KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. KEITH A . TRUMBO KBA MEMBER NO . 86125
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V.
%#V-
,
~\ ~COMPLAINANT
IN SUPREME COURT
KEITH A. TRUMBO
KBA MEMBER NO . 86125
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent, Keith A . Trumbo, whose last known address was in Flemingsburg,
Kentucky, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on
October 20, 1995. The instant action consolidates for this Court's consideration four (4)
separate charges -- KBA File Nos. 7726, 7891, 7857, and 8175 -- in which the Inquiry
Commission charged Respondent with violating five (5) separate provisions of the
Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct : (1) SCR 3.130-1 .3, which requires an attorney
to "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client" ;' (2) SCR
3 .130-1 .4(a)&(b), which require an attorney to "keep a client reasonably informed about
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information ,2
'SCR 3.130-1 .3.
2 SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a) .
and to "explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation" ;3
(3)
provides that "[a] lawyer's fee shall be reasonable" ;4
SCR 3.130-1 .5(a), which
(4)
SCR 3.130-1 .16(d), which
requires an attorney to "take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a
client's interests ,5 after termination of representation ; (5) SCR 3.130-5 .5(a), which
prohibits an attorney from practicing law "where doing so violates the regulation of the
legal profession in that jurisdiction" ;6 and (6) SCR 3 .130-8 .3(c), which prohibits
attorneys from engaging "in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation" ;'
Respondent filed no response to any of the charges, and the Inquiry
Commission submitted the matter to the Board of Governors ("the Board") as an SCR
3.210(1) default case . After a de novo review of the charges, the Board unanimously
found Respondent guilty of each ethical violation charged by the Inquiry Commission .
In its findings of fact as to KBA File 7726, the Board concluded that Respondent
accepted representation of a client in a paternity matter, but, after filing an answer to
the suit, failed to communicate further with his client :
Jack Howard hired Respondent to defend him in a
paternity suit . He paid Respondent $400 .00 between
October 20 and November 10, 1998 . Respondent filed an
answer on Mr. Howard's behalf and notified him of the time
and date of the DNA test arranged by the Commonwealth .
'SCR 3.130-1 .4(b).
'SCR 3.130-1 .5(a) .
'SCR 3.130-1 .16(d) .
'SCR 3 .130-5 .5(a) .
7
SCR 3 .130-8 .3(c).
After that, no progress was made on Mr. Howard's case and
Mr. Howard had difficulty communicating with Respondent .
Mr. Howard attempted to contact Respondent monthly to
check on the status of the case but was not always able to
reach him . Respondent never notified him of any court
appearances or further developments in the case .
Unbeknownst to Mr. Howard, the plaintiff filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment and Order of Support which was heard
on July 27, 1999. Neither Mr. Howard nor Respondent
appeared at the hearing and summary judgment was
entered for the plaintiff . Mr. Howard did not learn of the
summary judgment until he received a letter from the
Commonwealth in August 1999.
Upon receipt of the letter, Mr. Howard contacted
Respondent . Respondent told him he was unaware a court
date had been set and that he would check into the matter .
Mr. Howard called Respondent repeatedly and left
messages for him. Mr. Howard was eventually successful in
setting up two appointments to meet with Respondent, but
Respondent failed to show up at either of these
appointments . Mr. Howard continued to try to reach
Respondent, usually without success. Eventually,
Respondent asked him if another attorney would take his
case because he was relocating out west for awhile . Mr.
Howard declined to find another attorney and reminded
Respondent that he had paid him to take care of the case,
so Respondent told him to call back in a few days . After
that, Mr. Howard was never able to reach Respondent again
and Respondent never contacted him .
Accordingly, the Board found Respondent guilty of violating SCR 3.130-1 .4(a)&(b) by
failing to keep his client informed of the status of the action against him and by failing to
explain to his client the legal effect of the summary judgment entered on behalf of the
plaintiff.
The Board's findings of fact regarding KBA File No . 7891 identify similar ethical
misconduct during Respondent's representation of a client in a sexual harassment
matter:
Jenny Bussell hired Respondent to represent her in a
sexual harassment case against her employer. She paid
him a total of $650 .00 between October 6, 1998 and
January 29, 1999 . Initially, Respondent led Ms. Bussell to
believe that he was working on the case . He later told her
he was going to turn the case over to another attorney . Ms .
Bussell called Respondent on numerous occasions to ask
about the status of the case and the name of the attorney
who would be assuming her representation . Respondent
failed to return Ms . Bussell's calls. Respondent then closed
his office and moved away without notifying Ms . Bussell .
She eventually found him in San Antonio, Texas and
requested that he return her file so she could find another
attorney . Respondent told her that he had mailed the file;
however, she never received it.
Respondent did not tell Ms. Bussell that he had closed his
office and moved to Texas nor did he secure substitute
counsel for her. Respondent never returned Ms. Bussell's
file despite her repeated requests for it, nor did he return her
money.
Because Respondent failed to keep Ms . Bussell informed about the status of her case,
the Board found Respondent guilty of another violation of SCR 3 .130-1 .4(a)&(b). In
addition, the Board found Respondent guilty under this charge of violations of: (1) SCR
3 .130-1 .5(a) for charging an unreasonable fee for his representation ; (2) SCR 3 .130-1 .3
for failing to diligently represent his client ; and (3) SCR 3 .130-8 .3(c) by dishonestly and
fraudulently deceiving or misrepresenting to his client that he was working on her case
and securing other counsel to assist her.
In its findings of fact regarding KBA File No . 7857, the Board detailed further
violations of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct :
In early 1999, Harrietta Hampton met with Respondent
and retained him to represent her in a dispute with her local
bank regarding the bank's refusal to redeem her certificates
of deposit . Respondent accepted $50 .00 from Ms. Hampton
to investigate the matter and present her claim to the bank.
Respondent wrote a letter to the bank and on March 16,
1999, a bank employee faxed Respondent evidence that the
certificates of deposit had already been redeemed . On
March 25, 1999, Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for CLE non-compliance . He wrote to Ms .
Hampton on April 3, 1999 advising her of that fact.
On April 8, 1999, Respondent again wrote to Ms. Hampton
advising another attorney would be assuming responsibility
for the case but stating he had received and reviewed copies
of the bank's records and had devised a response to them.
Some time after that, Respondent contacted Ms . Hampton
and told her if she would bring in $1,000 .00, he would start
processing her claim . On June 14, 1999, Ms. Hampton
brought in a check for $1,000.00, which Respondent filled
out and made payable to himself. Respondent advised her
it would be about two weeks. Respondent did nothing more
on Ms. Hampton's claim and left town shortly thereafter
without informing her he was leaving .
On the basis of these facts regarding Respondent's representation of Ms. Hampton, the
Board found Respondent guilty under KBA File No . 7857 of violations of: (1) SCR
3.130-1 .16(d), by failing to protect his client's interests and by failing to return the
unearned $1,000.00 fee ; and (2) SCR 3.130-8 .3(c) in that he fraudulently and
dishonestly deceived or misrepresented to Ms. Hampton that he was working on her
case. In addition, under a subsequently-issued charge in KBA File No. 8175 regarding
this same representation, the Board found Respondent guilty of a violation of SCR
3.130-5 .5(a) for accepting a fee for future legal services from Ms. Hampton while
suspended from the practice of law.
After considering the previous suspensions that this Court has imposed upon
Respondent for past disciplinary violations $ and his failure to satisfy minimum
Continuing Legal Education requirements,9 the Board recommended that Respondent
8See Kentucky Bar Association v. Trumbo , Ky., 17 S .W .3d 856 (2000) (two (2)
year suspension imposed in January 2000 for misconduct including "acts of deception,
misrepresentation, lack of diligence and competence, and retention of an unearned
fee") ; Kentucky Bar Association v. Trumbo , Ky., 14 S .W .3d 921 (2000) (a one-hundredeighty-one (181) day suspension imposed in May 2000 for failing to have a written
contingent fee arrangement and for depositing settlement proceeds belonging to a
client into his own personal checking account) ; Kentucky Bar Association v. Trumbo ,
Ky., 26 S .W.3d 792 (2000) (an additional ninety (90) day suspension imposed in
September 2000 for conducting settlement negotiations on behalf of a client while
suspended from the practice of law).
9See Kentucky Bar Association v. Trumbo , Ky., 986 S .W .2d 900 (1999).
be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Respondent made no request under SCR 3.370(8) that this Court review the Board's
recommendation, and, therefore, under SCR 3.370(10), this Court adopts the
'
recommendation of the Board of Governors .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Respondent, Keith A. Trumbo, is hereby permanently disbarred from the
practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and shall not be permitted to apply
for reinstatement of his license to practice law. The period of disbarment shall
commence on the date of entry of this Opinion and Order.
(2) In accordance with SCR 3 .450 and SCR 3 .480(3), Respondent is ordered to
pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum
being three hundred eighty-six dollars and eighty cents ($386 .80), and for which
execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
(3) In accordance with SCR 3.390 and to the extent that he has not done so
already, Respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the entry of this Opinion and
Order, notify in writing all courts in which he may have matters pending and all clients,
of his inability to provide further legal services, and furnish the Director of the Kentucky
Bar Association with a copy of all such letters .
All concur.
Entered : February 20, 2003.
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.
