Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court approved a negotiated sanction publicly reprimanding Danielle Brown for violations involving insufficient funds in an IOLTA account, failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries, and failure to comply with a subpoena. The reprimand was conditioned on completing an ethics program, with noncompliance triggering a thirty-day suspension, and Brown was ordered to pay $158.60 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Brown violated SCR 3.130-1.15(a), SCR 3.130-8.1(b), and SCR 3.130-3.4(c).
- Whether the negotiated sanction of a public reprimand with conditions was appropriate for the admitted violations.
Holdings
- Brown was guilty of the admitted violations of SCR 3.130-1.15(a), SCR 3.130-8.1(b), and SCR 3.130-3.4(c), based on issuing insufficient-funds checks from her IOLTA account, failing to respond to disciplinary information requests, and failing to comply with the subpoena duces tecum.
- A public reprimand with conditions was an appropriate sanction for Brown's admitted violations.
Key quotations
“Agreeing that the negotiated sanction proposed in Brown’s motion is appropriate, it is ORDERED that:” (428)
Factual background
In 2009, Brown issued six checks totaling $738.11 from her IOLTA trust account despite insufficient funds, although overdraft protection paid the checks. After the Office of Bar Counsel requested explanations and supporting records, Brown failed to respond to the initial request and six subsequent requests. She also failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Inquiry Commission.
Procedural history
Brown admitted violating three Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct provisions. She and the Kentucky Bar Association agreed to a negotiated sanction under SCR 3.480(2), and Brown requested a public reprimand with conditions. The Supreme Court of Kentucky approved the negotiated sanction and imposed the specified conditions and costs.