KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. LUANN C. GLIDEWELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
'f() 131"; PL1111,1~111"1)
"$-Uyr1rMr
(%'9-1/ourf
of
2009-SC-000402--KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
_1_1~10~09__C
IVI()VANT
IN SUPREME COURT
LUANN C. GLIDEWELL
1*,SI)ONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) petitions this Court pursm nt to
SCR 3 .370(8) to determine the limited issue of whether Luann Cxlidewell, whose
KBA member number is 83981 and whose bar roster address is 100 North
611,
Street, Stn Floor, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, is guilty of violating SCR 3 .1308.3(c)', which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation . If this Court finds Glidewell guilty of
violating SCR 3 .130-8 .4(c), the KBA has also requested that we adopt the
remainder of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of
the Board of Governors, who found Glidewell guilty of sixteen counts of
professional misconduct and proposed that she be suspended from the practice
Effective July 15, 2009, SCR 3 .130-8 .3 has been renumbered to SCR 3 .130-8 .4 .
This renumbering will be reflected throughout this opinion and order.
of law for 181 dhiys . After reviewing the faCts underlyir11
t1ICSC
ClMrges,
WC
agree that Glidewell is guilty of violating SCR 3 .130-8 .4(c) and adopt the KBA's
recommended discipline .
KBA File 16917
Glidewell was admitted to the practice of law in this Commonwealth can
October 17, 1991 . In January 2002, Glidewell agreed to represent Roxanna
Kirk iii her personal injury claim and filed her lawsuit
In
.
April 2003 . On
October 7, 2004, the trial court ordered all parties involved in the case to show
cause why Kirk's claim should not be dismissed . Glidewell failed to appear or
respond to the show cause motion, and the trial court dismissed Kirk's case on
January 19, 2005 . Following the dismissal, Kirk made numerous attempts to
contact Glidewell, but Glidewell never responded . After learning that her case
had been dismissed, Kirk retained new counsel and pursued a legal
malpractice claim against Glidewell. Glidewell never appeared or filed any
responsive pleadings to the malpractice complaint, which resulted in Kirk
receiving a default judgment in June 2006 .
Kirk filed a bar complaint against Glidewell on August 28, 2008, but
after attempting to serve the complaint, the KBA learned that Glidewell's bar
roster address was not valid . The complaint was eventually served through the
Executive Director of the KBA pursuant to SCR 3.175(2) on December 17,
2008 . Despite the inclusion of a letter notifying Glidewell of her duty to
respond, and a reminder letter sent on January 8, 2009, Glidewell never
responded to the bar complaint .
On March 6, 2009, the IncyAry ('cmimissiorl issued its scV(, r1-( ,()1,111t
charge against. (Ifidewell, alleging that she violated SCR ,3 .130-1 .1. for failing to
provide competent representation to her client:; SCR 3 .1 ;30-1 .3 for failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client ; SCR
3 .130-1 .4(a) for failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the start t.is
of her case and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
iriOrmation ; SCR 3 .130- .1 .4(b) for failing to explain a mattcr to the extent.
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions abotit the
representation ; SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) for failing to take the necessary steps to
protect a client's interest upon the termination of the representation ; SCR
3 .130-8 .1(b) for knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority ; and SCR 3 .175(l)(a) for failing to
maintain a current address with the Director of the KBA .
On July 10, 2009, the Board of governors issued its findings of fact- and
conclusions of law . The Board unanimously found that Glidewell was guilty of
all seven counts charged in KBA File 16917 and recommended that she be
suspended for 181 days for her misconduct . This Court agrees with the
Board's conclusion that Glidewell is guilty of violating SCR 3 .130-1 .1, 1 .3,
1 .4(a), 1 .4(b), 1 .16(d), 8 .1(b), and SCR 3 .175(l)(a), and that a 181-day
suspension is an appropriate sanction.
KBA File 16877
In the summer of 2007, Glidewell agreed to represent Edward Morris in a
civil matter. Although Morris provided Glidewell with all the necessary
documents to proceed in his c-~ase, Glidewell failed to file
III
<arlswcr
ii1 <I
timely
manner, which resulted in a default judgment being entered against Morris oil
October 4, 2007 . Morris continued to call Glidewell following the entry of the
default judgment, but Glidewell failed to return any of his calls. EMltually,
Glidewell spoke with Morris and informed him that she would look into his
case . During this time, Morris sought assistance from another att.orncy,
Edward J. Smith. After learning that Glidewell had failed t.o file a timely
answer, Morris informed Glidewell that she needed to file
,_I
motir>n for relief
from the default judgment . Glidewell responded in emails on or about June
30, 2008, and July 1, 2008, notifying Smith that she would file Morris's motion
to set aside the judgment .
Not only did Glidewell fail to file this motion, but also, Glidewell was
precluded from filing such a motion because during this time, she was
suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth . On November 1,
2007, this Court had entered a confidential order suspending Glidewell for
forty-five days for violating SCR 3 .130-1 .3, 1 .4(a), 1 .4(b), 1 .16(d), and 8 .1 (b)
during her representation of David Cook in a pending divorce action .
Glidewell's 45-day suspension commenced on December 1, 2007, and this
Court rendered an opinion in support of its order of suspension on December
20, 2007 . Kentucky Bar Association v. Glidewell , 241 S .W .3d 316 (Ky. 2007) .
Although suspensions lasting less than 181 days normally expire on their own
terms pursuant to SCR 3.510, the KBA objected to Glidewell's automatic
reinstatement on January 2, 2008 . Following the KBA's objection,
Glidewell and the KBA pxirticip<itcd in ;,i mcc=ting, can,hmw,rry :31, 2008, where
the KBA reiterated that due to (llidewell's pe=nding disciplimiry matters, she
should remain suspended . The KBA maintains that (1lidewc1l is, and has
remained, suspended from the practice of law since this COUrt'S final order oil
December 1, 2007 .
On August 22, 2008, Morris filed a bar complaint against (tlidewell . As
with tire previous complaint, due to Glidewcfl's invalid bar roster address, the
bar complaint was served on the ExecL_rtive Director of the KBA on December
17, 2008 . Furthermore, despite a letter informing Glidewell of her duty to
respond and a reminder letter sent on January 8, 2009, Glidewell never
responded to Morris's bar complaint .
On May 6, 2009, the Inquiry Commission issued its ten count: charge
against Glidewell, alleging that she violated SCR 3 .130-1 .1 for felling to provide
competent representation to her client ; SCR 3 .130- l . 3 for failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client; SCR 3 .1301 .4(a) for failing to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of his
case and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information ;
SCR 3.130-1 .4(b) for failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonable
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the
representation ; SCR 3 .130-1 .16(d) for failing to take the necessary steps to
protect a client's interest upon the termination of the representation; SCR
3 .130-3 .4(c) for knowingly or intentionally disobeying an obligation under the
rules of a tribunal; SCR 3.130-8 .4(a) for violating or attempting to violate the
Rules of Professional Condl-ict ; SCI 3 .130-8 .4(c) 1-() I -
( . 11gl(filig ill
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ; SCR 3 .130-8 .1(b) for
knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for inform~Ition from a
disciplinary authority ; and SCR 3 .175(1)(a) by failing to m"i.intain a current
address with the Director of the KBA .
On July 10, 2009, the Board of Governors issued its findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Although a majority of Board members agreed that
Glidewell was guilty of nine of the counts charged in KBA File 16877, the Board
was unable to reach the required eleven votes to find Glidewell guilty of
violating SCR 3 .130-8.4(c) .2 Thus, the KBA has sought review in this Court
pursuant to SCR 3 .370(8) to determine whether Glidewell is indeed guilty of
violating this charge . Glidewell has not filed a reply brief to the KBA's position
in this case . Having found that Glidewell was suspended from the practice of
law when she represented to Smith that she could file a motion to set aside
Morris's default judgment, we agree with the KBA that Glidewell is guilty of
violating SCR 3 .130-8.4(c) .
SCR 3 .130-8 .4(c) states that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer
to : Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation ." In its findings of fact, the Board of Governors stated that
because there was no record of whether Glidewell's prior discipline of a 45-day
2
According to SCR 3 .370(6), the findings of fact and disciplinary recommendations
must be agreed upon by eleven members of the Board of Governors . Here, only ten
members found Glidewell guilty of violating SCR 8 .4(c), while seven members found
her not guilty.
suspension expireci by its own tern-is or was opposc(l lay Hie KBA,
a suspended attorney at the time of her ,Ju.ne 30 and
JL11y
11(1-
StatLls
'Is
1, 2008 cmails was
unclear. In its CUrrcrit, motion, the KBA asserts that (Itic to its objection to
Glidewell's automatic reinstatement on January 2, 2008, shc was still
suspended during the summer of 2008 . See KBA v . AngrejthaqGriffin Allen, 13
S.W .3d 927 (Ky. 2000) (holding that the KBA's objection to an attorney's
automatic reinstatement because of her pending disciplinary matters extended
the attorney's suspension, resulting in a violation of SCR 3 .130-8 .3(c) if that
attorney attempted to practice law) . As evidence of this fact, the KBA
submitted a Certificate of Membership Status for CGlidewell, which states that
Glidewell remained suspended and maintained the status of a "former" member
of the KBA from December 1, 2007 through August 9, 2009, the date of the
Certificate . Therefore, Glidewell did engage in conduct involving dishonesty
and misrepresentation when she, as an attorney who was still suspended from
the practice of law, agreed to file a motion to set aside Morris's default
judgment .
The KBA requests that after finding Glidewell guilty of violating SCR
3 .130-8 .4(c), this Court adopt the remainder of the Board's findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and disciplinary recommendations pursuant to SCR
3 .370(10) . Because the factual allegations against Glidewell are not disputed
and because the Board's recommendations are appropriate in light of
Glidevvell's prior discipline and her failure to respond to the charges against
her, this Court grants the KBA's motion. This Court has imposed a 181-day
suspension in the past against attonleys who have
c11gag(A
rniscc>tldLICt sirrriklr-
to Glidewell's . KBA v. Howard , 279 S .W.3d 519 (Ky. 2009) (SLrsperadilily all
attorney, who had previously been publicly reprimanded sand suspended fc>r 90
days, for 181 days for being found guilty of ten counts of proiessiorlal
misconduct involving three different clients) ; KBA v. (lrady , 2(-)0 S .W .3d 784
(Ky. 2008) (imposing a 181-day suspension on an attorney who had previously
been sl spended for falling to pay his bar dues and who committed srx co-nts
of professional misconduct, including violations of SCR 3 .130-1 .3 1
1 .4(b), 3 .4(c), and 8 .3(c)) . Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1 . Luann C . Glidewell is guilty of all seventeen counts of professional
misconduct as charged in KBA Files 16917 arid 16877, including SCR
3.130-8 .3(c) (now 8 .4(c)) .
2 . Luann C . Glidewell is suspended from the practice of law in this
Commonwealth for 181 days . The period of suspension shall
commence on the date of entry of this order.
3 . Pursuant to SCR 3 .450, Luann C. Glidewell is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of
$827.47 ($497 .17 for KBA File 16917 and $330 .30 for KBA File
16877), for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality
of this Opinion and Order.
4 . Pursuant to SCR 3 .390, Luann C. Glidewell shall, within ten (10) days
from the entry of this opinion and order, notify all clients, in writing, of
her inability to represent them ; notify, in writing, all courts in which
she has matters pending- of her stispensiort from dic prwlic(e ol'Liw;
and furnish copies of all letters ofnoficc to the Exccl-ttive Dircctor of
the Kentucky Bar Associa tion . Furthermore, to tli(- extent possible,
Glidewell shall immediately cancel and cease any ,idverbsing activit .ics
in which she is engaged .
All sitting . All concur.
ENTERED : October 29, 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.
