Enforcing SCR 3.130: Suspension for Failure of Diligence and Client Protection in In Re: Steven O. Thornton

Introduction

In In Re: Steven O. Thornton (2025-SC-0069-KB), the Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed multiple violations of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct—specifically SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4)(a)(2) & (4), (1.16)(d), and (8.1)(b)—and imposed a one-year suspension on a seasoned attorney for neglect, poor client communication, failure to protect client interests upon termination, and failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process.

Parties:

Respondent: Steven O. Thornton, admitted to the Kentucky Bar in 1983.
Complainant: Kentucky Bar Association (KBA).
Clients: Mr. and Mrs. Malinowski, represented in a foreclosure action.

Key Issues: Failure to file an appearance or responsive pleadings, lack of a written fee agreement, untimely refund of an unearned retainer, and non-cooperation with disciplinary authorities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Trial Commissioner found that Thornton had:

Failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness (SCR 3.130(1.3));
Failed to consult with his clients about means to achieve their objectives and to respond promptly to their information requests (SCR 3.130(1.4)(a)(2), (4));
Failed to protect client interests by delaying the refund of an unearned retainer after termination of representation (SCR 3.130(1.16)(d)); and
Failed to disclose necessary facts and respond to a lawful request in the disciplinary inquiry (SCR 3.130(8.1)(b)).

With no party filing a notice of review, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation under SCR 3.370(10) and imposed a one-year suspension, directing Thornton to comply with reinstatement procedures, client notifications, advertising cessation, and payment of costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on two key disciplinary precedents to calibrate the sanction:

Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Whitlock, 318 S.W.3d 602 (Ky. 2010): Suspension for one year where an attorney failed to deliver client funds after promising a victory and then ignored a bar complaint.
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Jackson-Rigg, 334 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2011): One-year suspension for failing to refund excessive fees and for non-responsive conduct toward the bar authority.

These cases underscore that misappropriation or withholding of client funds, combined with failure to cooperate with disciplinary processes, typically warrants a suspension of at least one year.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision rests on a straightforward application of SCR 3.130:

Rule 1.3 (Diligence): Thornton never filed an entry of appearance or responsive pleadings in the foreclosure, despite clear notice and court orders.
Rule 1.4 (Communication): Thornton admitted he did not keep his clients informed about case developments or respond to their timely requests.
Rule 1.16(d) (Termination): He delayed refunding the unearned retainer—from June 2021 until after the 2022 KBA charge—contrary to the requirement to take “reasonable steps” to protect client interests.
Rule 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Cooperation): Thornton admitted failing to respond fully to bar counsel’s inquiries, which impeded the disciplinary proceeding.

Finding no mitigating circumstances—such as client harm beyond procedural default, mental or physical illness, or prompt remedial action—the Court concluded the recommended one-year suspension was proportional and consistent with precedent.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important points for Kentucky practitioners:

Maintaining a written fee agreement and segregating unearned fees are essential safeguards against disciplinary exposure.
Prompt entry of appearance and responsive pleadings guard both client interests and attorney discipline risks.
Timely communication and compliance with client requests are non-negotiable duties under SCR 3.130(1.4).
Failure to cooperate with a disciplinary inquiry exacerbates other professional misconduct and leads to harsher sanctions.

Future cases will likely cite Thornton as a clear example of how neglect and non-cooperation trigger a presumptive one-year suspension under Kentucky’s disciplinary framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Warning Order Attorney: A court-appointed counsel designated to receive service of process on behalf of an unresponsive party; Thornton mistakenly assumed representation without formal entry.
Retainer vs. Earned Fee: A retainer is an advance deposit; an attorney must refund any portion not earned by work performed.
Default Judgment: A court decision entered against a party who fails to respond or appear in a timely manner.
Trial Commissioner: An appointed official who conducts evidentiary hearings in attorney discipline cases and submits findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court.
SCR 3.370(10): When no party seeks review of a Trial Commissioner’s report, the Supreme Court must adopt the recommendation in full.

Conclusion

In Re: Steven O. Thornton clarifies that under SCR 3.130, Kentucky attorneys are strictly bound to:

Act with diligence and promptness;
Maintain clear and timely communication;
Protect client interests—including refunding unearned fees upon termination; and
Cooperate fully in disciplinary investigations.

Failure in any of these duties, particularly when combined with unresponsiveness to a bar inquiry, will typically result in a one-year suspension. This decision underscores the profession’s commitment to client protection and the integrity of the bar admission and disciplinary systems.