KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. LEO A. MARCUM COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
CORRECTED: SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
TO BE PUBLISHED
6*UyrrMr Courf of "PR
2009-SC-000267-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
LEO A. MARCUM
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association has
recommended to this Court that Leo A. Marcum, who was admitted to the
practice of law in 1971, and whose bar roster address is P. O . Box 178,
Lowmansville, Kentucky 41232, be suspended from the practice of law for
181 days. We adopt the Board's recommendation .
In the course of investigating allegations of professional misconduct
against Marcum, the Inquiry Commission discovered that Marcum had
withdrawn a substantial sum of money in his own name from his escrow
account at the Inez Deposit Bank. The Inquiry Commission issued a subpoena
duces tecum to the bank for Marcum's bank records, deposit slips, and
canceled checks for the account entitled, "Leo Marcum, Trustee," for certain
dates between 2005 and 2008. A review of those bank records indicated
apparent irregularities, including such items as the account being overdrawn
for about three weeks in 2005, a payment identified as a donation for a judge's
reception in 2005, payments to an attorney for legal fees for Marcum's son, and
over 150 checks identifying Marcum as the payee.
As a result of its investigation, the Inquiry Commission issued a twocount charge against Marcum . Count I charged Marcum with violating
SCR 1 3 .130(1 .15)(a), which requires a lawyer to hold separate from the lawyer's
own property the property belonging to clients or to third persons. Count II
charged Marcum with violating SCR 3 .130(8 .3)(c), which provides that it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to "[e]ngage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, [or] deceit . . . ."2
Marcum did not answer the charges, and the case was submitted to the
Board as a default case . The Board unanimously found Marcum guilty of
Count I and, by a vote of fifteen to two, found him guilty of Count II. After
reviewing Marcum's substantial disciplinary history-consisting of two public
reprimands and three private reprimands-fifteen members of the Board voted
to suspend Marcum for 181 days. Two members voted for a sixty-day
suspension .
1
Rules of the Supreme Court.
2
At the time of the charge, this provision was contained in SCR 3.130(8 .3)(c) .
Effective July 15, 2009, this provision is now renumbered within SCR 3.130(8 .4)(c) .
Marcum has not filed a notice of review under SCR 3.370(8), nor do we
independently elect to review the decision of the Board under SCR 3 .370(9),
meaning that the decision of the Board is hereby adopted under SCR 3.370(10) .
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1) Leo A. Marcum is guilty of one count of violating SCR 3.130(1 .15) (a)
and one count of violating former SCR 3.130(8.3)(c) (now SCR 3 .130(8.4)(c)), for
which he is suspended from the practice of law for 181 days from the date of
this opinion and order;
2) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Marcum is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings, said sum being $284 .78, for
which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and
Order; and
3) Marcum shall notify all necessary courts and clients of his
suspension in accordance with SCR 3.390. Those notifications shall be made
by letter placed in the United States mail within ten days from the date of this
Opinion and Order. Marcum shall also simultaneously provide a copy of all
such letters to the Executive Director of the Kentucky Bar Association. Also, to
the extent possible, Marcum shall cancel and cease any advertising activities in
which he is engaged.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED : August 27, 2009 .
,Supremt Courf of ~6ufurkV
2009-SC-000267-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
LEO A. MARCUM
RESPONDENT
ORDER OF CORRECTION
The Opinion and Order, entered August 27, 2009, is CORRECTED
on its face by the substitution of the attached Opinion and Order in lieu
of the original . Said correction does not affect the holding.
ENTERED : September 16, 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.
