JOSEPH L. ANDERSON V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
$Uyrentr
AT
X.L'Vurf
'
2008-SC-000546-1<1~
L
JOSEPH L . ANDERSON
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Movant, Joseph L. Anderson, pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), moves this Court to
enter an Order resolving the pending disciplinary proceeding against him (KBA File No.
14601) by imposing a Public Reprimand and suspending his license to practice law in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 30 days, probated upon the condition that Movant
issue various apologies, comply with the rules on lawyer advertising, and not receive
any further disciplinary charges for one year . The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA)
states that it has no objection to the motion .
I. Background
Movant was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on
July 16, 2001 ; his KBA member number is 88810. Movant's bar roster address is 2615
Sparkling Place, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103 . He has not previously been
disciplined in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
On August 27, 2006, Comair Flight 5191 crashed in Lexington, Kentucky. On
August 28, 2006, the Movant, a licensed Kentucky attorney whose office is in North
Carolina, where he is also licensed to practice law, contacted Lynne Koenigsknecht,
owner of Radiant Designs, a website design company. The Movant personally
instructed her to design and publish a website : www.comair5l 9l families.co m ("Comair
website") .
On August 30, 2006, the Comair website was published online, making it
available to the general public. The website stated that it offered counseling services to
friends and family members of the crash victims . In fact, while it did offer counseling
services, the website was also an advertisement for Anderson, Weber & Henry,
P.L .L.C., the Movant's law firm . The website included two references on the left hand
side to "Anderson, Weber & Henry PC" (presumably these were links to the firm's
website) ; the statement, "This website donated by Michael J . Pangia and the law offices
of Anderson, Weber, and Henry - advocates for victims ." at the bottom right of the
page ; and the text "Legal Advertisement FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE CALL TOLLFREE" followed by an 800-number centered at the bottom of the page. The site also
included a link labeled "Site Disclaimer," which led to a page with the following text:
We strive to provide the highest quality legal representation in all cases
undertaken by the firm, and our goal is the most complete recovery
possible . However, we cannot guarantee results . Anderson Weber &
Henry, P .C . provides this website for general informational purposes only,
and these materials are not intended to constitute and cannot constitute
legal advice or promises of results in a particular case . Persons wishing
to take legal action or obtain legal advice should seek legal counsel, and
should not rely on any inferences drawn from this site . The materials may
be considered advertising in your state, but are intended as informational .
The text was followed by the name of Movant's firm and the firm's physical address,
telephone and facsimile numbers and website address. On September 1, 2006, the
Movant's firm began advertising the website through Google.com.
1 Anderson, Weber & Henry, P.L.L.C . is no longer in existence . The Movant
formed a new firm, Anderson Pangia & Associates, P.L .L.C., in mid-2007.
2
On August 31, 2006, Courtney Southern, a paralegal employed by Anderson,
Weber & Henry, P.L.L .C., sent an email to an employee of Galls, Inc., directing the
employee to the Comair website . Three employees of Galls, Inc., a company based in
Lexington, Kentucky, died in the crash of Flight 5191 . The employee who was
contacted by Ms. Southern forwarded the email to other Galls, Inc. employees . One
employee accessed the Comair website and discovered that by clicking on the text
"legal assistance," the site immediately changed to the firm website of Anderson, Weber
& Henry, P.L.L.C. On September 5, 2006, the website was removed from public
access .
On September 6, 2006, the Attorney's Advertising Commission (AAC) sent a
letter to the Movant's firm notifying it that both the Comair website and the firm's website
had not been submitted for review as advertisements . The submission of the
advertisement, pursuant to SCR 3 .130-7 .02, should have occurred either before
publication or simultaneous to the publication .
Before receiving the letter from the AAC, but after being contacted by a reporter
regarding the angry reaction to the advertisement in Lexington, Kentucky, the Movant
called the AAC to discuss the advertisement. On September 25, 2006, the Movant
submitted both of the websites to the AAC for review.
The AAC forwarded the advertisements to the Mass Disaster Task Force, which
had been formed pursuant to SCR 3.130-7 .60 following the Comair crash . The Task
Force reviewed the advertisements and found them to be non-compliant. The Task
Force further found that the websites were misleading and, when coupled with the
actions of the Movant's paralegal, were in violation of the rules prohibiting solicitation in
the immediate aftermath of a mass disaster. The Task Force then referred the Movant
to the Inquiry Commission for a determination of what, if any, further action was
appropriate .
The Inquiry Commission issued a four-count Charge against the Respondent on
April 17, 2008 . Count I of the Charge alleges that the Movant's conduct, as described
above, violated SCR 3.130-5 .3 when he failed to properly supervise his paralegal,
Courtney Southern, leading to her attempt to solicit clients in a way that did not comply
with the Movant's professional obligations . Count II of the Charge alleges that the
Movant violated SCR 3.130-7 .09(3) when his paralegal contacted an employee of Galls,
Inc. via email and directed the employee to the Comair website, and the email to the
Galls, Inc. employee did not contain the words "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" as
expressly required . Count III of the Charge alleges that the Movant violated SCR 3.1307 .09(4), which sets a thirty day no contact period following a mass disaster such as an
airplane crash, when his paralegal initiated direct communication with an employee of
Galls, Inc., via email. Count IV of the Charge alleges that the Movant violated SCR
3.130-7 .15 when he directed the creation of the Comair website, which was false,
deceptive, and misleading as it appeared to be a grief counseling website established to
aid and support friends and families of those who died in the disaster, but was in fact an
advertisement for his firm .
In his answer to the Charge, Movant admitted that his conduct violated the
ethical rules, that he was responsible for the acts of his employees and associates, and
demonstrated remorse .
11. Analysis
In his current motion, Movant admits that his conduct as described in the Charge
and as recounted above violated the requirements of SCR 3.130-5 .3, SCR 3 .130-
7.09(3), SCR 3.130-7 .09(4), and SCR 3 .130-7 .15 . He also agrees to the imposition of
discipline and requests a
public reprimand with
certain conditions and a probated 30-
day suspension . The negotiated sanction rule provides that the KBA may "object[] to
the terms proposed. . . ." SCR 3.480(2). Upon receiving such objection, "if the Court
determines good cause exists, [it] shall remand the case for hearing or other
proceedings specified in the order of remand ." Id. However, the KBA has stated that it
has no objection to the sanction proposed by Movant. Nevertheless,. acceptance of the
proposed negotiated sanction still falls within the discretion of the Court : "The Court
may approve the sanction agreed to by the parties, or may remand the case for hearing
or other proceedings specified in the order of remand." Id .
In support of the negotiated sanction, the KBA cites two cases where the
misconduct was followed by a public reprimand . See Howes v. Kentucky Bar
Association , 214 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2007) (imposing a public reprimand for sending
letters to the treating physicians of the attorney's clients that stated that he somehow
represented them in the recovery of their fee and they could either pay him 25% or
agree that he represent them to recover the fee when the physicians were not his
clients nor had they sought his advice or assistance) ; Croley v. Kentucky Bar
Association , 176 S.W.3d 136 (Ky. 2005) (imposing public reprimand for failure to timely
file a lawsuit followed by offer to settle the professional negligence suit filed by his
former clients, knowing they were not represented) . The KBA also cites two cases
where the misconduct led to a suspension . See Martin v. Kentucky Bar Association ,
214 S .W.3d 322 (Ky. 2007) (imposing 30 day suspension when attorney went to two
hospitals following car accidents and solicited the victims); Gregory v. Kentucky Bar
Association , 151 S .W.3d 31 (Ky. 2004) (imposing 30 day suspension for failing to
ensure legal assistant/secretary's conduct was consistent with attorney's professional
obligations as a lawyer, which resulted in the commingling of client funds with those of
attorney) .
In support of its argument that a reprimand is the appropriate sanction, the KBA
notes that the American Bar Association has stated, with regard to improper solicitation
of clients, "Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engaged 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 ." American Bar Association,
Standards for Imposinq Lawver Sanctions §7.2 (1992). The Commentary to this section
of the ABA's Standards indicates that suspension could be an appropriate sanction in
this case: "A suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer solicits employment
knowing that the individual is in a vulnerable state." Id. §7.2 cmt. The KBA notes,
however, that the ABA's Standards calls for certain factors to be considered in
mitigation, which the KBA argues indicates that a reprimand is the most appropriate
sanction for Movant. Specifically, the KBA cites the following mitigating factors : "(a)
absence of a prior disciplinary record ; . . . (e) full and free disclosure to the disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; . . . (I) remorse . . . . .. Id. § 9.32 .
The KBA notes in its Response, "As [Movant]'s Answer to the Charge indicates,
he takes full responsibility for his actions and regrets what occurred ." The KBA further
cites a portion of the ABA's Standards that it argues explains the purpose of a
reprimand and further indicates that it is the most appropriate sanction in this case:
"Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 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." Id . §7.3; see also id . § 7.3 cmt. ("Reprimand is
the most appropriate sanction in most cases of a violation of a duty owed to the
profession . Usually there is little or no injury to a client, the public, or the legal system,
and the purposes of lawyer discipline will be best served by imposing a public sanction
that helps educate the respondent lawyer and deter future violations. A public sanction
also informs both the public and other members of the profession that this behavior is
improper.").
While the ABA's Standards are not binding authority on this Court by any means,
they can at times serve as persuasive authority. After reviewing the standards and the
other authorities cited by the KBA, this Court concludes that the discipline proposed by
Movant is largely adequate .
In one respect, however, the Court finds that good cause exists to depart from
the agreement . Specifically, the Court finds that the agreed upon size of the apology
letter to be published in the newspaper is inadequate . Therefore, the Court does not
accept the agreed-upon discipline in its entirety.
Order
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1 . Movant, Joseph L. Anderson, is publicly reprimanded for the above-described
and admitted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and is further suspended
from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 30 days, with said
suspension probated on the following conditions :
a. Movant will publish in the Lexington Herald-Leader a letter of apology
in substantially the same form as the sample language included as an exhibit to
the KBA's response to his motion, with any corrections needed to reflect the facts
(including the name of the website in question) . The letter as published in the
Lexington Herald-Leader must be at least one-eighth of a page in size, and must
be published within 30 days of the entry of this Order.
b. Movant will send a letter of apology, also in substantially the same form
as the sample language included as an exhibit to the KBA's response to his
motion, to Galls, Inc. within 30 days of entry of this Order.
c. Movant will submit all advertisements targeted at Kentucky residents,
including his firm's website, to the Attorneys' Advertising Commission at least 30
days prior to the publication of the advertisements for a period of one year from
the date of entry of this Order.
d . Movant will not receive any further Charges for a period of one year
from the date of entry of this Order.
2. In the event that the Movant fails to comply with any of the terms of discipline
set forth herein, upon motion by the KBA Office of Bar Counsel, the Court may revoke
the probation and impose the 30-day suspension from the practice of law.
3. In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Movant is directed to pay all costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $95.21, for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
4. If Movant is not willing to accept the sanction imposed by this Order, insofar
as it differs from that requested by Movant, he may object to it. If Movant so objects,
this matter shall ber remanded for further disciplinary proceedings pursuant to SCR
3.480(2).
All sitting . All concur.
ENTERED : September 18, 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.
