KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. ERIC LAMAR EMERSON COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
~uyremr C~ourf of cl
2009-SC-000508-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
NT
IN SUPREME COURT
ERIC LAMAR EMERSON
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Eric Lamar Emerson, whose last known bar roster address
is Gateway Center West, 300 Madison Avenue, Suite 300, Covington, Kentucky
41011 and whose KBA Member No . i s 89553, was admitted to the practice of
law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 2002 . The Kentucky Bar Association
has petitioned this Court to impose reciprocal discipline against Respondent
because he has been disciplined in Ohio .
Respondent was previously publicly reprimanded in this state, Kentucky
Bar Ass'n v. Emerson, 260 S.W.3d 782 (Ky. 2008), and then suspended from
the practice of law in this state, Kentucky Bar Assn v. Emerson, 275 S .W .3d
183 (Ky. 2008) (61-day suspension) ; Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Emerson, 276
S .W.3d 823 (Ky. 2009) (181-day suspension) . Respondent received reciprocal
discipline in Ohio for each of these cases . See'Disciplinary Counsel v. Emerson,
897 N.E .2d 647 (Ohio 2008) ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Emerson, 903 N .E.2d 647
(Ohio 2009) ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Emerson, 903 N.E.2d 644 (Ohio 2009) .
Since those cases were decided, Respondent has been subject to further
discipline for other misconduct in Ohio. On June 25, 2009, the Ohio Supreme
Court found that Respondent had committed multiple instances of misconduct,
which it described as follows:
Respondent agreed in August 2005 to pursue a civil rights
action on behalf of a client, who then advanced $1,200 for costs in
her case. After filing an amended complaint in federal district
court, respondent failed to respond to requests for discovery and
did not appear as scheduled at two depositions . The district court
ordered respondent in October 2006 to file a notice of withdrawal
immediately or continue as counsel . Respondent did not withdraw
but continued in failing to assist the client .
Respondent conceded that he had abandoned his client,
leaving her to file motions on her own to preserve her claim. He
also conceded his failure to promptly honor requests for the client's
file and an itemized billing for his services. After the client filed a
grievance with relator, respondent failed to reply to letters of
inquiry even after promising during his deposition to respond in
writing.
In December 2005, another client paid respondent $2,500
for his representation, along with another attorney, in a property
dispute with the client's ex-husband. During litigation in the
matter, the court ordered the client to convey certain property
rights to her ex-husband as part of the divorce decree . The client
refused to sign the necessary papers and discharged respondent,
afterward reclaiming her file and demanding a refund.
Respondent believed that he had earned the entire $2,500
with the services he had provided . But he admittedly did not
comply with the client's request for an itemized billing, explaining
that he had not documented the hours spent on her case and had
given her everything from which he might have reconstructed the
time. After the client filed a grievance with relator, respondent
further failed to respond to an investigator's letters, even after
promising at his deposition to respond in writing.
A third client hired respondent in March 2006 after the
client sustained injuries in a traffic accident. Respondent accepted
the case but then failed to obtain his client's file from a previous
lawyer and did not review court records of the proceedings that
had already occurred. When respondent also failed to appear in the
case on his client's behalf, the court dismissed the action for want
of prosecution. Respondent failed to communicate with his client
and did not return the case file upon request. He also failed to
2
reply to investigative letters relative to a grievance about his
representation .
Before the Supreme Court of Kentucky suspended
respondent from practice of law in that state, the court publicly
reprimanded him for misconduct committed when he represented
an Ohio resident in Kentucky during July 2006. Respondent had
accepted a $2,500 fee from that client and his family, later
withdrew as counsel without returning any portion of the fee, and
then failed to respond to the disciplinary charges brought against
him .
During preliminary inquiries about the Kentucky case,
respondent failed to respond to various letters and forced relator to
subpoena him for deposition . He then failed to present a written .
response that during his deposition he had promised to provide.
Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Emerson, 909 N .E .2d 635, 637-38 (Ohio 2009) (citations
and paragraph marks omitted) . The court summarized Respondent's
misconduct as "repeatedly neglecting] [his] clients' legal interests and fail[ing]
to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation ." Id. at 638. As a result of
the misconduct, Respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio and barred from applying for reinstatement for two years . Id.
In August 2009, the KBA moved this Court to issue an order requiring
Respondent to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be
imposed under SCR 3 .435 . A show cause order was issued on October l ,
2009 . Respondent failed to file a response, so the issue of what, if any,
discipline to impose is now ripe for review by this Court.
Under Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.435, Respondent shall be subject
to identical discipline in the Commonwealth of Kentucky unless he proves by
substantial evidence: (a) a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state
disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that the misconduct established warrants
3
substantially different discipline in this State . SCR 3 .435(4) . The Ohio Supreme
Court's order, as a "final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has been guilty of misconduct[,] shall establish conclusively the misconduct for
purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this State ." SCR 3 .435(4)(c) .
Seeing no reason why Respondent should not be subjected to identical
discipline in this state SCR 3 .435, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1 . The Kentucky Bar Association's petition for reciprocal discipline is
GRANTED . Respondent, Eric Lamar Emerson, is suspended indefinitely from
the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and shall not seek
reinstatement for two years.
2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Respondent is directed to pay any
costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, should there
be any, and execution for such costs may issue from this Court upon finality of
this Opinion and Order.
3 . Should Respondent currently have any clients, pursuant to SCR
3.390, he shall, within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Order,
notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of
law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky
Bar Association. Furthermore, to the extent possible and necessary,
Respondent shall immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in
which he is engaged.
All sitting . All concur.
ENTERED : January 21, 2010 .
,$UyrrMr (~Vurf
of ~irufurhv
2009-SC-000508-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
MOVANT
IN SUPREME COURT
ERIC LAMAR EMERSON
RESPONDENT
ORDER
On the Court's own motion, the Opinion and Order of the Court entered
on January 21, 2010 shall be modified on page 4, line 4 to correct the Supreme
Court Rule number . Said modification does not affect the holding.
Entered : March 5, 2010 .
CHIEF JUSTICE
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.
