KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. ARTHUR WOODSON PULLIAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1~uyrrmr (~Vurf -of
2007-SC-000433-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
ARTHUR WOODSON PULLIAM
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association has recommended that
Arthur Woodson Pulliam, who was admitted to practice law in Kentucky on October 21,
1994, whose Bar Roster Address is 125 Chenoweth Lane, Suite 212, Louisville,
Kentucky 40207, and whose KBA Member Number is 85456, be permanently disbarred .
The Board's recommendation, as reflected in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Recommendation filed on June 14, 2007, resolves the five disciplinary
cases involving Respondent (KBA File Nos. 12136, 13041, 13101, 13115, and 13142)
that are currently pending .
Procedural History
The bar complaint in KBA File No. 12136 could not be served by mail and was
instead served on the Executive Director of the KBA as agent for service under SCR
3 .175(2) and was personally served on Respondent by the Hart County Sheriffs office .
Respondent replied to the complaint with a letter to the Inquiry Commission.
Attempts to serve copies of the complaints in KBA File Nos. 13041, 13101,
13115, and 13142 by mail and in person by the Hart County Sheriff failed, so they were
served instead on the Executive Director of the KBA as agent for service under SCR
3.175(2) on July 28, 2005 . Respondent failed to reply to these complaints .
The Inquiry Commission issued charges in all five files on December 19, 2005.
Copies of the charges were mailed to and signed for by Respondent later that month.
Respondent failed to respond to the charge in KBA File No . 12136, but he replied to
each of the other charges by way of separate letters in May 2006. None of the letters
complied with the rules to allow the clerk to file them as official answers to the charges.
Respondent was notified of the deficiency by letter sent in June 2006, but he never took
steps to properly file answers to the charges.
The Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the substance of the
charges are summarized below.
KBA File No. 12136
The first disciplinary case rose from a criminal prosecution against Respondent
for reckless driving and driving under the influence in 2004. Respondent pled guilty to
the DUI, and the reckless driving charge was dismissed. Respondent, however, failed
to appear in court for sentencing, which led to the issuance of a bench warrant for him.
The complaint was initiated by the Inquiry Commission, rather than by a client . In
his response to the complaint, Respondent claimed that he missed the court
appearance because he had not been aware his sentencing had been scheduled
because of confusion about when he was slated to undergo residential addiction
treatment. He also claimed that he appeared in court a week after the scheduled date .
The Inquiry Commission charge contained two counts alleging violations of SCR
3.130-3.4 for failing to comply with obligations under the rules of a tribunal (count I) and
SCR 3.130-8.3(b) for misconduct that reflects on honesty or trustworthiness (count II).
The Board, by vote of 18-0, found Respondent not guilty of both counts, noting that his
failure to appear at the sentencing date was the result of miscommunication, not an
ethical violation, and that DUI is not conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer's
honesty or trustworthiness.
KBA File No . 13042
This disciplinary case rose from Respondent's representation of Sean Andrews
in a criminal matter. Respondent was hired by Mary Andrews, the mother of Mr.
Andrews, in January 2005. She agreed to pay Respondent $100.00 per hour and
tendered a $2000.00 retainer. Respondent visited his client in the jail on only one
occasion and provided no further legal services but did not refund any of the fee. Ms.
Andrews filed a complaint against Respondent .
The Inquiry Commission's charge contained six counts alleging violations of SCR
3.130-1 .3 for lack of diligence in representation (count l), SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) and (b) for
failing to communicate properly with the client and keep the client informed (counts II
and III), SCR 3 .130-1 .5(a) for charging an unreasonable fee (count IV), SCR 3 .1301 .16(1) improperly terminating representation (count V), and SCR 3.130-8 .1(b) for
failing to respond to the complaint (count VI). In his letter to the Disciplinary Clerk,
Respondent argued that Ms. Andrews was not his client and that he had visited his
client more than the complaint claimed, but admitted that his client was due a partial
refund .
The Board voted to find Respondent guilty of counts I, II and V. The Board voted
to find him not guilty on counts 111, IV, and VI, noting that there was insufficient
information to determine the nature and extent of Respondent's communication with his
client, that there was no indication the $100 per hour fee was unreasonable and failure
to return any unearned fee was included in count V, and that he did respond to the
complaint, albeit in an untimely manner.
KBA File No. 13101
The next disciplinary case rose from Respondent's representation of David
Carter. Carter paid Respondent $500 in 2002 to begin working on an adoption, though
the only work done on it was the signing of some preliminary forms. 1n 2004, Carter
paid Respondent an additional $1000 for representation in a custody and visitation
matter. Respondent provided no services in this regard and failed to respond to
repeated calls and messages, personal visits, and a letter from Carter asking for his file
and a refund of the fee.
The Inquiry Commission's charge contained five counts alleging violations of
SCR 3.130-1 .3 for lack of diligence in representing Carter (count 1), SCR 3.130-1 .4(a)
for failing to communicate with the client (count II), SCR 3.130-1 .5(a) for charging an
unreasonable, fee (count 111), SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) for improper termination of
representation (count IV), and SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) for failure to respond (count V). In his
letter to the disciplinary clerk, Respondent argued that he had done extensive work for
Carter on the domestic matters and on a separate criminal case involving the mother of
Carter's children and that all the work used up the pre-paid legal fees . Respondent also
claimed that after the pre-paid fees were used up, he continued to do some of the work
for Carter on a pro bono basis.
The Board voted to find Respondent guilty of counts I, 11 and IV, and not guilty of
counts III and V because there was no evidence that the fee was unreasonable, failure
to return any unearned fee was included in count IV, and he did respond, though in an
untimely manner.
KBA File No. 13115
This file rose from Respondent's representation of Gloria Russell . In October
2004, Russell paid Respondent $325.00 to begin preparing a bankruptcy petition ; she
paid the $344.00 balance of the fee in December 2004. Respondent performed no legal
services for Russell and failed to refund her fee .
The Inquiry Commission's charge contained five counts alleging violations of
SCR 3.130-1 .1 for failure to provide competent representation (count 1), SCR 3 .1301 .5(a) for charging an unreasonable fee (count 11), SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) for improper
termination of representation (count ill), SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) for engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (count IV) and SCR 3.1308.1 (b) for failure to respond (count V) . In his letter to the disciplinary clerk, Respondent
stated that he had no record of Russell's paperwork and admitted she was entitled to a
refund if she had paid him for legal services .
The Board voted to find Respondent guilty of counts III and IV, and not guilty of
counts I, II and V because there was no evidence that he had failed to possess or
exercise the competency necessary to handle the bankruptcy matter, the fee was
unreasonable, failure to return any unearned fee was included in count 111, and he did
respond, though in an untimely manner.
KBA File No. 13142
This file rose from Respondent's representation of Glendell Carter. In August
2004, Carter paid Respondent $2500.00 to begin working on a will contest . The
employment contract also provided that Respondent could collect one third of the value
of the estate he could recover. Respondent performed no legal services for Carter .
Respondent failed to respond to Carter's attempts to contact him ; he also failed to follow
Carter's request to return the file and fee .
The Inquiry Commission's charge contained six counts alleging violations of SCR
3.130-1 .3 for failure to be diligent (count I), SCR 3.130-1 .4(a) for failing to communicate
with the client (count Il), SCR 3 .130-1 .5(a) for charging an unreasonable fee (count III),
SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) for improper termination of representation (count IV), SCR 3.1308.3(c) for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
(count V) and SCR 3.130-8.1(b) for failure to respond (count VI). In his letter to the
disciplinary clerk, Respondent denied several of the factual claims made by his client
and argued that he had prepared a complaint contesting the will in question but had not
filed it because the client asked him to hold it until further notice .
The Board voted to find Respondent guilty of counts I, ll, IV, and V, and not guilty
of counts III and VI because there was no evidence that the fee was unreasonable,
failure to return any unearned fee was included in count III, and he did respond, though
in an untimely manner .
Prior Discipline
The Board considered the following prior discipline of Respondent in making its
recommendation .
In 2002, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for sixty-one days,
with the sanction suspended for two years on the condition of compliance with various
requirements. Pulliam v. Kentucky, Bar Ass'n , 84 S .W.3d 455 (Ky. 2002). During the
probationary period, Respondent was arrested for DUI, was found to have violated the
conditions imposed on him, and was ordered to serve the sixty-one day suspension.
Pulliam v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n,, 160 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2005). Respondent was later
suspended for 181 days for violating SCR 3.130-8 .3(b). His violation was based on his
conviction for possession of marijuana and attempted first-degree possession of a
controlled substance . Pulliam v. Kentucky Bar Assn , 190 S .W .3d 925 (Ky. 2006). He
has not since then been reinstated to membership .
Recommendation of the Board of Governors
After considering the forgoing facts, the Board voted 18-0 to recommend that
Respondent be permanently disbarred by this Court and be required to pay the costs
associated with the disciplinary action .
Neither Respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed a notice for this Court to review
the Board's decision as allowed under SCR 3.370(8). Because the Board's findings and
conclusions are supported by the record and the law, and because the sanction
recommended by the Board is appropriate in light of Respondent's history of prior
discipline, his failure to respond formally to the charges against him, and the number
and seriousness of the charges against him, this Court elects not to review the
recommendation of the Board as allowed under SCR 3.370(9) . The decision of the
Board is therefore adopted pursuant to SCR 3.370(10) .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
(1)
Respondent, Arthur Woodson Pulliam, is permanently disbarred in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
(2)
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $1,412 .17,
for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
(3)
Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, within ten (10) 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, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the
Kentucky Bar Association, assuming that this is necessary given that he was already
suspended from the practice of law. Furthermore, to the extent possible and necessary,
Respondent shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is
engaged .
Lambert, C.J . ; Cunningham, Minton, Noble, Schroder and Scott, JJ., concur.
Abramson, J., not sitting .
Entered : September 20, 2007.
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.
