TRAVIS O. MYLES V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
~UyrQMP C~aixrf of ~rufurhv
2009-SC-000139-KB
MOVANT
TRAVIS O. MYLES
V.
IN SUPREME COURT
RESPONDENT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), Movant, Travis O . Myles, Jr., moves the Court
to dismiss certain counts of the charges against him and to impose the
sanction of a suspension from the practice of law for 181 days, with thirty (30)
days to serve, and the remainder to be probated for a period of five (5) years,
subject to the conditions referenced herein . Movant admits he is guilty of
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in KBA files 10868 (with
the exception of Count II and IV), 10980, 11762 and 11835, which files were
consolidated by Order entered April 29, 2008 .
Movant was admitted to the practice of law on October 2, 1998, KBA
Member No. 83814 and his bar roster address is 231 S .
5th
Street, Suite 200,
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3231 . The Kentucky Bar Association has no
objection to Movant's motion because allowing Movant to probate all but 30
days of his suspension increases the likelihood that Ms . Hanish will receive her
money and that he would avoid further disciplinary issues. I Thus, we now
r Additional disciplinary action would result in Movant being required to notify his
individual clients of the suspension under SCR 3.390.
grant Movant's motion and impose the requested sanctions for the reasons set
forth below.
I . KBA FILE NO. 10868
On or about July 7, 2003, Movant received a check from the Social
Security Administration made payable to his client Marshall Lawson, in the
sum of $6,624 .00. Movant deposited the check into his escrow account, and
then cashed a check from the escrow account payable to himself in the amount
of $1,811 .25, for his attorney fee. An undated check in the amount of
$4,812 .75 was written to Mr. Lawson . Mr. Lawson attempted to cash his check
on July 15, 2003, but there were insufficient funds in Movant's escrow account
to cover the check. Mr. Lawson attempted to cash his check again on August
11, 2003, and again there were insufficient funds to pay the check. Mr.
Lawson told Movant the check had not been honored.
On August 14, 2003, the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) wrote to Movant
requesting an explanation as to the bank-reported overdraft on his escrow
account . The letter also requested documents including copies of any checks
that were presented on insufficient funds. Movant acknowledges he did not
respond to the letter.
On August 27, 2003, Movant deposited $6,624 .52 into his escrow
account. In a cashier's check dated August 28, 2003, Movant paid Mr. Lawson
the money owed to him plus an additional amount to reimburse Mr. Lawson for
the bank fees he had incurred because of the bad check. Mr. Lawson had been
deprived of his funds from July 7, 2003 to August 28, 2003 . During that same
period, in addition to the attorney fee of $1,811 .25 that he paid himself on Mr.
2
Lawson's case, Movant wrote eight checks to himself from the escrow account
totaling $6,550 .00 .
On October 13, 2003, Movant advised the OBC that the overdraft in his
escrow account occurred because he inadvertently wrote checks from his
escrow account instead of his operating account . He also stated he had
"immediately" transferred money from his operating account to his escrow
account and given his client a certified check. In a letter dated November 14,
2003, the OBC requested Movant provide copies of his July and August 2003
escrow account statements . On February 10, 2004, the OBC sent a second
request for the records . On April 15, 2005, the OBC sent Movant a letter
requesting copies of other bank statements, checks, and deposit slips for his
escrow account . Movant provided none of the documents . On August 8, 2005,
the Inquiry Commission issued a subpoena duces tecum for the banking
records. The records were received by the OBC on August 16, 2005.
Thereupon, the Inquiry Commission issued a four count Charge against
Movant, charging him with violating SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b)(safekeeping property), 8 .1(a), -8 .1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and -8.3(c) (misconduct) .
Movant admits he violated SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b), as alleged in Count l, by failing
to deliver Mr . Lawson's money to him in a timely manner or make a proper and
full accounting of what he did with the funds he received on his client's behalf.
Movant admits violating SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b), as alleged in Count III, by
failing to respond to the OBC's requests for bank statements, checks, and
deposit slips from his escrow account.
Movant denies violating SCR 3 .130-8 .1(a), as alleged in Count 11 and SCR
3 .130-8 .3(c), as alleged in Count IV . Movant states that he accidentally wrote
checks from his escrow account, rather than his operating account and
requests dismissal of this charge . He also states that he deposited money into
his escrow account and issued his client a certified check to cover the NSF
check in a timely fashion, and his use of the word "immediately" was not a
misrepresentation of the circumstances . Movant requests these charges be
dismissed and the KBA, through the OBC, is of the opinion that the proof is
inadequate to support these charges and, therefore, has no objection to their
dismissal.
II . KBA FILE NO. 10980
Movant entered into a Partnership Agreement with Sidney Hanish on
October 15, 1998 . Sidney Hanish died on February 13, 2000 . Pursuant to the
Partnership Agreement, Hanish was owed a significant amount of money in
fees received by Movant, which had not been paid . Hanish's widow, Marilyn
Hanish, filed suit on behalf of the Estate against Movant in Jefferson Circuit
Court on May 30, 2001, to enforce the terms of the Partnership Agreement.
During the course of that suit, Movant filed with the Court a list of fees
owed to Hanish's Estate, totaling $53,220 .31 . A copy of the list was attached
to the Charge in this matter as KBA Exhibit 3 . Marilyn Hanish requested a full
accounting of the funds but Movant did not provide sufficient detail.
Moreover, Movant did not promptly pay Hanish's Estate the amounts
owed from his portion of the fee. Movant asserts that Hanish gave him
permission to use money that came into the office in the form of fees for the
4
running of the office if the firm "fell on hard times ." Movant acknowledges,
however, that there is nothing in writing signed by either Movant or Hanish to
support that statement .
Movant also acknowledges that advertisements appearing in the local
phone book advertised the law firm as "Hanish and Myles PSC ." Movant
admits Hanish and Myles was never a professional service corporation, but a
partnership .
The Inquiry Commission issued a three count Charge against Movant,
charging him with violating SCR 3 .130-1 .15(a), -1 .15(b)(safekeeping property)
and -7.50(1)(firm names and letterhead) . Movant admits violating SCR 3 .130
1 .15(a), as alleged in Count 1, by commingling funds belonging to Hanish (fees
received in connection with various representations) with the operating account
of the law firm.
He admits violating SCR 3 .130-1 .15(b), as alleged in Count 11, by failing
to promptly deliver to Hanish, and later to his Estate, Hanish's portion of
Movant's fees, and also failing to provide a full accounting of funds.
Movant also admits violating SCR 3 .130-7 .50(1), as alleged in Count 111,
by advertising the partnership as a professional service corporation.
III. KBA FILE NO. 11762
On June 1, 2000, Diana Clark retained Movant to represent her and her
grandson in a personal injury matter against a department store where they
had been injured on May 27, 2000 . The representation continued until Ms.
Clark terminated it on February 2, 2004 . After the initial meeting, Movant had
no other meetings with Ms . Clark. Aside from two phone calls, there was no
other communication between Movant and Ms. Clark.
Movant further admits he did not file the personal injury lawsuit prior to
the expiration of the statute of limitations . Movant has since paid Ms . Clark
$2,500 .00 in an attempt to make her whole after having missed the statute of
limitations.
Ms . Clark retained another attorney regarding the personal injury matter
on January 26, 2004 . Her new counsel sent letters to Movant on February 2,
2004, and April 16, 2004, informing Movant that he was representing Ms.
Clark, requesting information about the case, and requesting Ms . Clark's file .
Movant did not respond to the letters from Ms . Clark's new counsel.
Movant was served with Ms. Clark's Bar Complaint by Sheriff on July 28,
2004 . He was served with a reminder letter by Sheriff on September 24, 2004.
Movant never filed a response to the Bar Complaint .
The Inquiry Commission issued a five count Charge against Movant,
alleging violations of SCR 3 .130-1 .1 (competence), -1 .3 (diligence), -1 .4(a)
(communication), -1 .16(d) (declining or terminating representation), and -8 .1(b)
(bar admission and disciplinary matters) . Movant now admits violating SCR
3 .130-1 .1 and -1 .3, as alleged in Counts I and 11, by failing to take any action
on his clients' personal injury lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of
limitations. He admits violating SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a), as alleged in Count III, by
failing to adequately communicate with Ms. Clark about the personal injury
matter, and by failing to return telephone calls to Ms. Clark. He also admits
violating SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d), as alleged in Count IV, by failing to forward Ms.
6
Clark's file to her new attorney upon termination of the representation . Movant
admits violating SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b), as alleged in Count V, by failing to respond
to the Bar Complaint.
IV. KBA FILE NO. 11835
Janet and William McDonald retained Movant on July 30, 2000, to
obtain a release of an easement that divides their property from a golf course .
After agreeing to the representation, Movant did not communicate with Mr. and
Mrs . McDonald from July 30, 2000, until the summer of 2003 .
Mr. and Mrs . McDonald contacted Movant during the summer of 2003,
at which time he informed them he had not yet drafted the release but would
do so. Mr. and Mrs . McDonald again contacted Movant in December of 2003
regarding the status of drafting the release. During the conversation, Movant
requested that Mr. and Mrs . McDonald send him a copy of a particular deed,
which they did on January 4, 2004 .
Mr. and Mrs . McDonald next contacted Movant on March 6, 2004 .
Movant said he was in the process of filing the necessary paperwork and would
obtain the release within a couple of weeks . Movant subsequently learned that
another party might have an interest in the property and would have needed to
sign the easement . Movant acknowledges the research to resolve this resulted
in further delay and acknowledges the work was not completed. Movant has
refunded the money he was paid to do the work.
The Inquiry Commission issued a two count Charge, alleging violations of
SCR 3 .130-1 .3 (diligence) and -1 .4(a) (communication) . Movant admits he
violated SCR 3 .130-1 .3, as alleged in Count I, by failing to draft the release of
7
easement on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. McDonald. Movant admits he violated SCR
3 .130-1 .4(a), as alleged in Count 11, by failing to adequately communicate with
Mr. and Mrs. McDonald about the release of easement .
Conclusion
Movant has admitted the violations set forth in each count of all charges,
excepting Count 11 (alleging he knowingly made a false statement of material
fact to the OBC) and Count IV (alleging he engaged in conduct involving fraud,
dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation) of KBA File 10868 . Movant asks that
these counts be dismissed and the KBA, through the OBC, is of the opinion
that the proof is inadequate to support these charges and has no objection to
their dismissal. Accordingly, these two charges are hereby dismissed .
Having admitted the remaining violations as set forth in each of the
Charges, Movant has agreed to the imposition of discipline and requests this
Court to impose upon him a suspension from the practice of law for a period of
181 days. Movant requests that all but thirty (30) days be probated for a
period of five (5) years, subject to the conditions that he repay the sum of
$53,220 .31 to Marilyn Hanish, with payments to begin not later than thirty
(30) days after entry of this Order. Moreover, Movant must receive no other
disciplinary charges by the Inquiry Commission during the period of his
probation.
In the event that Movant fails to comply with any of the terms of
discipline set forth herein, upon motion of the OBC, this Court may impose the
remaining one-hundred and fifty-one (151) day period of suspension, which will
result in a total suspension of one hundred and eighty-one (181) days. Such a
8
time period would require Movant to apply for reinstatement through the
Character and Fitness Committee, pursuant to SCR 3 .505 and SCR 3 .510 .
Further, we note that 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 .
After reviewing the record, 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, as to repayment of Hanish's Estate, the
Court finds the agreed upon terms of repayment are inadequate as neither a
repayment period nor a rate of interest is specified in the motion . On this
issue, we find the original judgments instructive and appropriate . It appears
that the negotiated sum of $53,220.31 reflects the payment and interest
structure of the underlying judgments in Action No . 01-CI-03680, styled
Marilyn Hanish, Executrix of the Estate of Sidney Hanish, Decease v. Travis O.
Myles, Jr. 2 Therefore, we hold that the outstanding amounts shall be paid
according to the terms and interest imposed in the aforementioned judgments,
but, in all events, all amounts must be paid in full no later than six months
before the conclusion of the five-year probationary period, or within fifty-four
(54) months of issuance of this Order. Thus, it is ORDERED that:
1.
Movant will be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
181 days for violation of SCR 3.130-1 .1, 1 .15(x), -1 .15(b), -1 .16(d),
-1 .3, -1 .4(a), -7.50(1), -8 .1(b) .
2.
Pursuant to SCR 3 .390, Movant shall notify all courts in
which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice
of law, and notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent
them and of the necessity and urgency of promptly retaining new
counsel . Such notification shall be by letter duly placed in the
United States mail within ten (10) days of the date of this order .
Movant shall simultaneously provide a copy of all such letters to
the Kentucky Bar Association . Furthermore, to the extent possible
and necessary, Movant shall immediately cancel and cease any
advertising activities in which he is engaged.
2 Pursuant to an Order granting partial default judgment, liquidated damages were
assessed against Movant in the principal sum of $30,000 . The payments were set
at six $5,000 principal sums, beginning October 28, 1998, and were subject to a
6% annual rate of interest . In addition, in a separate but concurrent Order within
No. 01-CI-03680, a default judgment was entered against Movant on the issue of
liability and accounting. Consequently, Hanish's Estate was entitled to recover
later-determined damages, plus costs, including attorney fees . While no accounting
was provided in the KBA file, the negotiated sum of $53,220.31 seems to represent
the liquidated damages, plus the later-determined accounting damages, plus the
Estate's cost .
10
All but thirty (30) days of the suspension will be probated for a
period of five years, subject to the conditions set forth herein.
4.
Movant shall repay the sum of $53,220 .31 to Hanish's Estate
according to the terms and interest set out in the judgments herein
before referred to, but in all events, said sums, plus interest, shall
be repaid, in full, no later than fifty-four (54) months from the date
hereof.
5.
If Movant fails to comply with any of these terms of discipline as
set forth herein, upon OBC's motion, the Court will impose the
remaining one-hundred and fifty-one (151) day period of
suspension, which will result in a total suspension of one hundred
and eighty-one (181) days .
6.
In accordance with SCR 3 .450, Movant is directed to pay $365.26,
the cost associated with this proceeding, for which execution may
issue from this Court upon finality of this order.
7.
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 be remanded for
further disciplinary proceedings pursuant to SCR 3 .480(2) .
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED : April 23, 2009 .
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.
