KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. DANA LEA B. QUESINBERRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
6$ixpremE Courf of `~sntix~~C
2007-SC-000865-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENT
DANA LEA B. QUESINBERRY
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Dana Quesinberry, was admitted to practice in Kentucky on
October 21, 1994. Her Bar Roster Address is P.O. Box 457, Morehead, Kentucky
40351, and her KBA Member Number is 85504.
In March 2005, Complainant, Tom James, met with Respondent concerning an
adoption . Respondent advised Mr. James that she would represent him for $750 and
that the adoption would likely be completed in the fall of that year. James paid
Respondent in full at that time.
After this meeting, Mr. James attempted to call Respondent and made several
trips to her office to speak with her in person, but was never able to reach her. On his
last trip to her office, Mr. James noticed the office appeared to be vacant and there was
a "For Rent" sign in the window. Respondent never contacted James and did not
refund his money.
Mr. James filed a bar complaint on January 25, 2006. A copy of the complaint
was mailed to Respondent and she signed for it on March 3, 2006. On April 12, 2006,
the sheriff personally served Respondent with a reminder letter. Respondent failed to
file a response letter to the Bar Complaint. However, Respondent did contact Mr.
James in March 2006 after she received the Bar Compaint and she thereafter sent him
a cashier's check in the amount of $750.
On March 1, 2007, the Inquiry Commission issued a four count Charge against
Respondent alleging violations of SCR 3.130-1 .4 (communication), SCR 3.130-1 .5(a)
(reasonable fee), SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) (termination of representation), and SCR 3.1308 .1 (b) (failure to respond) . The sheriff personally served Respondent on March 27,
2007 . Respondent failed to file an Answer or otherwise contest the charge.
The KBA Board of Governors found that Respondent was in violation on all
counts except with regard to SCR 3.130-1 .5(a) (reasonable fee) . After the vote, the
Board was advised of Respondent's prior discipline . Respondent received a Private
Admonition on March 1, 2006 for violation of SCR 3.130-1 .3 (diligence) and SCR 3.1308 .1 (b) (failure to respond) . Respondent received a Public Reprimand on October 19,
2006 for violation of SCR 3.130-1 .3 (diligence), SCR 3.130-1 .4 (a) (communication),
and SCR 3 .130-3 .4 (disobeying obligations of a tribunal) . Additionally, Respondent was
given a 30 day suspension probated for one year on condition that she attend four
hours of remedial ethics training in the area of case management, to be approved by
the Board .
As of September 21, 2007, the date the Board considered the matter, the Office
of Bar Counsel advised that it had received no contact from Respondent requesting
approval of the remedial education she was required to complete by October 17, 2007 .
At the penalty stage, there were eleven votes for a 61 day suspension, three votes for a
30 day suspension and one vote for a 181 day suspension . This Court accepts the
majority recommendation of the Board of Governors and believes that a suspension of
61 days is warranted .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
1.
Respondent, Dana Quesinberry, is suspended from the practice of law
ire Kentucky for a period of 61 days.
2.
Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Quesinberry is directed to notify in writing all
clients and all courts in which she has matters pending of her inability to practice law,
within ten days from the date of entry of this Opinion and Order. Quesinberry is further
directed to furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar
Association .
3.
Quesinberry shall without delay, to the extent reasonably possible,
cancel and cease any advertising activities in which she is engaged .
4.
In accordance with SCR 3.450, Quesinberry is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against her, said sum being $100.45,
and for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and
Order .
All sitting . All concur.
Entered: February 21, 2008.
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.
