(c),
"engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation ."
Having found no reason to disagree with the sanction negotiated by the parties,
Movant's motion for consensual discipline is granted.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
That Movant is suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of
thirty days pursuant to SCR 3.380. Said suspension shall expire by its own terms
subject to the provisions of SCR 3.510(2). In accordance with SCR 3.450, Movant is
directed to pay the costs of this action in the amount of $42 .50, for which execution may
issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All concur.
ENTERED: September 21, 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.