Abandonment of Practice, Bar Roster Obligations, and Pattern Neglect: Commentary on In re Marcus Daniel Gale (Ky. 2025)

I. Introduction

This published disciplinary opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, In re: Marcus Daniel Gale, 2025-SC-0118-KB (Dec. 18, 2025), addresses repeated violations of core professional duties by a Kentucky lawyer in a high-volume domestic relations practice. The Court adopts the Kentucky Bar Association’s Board of Governors’ recommendation to suspend attorney Marcus Daniel Gale for one year and imposes significant remedial conditions, including restitution, mandatory participation in the Kentucky Lawyers Assistance Program (KYLAP), and completion of the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP).

The case is important less because it announces new black-letter law than because it consolidates and clarifies several recurring themes in Kentucky lawyer discipline:

• What happens when a lawyer repeatedly takes fees but fails to perform or communicate.
• How failure to maintain a current Bar Roster address and avoidance of service is treated as professional misconduct.
• The relationship between administrative suspension, indefinite suspension for failure to respond, and a later definite-term disciplinary suspension with conditions for reinstatement.
• The weight Kentucky places on patterns of neglect and non-cooperation in determining sanctions.

The decision also serves as a practical warning to lawyers who rely on client portals, operate virtual or minimally staffed practices, or abruptly vacate their law offices without updating the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA): these choices can quickly ripen into serious ethics violations and effective abandonment of clients.

II. Background and Procedural History

A. The Respondent and His Disciplinary History

Marcus Daniel Gale was admitted to practice in Kentucky on May 1, 2000 (KBA No. 88194). His Bar Roster address is listed as 6900 Houston Road, Suite 21, Florence, Kentucky 41042, although by late 2023 he had vacated these premises without updating his address as required by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.035(1)(a).

Prior to the present proceeding, Gale already had a notable disciplinary history:

• 2005 private admonition – for misconduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” arising from surreptitiously recording a telephonic pre-trial conference.
• 2021 conditional private admonition – for violating multiple rules (diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, and duties upon termination) in a divorce matter. He attempted to charge a flat, non-refundable fee, failed to file prepared and signed documents, and refused to refund any portion of the fee after discharge. The admonition was conditioned on partial fee refund and successful completion of EPEP.
• January 19, 2024 administrative suspension – for nonpayment of bar dues and failure to meet Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.
• June 13, 2024 indefinite suspension – in a prior published decision, In re Gale, 694 S.W.3d 357 (Ky. 2024), the Court indefinitely suspended Gale for failing to answer disciplinary Charges, on motion of the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) under SCR 3.167.

This background is central to the Court’s analysis, as the Board and the Court treat Gale’s history as a major aggravating factor indicating a pattern of misconduct and disrespect for the disciplinary process.

B. The Four Client Matters Underlying the Current Charges

The present Opinion consolidates four disciplinary files, each involving a client (or prospective client) who paid Gale a fee in a divorce matter and then received little to no meaningful service or communication.

1. Joel Bailey – OBC File 23-DIS-0140

In 2022, Joel Bailey hired Gale for an uncontested divorce and paid a $400 fee. Bailey and his spouse signed all necessary paperwork and returned it to Gale for filing. The essential misconduct:

• Gale repeatedly promised to file the dissolution paperwork but never did.
• Bailey called, left messages, and texted Gale, but Gale did not respond.
• Bailey ultimately filed his own documents pro se; his divorce decree was entered only in October 2023.
• Bailey incurred a tax penalty because his divorce was not finalized timely.

Bailey filed a bar complaint on April 13, 2023. Gale’s response was delayed but ultimately submitted after extensions. He attempted to shift blame to Bailey for using text messages instead of Gale’s preferred online client portal. Gale offered to expedite the case and refund half the fee. The matter nonetheless proceeded to formal Charge.

On December 4, 2023, the Inquiry Commission charged violations of:

• SCR 3.130(1.3) – lack of diligence and promptness.
• SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and (4) – failure to keep the client reasonably informed and to promptly comply with requests for information.

2. Tabitha Woodson – OBC File 23-DIS-0192

On January 12, 2023, Woodson paid Gale $370 for an uncontested divorce. Gale quickly sent documents through the client portal, which she signed and returned the same day. After confirming receipt on January 18, Gale ceased meaningful communication:

• From January 25 to April 10, Woodson sent over thirty portal messages or voicemails seeking status updates; Gale did not respond.
• Gale did not complete the agreed work and did not refund the fee.

Woodson filed a bar complaint on June 9, 2023. After certified mail was returned “unclaimed, unable to forward,” Gale accepted service via email and acknowledged receipt. He then ignored the complaint despite specific warning that failure to respond could be an additional ethics violation.

The December 4, 2023 Charge alleged violations of:

• SCR 3.130(1.3) – lack of diligence.
• SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and (4) – failure to inform and respond.
• SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) – failure, upon termination, to protect the client’s interests and refund unearned fees.
• SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – failure to respond to a lawful request for information in a disciplinary matter.

3. Nicole Colley – OBC File 23-DIS-0283

On February 1, 2023, Colley retained Gale for a divorce for a total fee of $620, with $370 paid up front. Between February 18 and April 3 she attempted to contact him at least seven times by email and phone. Significant facts:

• She finally reached him on June 23; he claimed he “had not realized she was a client,” promised documents by June 26, and then failed to follow through.
• He later blamed vacations and mistakenly believing paperwork was complete, but he never produced documents.
• From July through August, Colley repeatedly tried to contact him; he stopped responding.
• Her estranged husband was defaulting on bills, harming her credit; she expressly warned Gale of this impact.

Colley filed a complaint on August 30, 2023. Certified mail was returned “unable to forward.” The Boone County Sheriff reported on October 25, 2023 that Gale was “avoiding service.” Service was effected by serving the KBA Executive Director under SCR 3.035(2). Gale did not answer.

On December 4, 2023, the Charge alleged:

• SCR 3.130(1.3) – diligence.
• SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(3) and (4) – communication.
• SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) – failure to return unearned fee and protect interests upon termination.
• SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – non-response to disciplinary authority.

4. Tyler Moore / Ashley Sander – OBC File 24-DIS-0073

The fourth matter is slightly different: Gale did some initial work (filing a petition and summons) but then abandoned the matter.

In July 2023, Ashley Sander contacted Gale to retain him on behalf of her partner, Tyler Moore, to dissolve his marriage. She paid him $950 and provided party and child information. Gale represented:

• He could have the petition prepared by the following Monday.
• An uncontested divorce would take at least 30 days.

He filed the petition and a summons. Thereafter:

• Sander began texting in early August to facilitate service on Moore’s wife; Gale did not respond to messages sent on at least eight dates in August.
• No further filings were made; Moore’s wife was not served.
• On September 11, 2023, the judge remanded (effectively dismissed) the case due to lack of service and inactivity.
• Despite repeated refund requests (September 21, October 4, November 2), Gale refunded none of the $950.
• On January 19, 2024, Gale was administratively suspended and abandoned the representation altogether.

Sander filed a bar complaint on March 12, 2024. Certified mail to Gale’s Bar Roster address and an Ohio address was undeliverable. An attorney-landlord reported that Gale had vacated the Florence office in November 2023. The Boone County Sheriff could not serve him. Service was again achieved through the KBA Executive Director on May 3, 2024.

The June 10, 2024 Charge alleged violations of:

• SCR 3.130(1.3) – lack of diligence.
• SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) – failure to refund unearned fee/abandonment upon termination.
• SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) – knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal (here, failure to comply with SCR 3.035 on maintaining a current Bar Roster address).

C. Service Issues, Administrative Suspension, and Indefinite Suspension

A striking feature of the case is the repeated difficulty in serving Gale and his systematic non-participation in the disciplinary process:

• Certified mail to his Bar Roster address was often returned unclaimed or undeliverable.
• The Boone County Sheriff reported that Gale had moved or was avoiding service.
• Service was repeatedly effected by serving the KBA Executive Director as Gale’s agent under SCR 3.035(2).
• Despite occasional minimal engagement (e.g., initial email acknowledgement of the Woodson complaint), Gale failed to file required responses to multiple Charges.

As a result, and prior to this final Opinion:

• Gale was administratively suspended for dues and CLE deficiencies on January 19, 2024.
• On June 13, 2024, in In re Gale, 694 S.W.3d 357, the Court indefinitely suspended him under SCR 3.167 for failing to answer the first three sets of Charges.

D. Proceedings Before the Board of Governors

Because Gale did not respond to or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, all four Charges proceeded to the Board of Governors “by default” under SCR 3.210.

The Board, with one recusal in each matter, made the following findings:

• OBC File 23-DIS-0140 (Bailey) – The Opinion appears to contain a labeling error, but context indicates the Board unanimously found Gale guilty of:
  • SCR 3.130(1.3) – lack of diligence.
  • SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) – failure to keep client reasonably informed.
• OBC File 23-DIS-0192 (Woodson) – The Board unanimously found Gale guilty of:
  • SCR 3.130(1.3).
  • SCR 3.130(1.4)(a).
  • SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).
  • SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – failure to respond to bar counsel.
• OBC File 23-DIS-0283 (Colley) – Although the Opinion repeats the file number “23-DIS-0192” in summarizing these findings, it is clear from context that this refers to the Colley matter. The Board unanimously found Gale:
  • Guilty of: SCR 3.130(1.3), 3.130(1.4)(a), 3.130(1.16)(d).
  • Not guilty of violating SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).
• OBC File 24-DIS-0073 (Sander/Moore) – The Board (with one recusal) found Gale:
  • Unanimously guilty of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).
  • Guilty of SCR 3.130(1.3) by an 11–7 vote.
  • Guilty of SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) by a 14–4 vote.

After finding violations, the Board evaluated aggravating and mitigating factors. It identified multiple aggravating factors:

• Prior disciplinary offenses.
• Dishonest or selfish motive.
• Pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses.
• Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process (failing to respond, evading service).
• Refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct.
• Substantial experience in the practice of law.
• Indifference to making restitution.

Gale presented no evidence and offered no explanation, so the Board identified no mitigating factors.

On this record, the Board unanimously recommended:

• A one-year suspension from practice.
• A KYLAP monitoring agreement.
• Successful completion of EPEP.
• Restitution to all four affected clients.
• Assessment of costs of $752.06.

III. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Opinion and Order

Neither Gale nor the OBC filed a notice of review from the Board’s decision. Under SCR 3.370(9)–(10), the Supreme Court could either elect to review or adopt the Board’s findings and recommendation. After independently reviewing the record and precedent, the Court:

• Adopts the Board’s findings and recommended sanction.
• Confirms that Gale is:
  • Guilty of three counts of violating SCR 3.130(1.3) (diligence);
  • Guilty of three counts of violating SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) (communication);
  • Guilty of three counts of violating SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) (duties upon termination);
  • Guilty of one count of violating SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) (failure to respond to disciplinary authority);
  • Guilty of one count of violating SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) (disobeying an obligation under tribunal rules – here, SCR 3.035).
• Orders:
  • A one-year suspension from the practice of law in Kentucky.
  • Restitution: $200 to Bailey; $370 to Woodson; $370 to Colley; $950 to Sander, all within 90 days.
  • Entry into and compliance with a KYLAP monitoring agreement.
  • Attendance and successful completion of EPEP.
  • Compliance with SCR 3.502 requirements for reinstatement (because the suspension exceeds 180 days).
  • Compliance with SCR 3.390 (client and court notification; cessation of advertising).
  • Prohibition on taking new clients or collecting unearned fees during suspension.
  • Payment of disciplinary costs of $752.06.

All Justices concurred, and the Opinion is designated “To Be Published,” making it citable precedent in Kentucky’s disciplinary jurisprudence.

IV. Legal Analysis

A. Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

1. SCR 3.130(1.3) – Diligence and Promptness

SCR 3.130(1.3) requires that “a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” In each matter:

• Bailey – Gale took a fee and obtained signed documents but never filed them, despite repeated promises. Bailey ultimately had to proceed pro se.
• Woodson – After initial document preparation, Gale simply stopped working on the case and did not move the divorce forward.
• Colley – Gale admitted not realizing she was a client, promised documents on multiple occasions, and still never produced them.
• Sander/Moore – Although he filed a petition and summons, Gale then left the case to languish; no service was obtained, and the court remanded the matter.

Collectively, these fact patterns illustrate classic violations of diligence: accepting representation and payment but failing to do the work needed to advance matters toward resolution.

2. SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) – Communication

SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) obligates a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. The Court focuses on subparts (3) and (4):

• Bailey – Gale did not return calls or texts, and his “client portal” preference did not excuse complete practical inaccessibility.
• Woodson – Over thirty attempts via voicemails and portal messages went unanswered over more than two months.
• Colley – Emails, texts, and calls were ignored for extended periods, despite urgent financial consequences.

The Court implicitly rejects any notion that specifying a preferred communication channel (such as a portal) allows a lawyer to ignore client efforts via other reasonable methods, especially where the client has no reason to know that one method is functionally ignored.

3. SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) – Duties Upon Termination of Representation

This rule requires a lawyer, when representation is terminated, to take steps “reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests,” including:

• Giving reasonable notice.
• Allowing time to hire new counsel.
• Surrendering papers and property.
• Refunding any unearned fee.

In Woodson, Colley, and Sander/Moore, the Court (adopting the Board) finds Gale violated these duties by:

• Abandoning representations after taking fees.
• Failing to refund any portion of unearned fees, even when directly requested.
• Leaving clients to fend for themselves in incomplete or stalled proceedings.

The opinion connects this to Gale’s 2021 admonition, in which he similarly charged for work never filed and refused to return unearned funds. This reinforces that refunding unearned fees is not discretionary; it is a mandatory consequence of nonperformance or early termination.

4. SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) – Failure to Respond to Disciplinary Authority

SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly fail[ing] to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.” In the Woodson matter, Gale:

• Accepted service of the complaint via email and acknowledged receipt.
• Ignored a clear instruction to respond by a deadline.
• Ignored a follow-up reminder warning that failure to respond could itself constitute misconduct.

The Board and Court therefore found a separate violation of 8.1(b) in that case. In the Colley matter, by contrast, the Board declined to find an 8.1(b) violation, likely due to uncertainties around personal service and timing. The Court ultimately credits one count of 8.1(b) overall.

5. SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) – Disobeying Tribunal Rules

SCR 3.130(3.4)(c) states that a lawyer shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”

The specific “rule of a tribunal” at issue is SCR 3.035(1)(a), which requires every Kentucky lawyer to maintain “one official Bar Roster address at which he or she may be communicated with by mail and shall upon a change of that address notify the [KBA] Director within ten (10) days of the new official address.”

The record showed:

• Gale vacated his Florence office in November 2023.
• He never notified the KBA of a new address.
• Multiple attempts at certified mail and sheriff’s service failed because he was no longer at his Bar Roster address and had not updated it.

The Board, and ultimately the Court, treat this as a knowing violation of a tribunal rule and thus a 3.4(c) violation. The decision underscores that the Bar Roster address requirement is not merely administrative; willful noncompliance can form the basis for substantive discipline.

B. Procedural Rules Governing Discipline

The opinion illustrates several key Kentucky disciplinary procedures:

• SCR 3.160 – Bar complaints and Charges.
  • Complaints may initially be opened for “alternative disposition,” but if the lawyer fails to engage, they proceed to formal investigation and Charge.
  • Gale’s initial opportunity for informal resolution in the Bailey matter was lost when he became unresponsive.
• SCR 3.035 – Service and Bar Roster address.
  • If mail or sheriff’s service to the Bar Roster address fails, the OBC may serve the Executive Director of the KBA as the lawyer’s agent (SCR 3.035(2)).
  • Service on the Executive Director, with a follow-up mailing to the roster address, constitutes effective service.
• SCR 3.210 – Default.
  • If a lawyer does not answer a Charge, the matter may proceed to the Board of Governors by default.
  • By failing to respond, Gale forfeited any chance to contest facts, raise defenses, or present mitigation.
• SCR 3.167 – Indefinite suspension for failure to answer.
  • Separate from ultimate merits decisions, the Court may indefinitely suspend an attorney who fails to answer disciplinary Charges.
  • Gale was indefinitely suspended on this basis in June 2024, months before the final merits disposition in this Opinion.
• SCR 3.370 – Supreme Court review of Board decisions.
  • Subsection (9) permits the Court, even absent a notice of review, to elect to review the Board’s decision.
  • Subsection (10) allows the Court, if it does not elect review, to adopt the Board’s decision as its own.
  • Here, no party sought review, and the Court, after examining the record and precedent, chose to adopt the Board’s decision under SCR 3.370(10).
• SCR 3.390 – Duties upon suspension.
  • Requires a suspended lawyer to notify clients and courts in writing of the suspension and to cease advertising.
  • The Court reiterates these obligations in its order to Gale.
• SCR 3.450(2) – Costs.
  • Authorizes assessment of proceeding costs against the disciplined attorney, enforceable by execution.
  • Gale is assessed $752.06 in costs.
• SCR 3.502 – Reinstatement after suspension longer than 180 days.
  • For suspensions exceeding 180 days, reinstatement is not automatic; the lawyer must satisfy specific procedural and substantive requirements.
  • The Court expressly notes that Gale must comply with SCR 3.502 in addition to the conditions imposed by this Opinion.

C. Precedents and Comparative Sanctioning

The Court situates Gale’s discipline within existing Kentucky precedents on neglect, failure to refund fees, and non-cooperation.

1. In re Gale, 694 S.W.3d 357 (Ky. 2024)

In this prior decision, not reproduced in full here but referenced in the Opinion, the Court indefinitely suspended Gale under SCR 3.167 for failing to answer earlier Charges. That case established that his continuing non-participation justified robust interim action. The present Opinion builds on that history by:

• Addressing the underlying misconduct in detail.
• Converting the indefinite status (based on procedural default) into a one-year substantive suspension with conditions, without disturbing the principle that failure to answer justifies immediate indefinite suspension.

2. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Whitlock, 318 S.W.3d 602 (Ky. 2010)

In Whitlock, an attorney:

• Failed to send her client a check after telling the client she had won the case.
• Failed to respond to a bar complaint.

The Court imposed a one-year suspension. By citing this case, the Court signals that:

• Failing to deliver funds due (or their equivalent in value) and ignoring disciplinary authorities typically warrants at least a one-year suspension in Kentucky.
• Non-cooperation with the KBA significantly aggravates sanctions.

3. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Jackson-Rigg, 334 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2011)

In Jackson-Rigg, the attorney failed to refund fees deemed excessive by a court. The Court again imposed a one-year suspension. This demonstrates a consistent sanctioning pattern: when fee misconduct involves excessiveness or failure to refund unearned amounts, a suspension of this magnitude is considered appropriate even if there is no outright theft or conversion from a client trust account.

4. In re Thornton, 713 S.W.3d 134 (Ky. 2025)

The Opinion cites In re Thornton, where an attorney:

• Collected $5,000 in fees.
• Allowed a client’s property to be foreclosed upon by default.
• Failed to refund the unearned fee until after a complaint was filed.

The Court notes that similar fee-related misconduct coupled with significant client harm justified a substantial sanction there as well. Together, Whitlock, Jackson-Rigg, Thornton, and In re Gale show a coherent approach:

• Failure to deliver value for fees; plus
• Substantial client harm or risk; plus
• Non-cooperation or deception;

will generally result in a suspension around one year, absent more extreme elements warranting disbarment (such as large-scale misappropriation, criminal conduct, or fraud on a tribunal).

D. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three broad steps:

1. Confirming that the Board’s factual findings and rule violations are supported by the record.
2. Determining that a one-year suspension with conditions is consistent with precedent and the gravity of the misconduct.
3. Adding procedural and remedial requirements to ensure client protection and structured potential return to practice.

1. Adoption of the Board’s Findings and Recommendations

Because neither party sought review, the Court’s first question under SCR 3.370(9)–(10) is whether to sua sponte review the Board’s decision or adopt it. The Court scrutinizes the record and compares similar cases, then expressly chooses adoption, noting:

• The Board’s recommendation is “supported by law and the record.”
• The sanction is “consistent with discipline this Court has imposed in similar cases.”

This approach reinforces the central role of the Board in fact-finding and initial sanctioning, and reflects a degree of deference where the Board’s analysis is sound and uncontested.

2. Weight on Pattern Misconduct and Prior Discipline

The Court emphasizes that Gale’s misconduct is not an isolated lapse but a “consistent and repeated pattern” in multiple client matters, compounded by prior admonitions and administrative noncompliance. The aggravating factors identified by the Board provide the backbone of the Court’s reasoning:

• Prior discipline – demonstrates that Gale was on clear notice of his ethical obligations, especially regarding divorce matters and unearned fees.
• Pattern and multiple offenses – four separate clients, in a relatively short period, experienced essentially the same misconduct.
• Bad faith obstruction – failure to maintain an address, avoidance of service, and ignoring bar counsel’s requests.
• Selfish motive and indifference to restitution – accepting and retaining fees while providing little or no service.
• Experience – as a lawyer of more than two decades, Gale could not credibly claim ignorance of basic duties.

The absence of mitigating factors—because Gale chose not to participate—is equally important. Had there been evidence of, for example, a short-term health crisis, isolated negligence, or early restitution, the Court might have weighed those differently. In their absence, the pattern appears entrenched.

3. Sanction Selection: Why One Year?

The Court’s citations to Whitlock, Jackson-Rigg, and Thornton show that a one-year suspension is considered appropriate where:

• There is serious neglect or mishandling of client matters.
• Clients sustain or risk financial harm (e.g., tax penalties, credit damage, foreclosure, loss of opportunities).
• The lawyer has failed to promptly refund unearned fees.

At the same time, the conduct—although serious—does not rise to the level of:

• Overt misappropriation or conversion from a client trust account.
• Criminal activity.
• Systematic fraud on courts or third parties.

In that sense, the one-year suspension is both substantial and proportionate: it removes Gale from practice for a meaningful period, imposes restitution and rehabilitative measures, but does not permanently end his license.

4. Additional Remedial Conditions: KYLAP, EPEP, and SCR 3.502

The Court goes beyond simple time-based suspension by ordering:

• KYLAP monitoring – indicating concern that underlying issues (which may include, but are not limited to, mental-health or substance-related challenges) could be contributing to the pattern of abandonment and non-responsiveness.
• EPEP completion – emphasizing that Gale needs structured re-education on ethics and professionalism, particularly given his prior, apparently ineffective, exposure to similar programming.
• SCR 3.502 compliance for reinstatement – underscoring that return to practice after a suspension of more than 180 days is not automatic; Gale must affirmatively demonstrate fitness and compliance with all conditions.

Together, these measures signal that the disciplinary system aims not only to punish but also to protect the public and, where appropriate, to rehabilitate lawyers before they return to practice.

E. New or Emphasized Principles in This Opinion

While the opinion applies existing rules rather than creating explicit new doctrine, several themes are sharpened in ways likely to influence future cases:

1. Failure to maintain a current Bar Roster address can itself be professional misconduct.
   By treating noncompliance with SCR 3.035(1)(a) as a 3.4(c) violation, the Court elevates address-maintenance from an administrative detail to an ethical obligation. Attorneys who move offices or rely on virtual arrangements must treat roster updates as non-optional.
2. Use of technology (e.g., client portals) does not excuse unresponsiveness.
   Gale’s attempt to blame communication breakdowns on clients’ choice of messaging method finds no support. Lawyers must ensure that whatever systems they adopt actually facilitate responsiveness, not hinder it.
3. Patterns of modest-fee neglect can be as serious as large-fee misconduct.
   The sums involved here are relatively small ($370–$950 per client), but the Court treats the misconduct as significant due to pattern, client harm, and prior warnings. High-volume, low-fee practices are not exempt from strict diligence and communication duties.
4. Combining administrative and disciplinary consequences.
   Gale’s case shows how administrative suspension (for dues/CLE), indefinite suspension (for failing to answer Charges), and a later definite-term suspension can layer upon each other. Lawyers cannot assume that ignoring one category of problem will remain compartmentalized.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Diligence” in Plain Terms

Diligence means doing the legal work your client hired you to do, on time, and taking necessary steps to move the matter forward. It does not require perfection or winning every case, but it does require:

• Filing documents when promised.
• Meeting court deadlines.
• Responding to time-sensitive developments.

Taking a fee and then essentially doing nothing—as happened repeatedly here—is a clear lack of diligence.

2. “Communication” Duties

A lawyer must:

• Tell clients what is happening in their case.
• Answer reasonable phone calls, texts, emails, or portal messages.
• Explain delays and next steps.

Simply disappearing or being unreachable for months, especially after taking payment, violates these duties, regardless of the technology platform used.

3. “Unearned Fees” and Refunds

An “unearned fee” is money paid in advance for work that the lawyer never actually performs. Ethical rules require:

• Refunding the unearned portion if the representation ends early or the work is not done.
• Avoiding “non-refundable” fee labels that are inconsistent with this duty.

In Gale’s cases, each client paid for a divorce that essentially did not move forward (or, in Moore’s case, stalled after minimal work). Failing to return most or all of those fees is a violation of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d).

4. Administrative vs. Disciplinary Suspension

• Administrative suspension (for unpaid dues or missing CLE) is often reversible by curing the deficiency, but a lawyer may not practice while suspended.
• Disciplinary suspension is imposed for ethical violations and usually requires a formal reinstatement process, particularly when it exceeds 180 days.

Gale suffered both: first an administrative suspension, then indefinite suspension for failing to answer Charges, and now a one-year disciplinary suspension with conditions.

5. Indefinite vs. Definite Suspension

• Indefinite suspension – has no preset end date; the lawyer must satisfy conditions and petition for reinstatement.
• Definite suspension – lasts for a fixed number of days, months, or years, after which the lawyer may seek reinstatement (often still requiring affirmative steps).

Gale’s June 2024 indefinite suspension arose from procedural default (failure to answer), whereas the December 2025 one-year suspension is a substantive sanction for proven misconduct.

6. KYLAP and EPEP

• Kentucky Lawyers Assistance Program (KYLAP) – a confidential program that monitors and assists lawyers who may have impairments affecting their practice. A “monitoring agreement” typically involves ongoing oversight and compliance conditions.
• Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program (EPEP) – a structured educational program designed to reinforce ethical standards and professional behavior.

Imposing both on Gale signals that the Court views his issues as potentially systemic and in need of sustained oversight and education, not just punishment.

VI. Impact and Future Implications

A. For Kentucky Practitioners

The case sends several clear messages to Kentucky lawyers:

• Do not take cases you cannot service. Repeated failures in similar divorce matters suggest caseload or practice-management problems. Lawyers are expected to adjust their intake rather than leave clients in limbo.
• Keep your Bar Roster address current. Moving offices or operating from home without updating the KBA is not just sloppy; it can be charged as professional misconduct and lead to default discipline.
• Engage with bar counsel. Even if a complaint seems unfair, ignoring it is almost always worse. Failure to respond can lead to separate violations and indefinite suspension.
• Refund unearned fees promptly. Particularly in routine matters like uncontested divorces, where the scope of work is clear, any significant nonperformance should be accompanied by a substantial refund.

B. For the Disciplinary System

From an institutional perspective, the Opinion:

• Reinforces the utility of service through the KBA Executive Director under SCR 3.035(2) when lawyers cannot be located.
• Affirms that the Board of Governors’ recommendations will typically be adopted if well-supported and uncontested.
• Demonstrates that published opinions will be used to harmonize sanction levels, promoting consistency across similar misconduct categories.

C. For Clients and the Public

For clients, the Opinion:

• Shows that the KBA and the Court will act, even in relatively “small” fee cases, where a pattern of neglect and non-communication is shown.
• Confirms that restitution can be ordered as part of disciplinary sanctions, providing a path to partial financial redress even if civil remedies are not pursued.
• Highlights that clients can protect themselves by filing bar complaints when lawyers become unresponsive, especially after taking fees.

D. Potential Use as Precedent

Going forward, In re Gale is likely to be cited for:

• The appropriate sanction range (around one year) for repeated neglect of modest-fee domestic-relations matters coupled with non-refund of fees and non-cooperation.
• The proposition that failure to maintain a current Bar Roster address can support a 3.4(c) violation.
• Support for requiring KYLAP monitoring and EPEP completion where patterns of abandonment or disorganization suggest systemic issues.

VII. Conclusion

In re: Marcus Daniel Gale reflects the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s continued insistence that even routine, lower-dollar matters—like uncontested divorces—must be handled with diligence, communication, and honesty. Lawyers cannot:

• Take fees and then fail to perform.
• Disappear from communication while clients face concrete harms.
• Ignore bar complaints and evade service by abandoning their listed offices.

By imposing a one-year suspension with restitution, KYLAP monitoring, EPEP completion, and formal reinstatement requirements, the Court underscores that patterns of neglect, coupled with disregard for the disciplinary process, are serious threats to public trust and will be met with substantial discipline. The Opinion thus serves both as a cautionary tale to practitioners and as a precedent anchoring the treatment of similar misconduct in Kentucky’s professional responsibility jurisprudence.