CHARLES FREDERICK MERZ V. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000208-JIB \ CHARLES FREDERICK MERZ v. MOVANT IN SUPREME COURT \. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER Charles .Frederick Merz (Merz), whose bar roster address is ~81 7 Murray Hill Pike, Louisville, Kentucky 40242, Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Member Number 47393, desires to terminate KBA proceedings against him by moving this Court for a public reprimand. The KBA has no objection to Merz's request. I. BACKGROUND. On October 20, 2017, the Inquiry Commission filed a Charge against Merz alleging violations of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.130-1. lS(d) (commingling funds) and SCR 3. l30-8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The Charge resulted from the following facts. In June 2013, Merz was sued by the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro . Revenue Commission (Revenue Commission) for recovery of delinquent occupational taxes. The Revenue Commission was awarded $8,732.58, plus \ interest, and the Revenue Commission obtained garnishmen.t orders against Merz's PNC Bank accounts. Merz had previously stopped depositing client funds into his trust account. However, Merz left several thousand dollars of earned fees in . th~ . account and began depositing additional earned fees in the acc_ount in 2015. In late July 2015, PNC Bank notified. the Office of Bar Counsel of ah overdraft in Merz's trust account. The non-sufficient funds status of the trust account resulted from three paychecks to Merz's secretary. The Inquiry Commission issued a complaint on April 14, 2017. Merz responded to the complaint, indicating that he did not feel comfortable depositing payments from clients into his general account, or making payroll payments from the general aC'.count, due to the Revenue Commission's garnishments. The presen~ Charge was filed on October 20, 2017 . . Merz, through counsel, responded to the Charge on November 22, 2017. Merz's practice focuses on business and commercial law, construction litigation and related matters. He maintained four bank accounts, including the trust account at issue here. Merz stopped using the trust account as a trust account St:<veral years ago, but there was several thousand dollars in the account at the time that was otherwise due Merz. Because Merz was uncomfortable depositing on-going payments from clients into his other 2 .. . accounts, he began depositin.g money into the account previously desjgnated as his trust account. Merz intended to establish new bank accounts not subject to the garnishments, but he failed to do so. Merz acknowledges that it was poor practice for him to use the trust · . . account for other purposes. However; he maintains that only his funtj.s were in . that account during the relevant period. Although Merz should have addressed the problem sooner,. he ha_s now set up rtew general accounts and.the funds_in the trust account were· transfer:red to the general account. Merz now requests that this Court impose the sanction of a public reprimand, plus costs, in an effort and desi!e to dispense of any further proceedings for these. violations. II. ANALYSIS. Merz admits that his conduct violated the requirements of ~CR 3.130l. lS(d). and SCR ·3.130-8.4(c). Merz also requests a public reprimand as the ·appropriate sanction. The KBA has no objection. Our rules permit the KBA and a member of the bar to agree to a negotiated sanction. . . . Any member who is under investigation pursuant to SCR 3.160(2) or who has a complaint or charge. pending in this jurisdiction, and· who desires to terminate such investigation or disciplinary proceedings at any stage of it may request Bar Counsel to consider-a negotiated sanction. If the member and Bar Counsel agree upon the specifics of the facts,· the rules. violated, and the appropriate sanction, the .member shall file. a : motion with the Court which states such agreemerit, and serve a copy upon Bar Counsel, .who shall, within 10 days of the Clerk's notice that .the motion has been docketed, respond to its merits and confirm its agreement . . .. 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. . . . 3 SCR 3.480(2). The KBA consents to a public reprimand and cites to two cases to support the negotiated sanction. In Markham v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 431 S.W.3d 426, 427 (Ky. 2014), this Court imposed the negotiated sanction of a public repri~_and when Markham allowed a client to d~posit money into one of Markham's pers·onal bank accounts. Five years later, Markham borrowed $12,000 from the saine client, and from the same bank account, and claimed he repaid the -money over the next three years. Id. In Kentucky Ear Ass'n v. . Rowland; 962 S.W.2d 875.(Ky. 1998), the Board recommerided a public reprimand. Rowland had pled guilty to attempting.to faii to pay emplbyee withholding tax and he was sentenced to six months in jail and a.$500.00 fine. Id. at 876. ·Rowland later experienced "a painful divorce, a-declining law practice, and a fire which destroyed his office and for which he was not insured." Id. ,. In light .Of Markham and R<!wland_, we agree with Merz and t_he KBA that a public reprimand is appropriate here. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Charles Frederick Merz, is hereby publicly reprimanded for unprofessional conduct; and 2. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Merz is directed to pay all cost.s associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, which are . . ) . 4 $82.30, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: June 14, 2018. 5
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.
