KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. CHARLES C. LEADINGHAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*ixyrQmr Olvurf of "~~t
IN SUPREME COURT
V.
RESPONDENT
CHARLES C . LEADINGHAM
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association ("KBA"), pursuant to SCR 3 .370(8), has
filed notice for this Court to review the Board of Governors' ("Board")
recommended discipline against, Respondent, Charles C . Leadingham, KBA
Number 82296 . The Board found Respondent guilty of Count I, violating SCR
3 .130-3 .4(c) (failure to obey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) but
failed to reach the required number of guilty votes to find Respondent guilty of
Count II, violating SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) (failure to respond to a demand for
information from a disciplinary authority) . For being found guilty of Count I
the Board recommended Respondent be sanctioned with a public reprimand
and thirty days of suspension from the practice of law probated on the
condition that Respondent attend the Ethics and Professionalism
Enhancement Program . We now affirm the Board's finding of guilt on Count I,
find Respondent guilty of Count II, and affirm the Board's recommended
punishment .
Count I arose from Respondent's representation of two clients in different
Court of Appeals' cases . On March 19, 2007, Respondent filed an appeal for
his client Roma Butler . Respondent never filed a brief with the Court of
Appeals in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure even after receiving a
notice that he must file a brief or have the case dismissed. The case was
ultimately dismissed .
In another case, Respondent represented Kimberly Compton. Again
Respondent failed to file briefs in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure .
In June 2007, Respondent informed the Court of Appeals that the case had
been settled and that he would tender an agreed order of dismissal within a few
days. However, no order was filed . This case was also ultimately dismissed .
The KBA Inquiry Commission began to investigate Respondent's behavior in
those cases .
Count II of the charge arose from Respondent's failure to provide
information requested by the Inquiry Commission on Count 1 . A complaint
regarding Count I was sent by the Inquiry Commission to Respondent via
certified mail . Respondent personally signed the return receipt signifying he
received the complaint. Respondent did not submit a response. It reminder
letter was later sent to Respondent also via certified mail. He signed for the
letter but again did not respond to the Inquiry Commission . The Inquiry
Commission officially charged Respondent with both Count I and II on March
18, 2008 . Respondent has not responded to the charge and did not file a brief
with this Court.
The Board found by a vote of fifteen guilty and zero not-guilty that
Respondent was guilty of Count I. However, the Board voted nine guilty and
six not-guilty on Count 11. Since the Board's vote failed to reach the minimum
guilty finding per SCR 3 .370(6), Respondent
number of votes necessary Kr a
was effectively found not-guilty of Charge 11.
"The findings of fact by the trial commissioners and the Board of
Governors in a disciplinary proceeding are advisory only." Kentucky Bar Assn
v. B=, 626 S .W.2d 632, 633 (Ky. 1981) .
"Final decisions of guilt and
punishment can only be made by the Supreme Court, and it is done on the
basis of a de novo consideration of pleadings and trial review ." Kentucky Bar
Assn v. Jones, 759 S .W.2d 61, 64 (Ky. 1988) . Upon reviewing the record, we
find Respondent guilty of both Counts I and 11 .
It is clear from the evidence presented that Respondent failed to file the
appropriate briefs or orders requested by the Court of Appeals in violation of
SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c)' . His failure in filing the appropriate briefs led to his clients'
cases being dismissed. Additionally, while the Board failed to vote to find
Respondent guilty of violating SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b), the evidence clearly indicates
that he is guilty. Multiple times Respondent signed for documents from the
Inquiry Committee which requested information from him so that Count I
could be properly investigated . Respondent never provided any information or
filed any brief in this matter. For the KBA to properly investigate attorney
disciplinary matters, those being investigated must respond to information
requests. We have no choice but to find Respondent guilty of violating SCR
3 .130-8 .1(b) .
However, while we find Respondent guilty of both Counts I and 11, we see
no need to increase the punishment recommended by the Board . A single
violation of SCR 3 .130-8.1(b) has previously warranted the sanction of a public
reprimand. Kentucky Bar Assn v. Beal, 169 S.W.3d 860 (Ky. 2005) . The
Board's initial recommendation was to sanction Respondent with a public
reprimand and thirty days of suspension from the practice of law probated on
the condition that Respondent attends the Ethics and Professionalism
Enhancement Program in 2009 . Since Respondent is already receiving a public
reprimand plus a potential suspension from practicing law, we see no need to
increase his sanction.
Thus it is ORDERED that:
1) Respondent, Charles C . Leadingham, KBA Number 82296, 215 West
15th Street, P.O. Box 387, Ashland, KY 41105 is adjudged guilty of violating
SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c) and SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) ;
2) Respondent will be suspended from the practice of law in this
Commonwealth for thirty days probated on the condition that Respondent
attend the Ethics and Professionalism Program during 2009 for which he shall
receive no CLE credit for;
3) In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Respondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being
$189 .44, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this
Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
Entered : November 26, 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.
