Kentucky Bar Association v. Christy Smith Grayson

CONFIDENTIAL

finpreme Gland 11f ghettfurkg P

2017 SC 000659 KB

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION COMPLAINANT

V IN SUPREME COURT

CHRISTY SMITH GRAYSON RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3 480(2) 1 the negotiated sanction rule, Christy Smith Grayson2 moves this Court to impose upon her a five year suspension with the condit10ns that she refund or partially refund money to several former clients and that she participate in the Kentucky

. 5. a 9. Lawyer Assistance Program (KYLAP) Grayson also requests that the

suspension be made effective October 8, 2017 Grayson seeks this discipline to

resolve nineteen disciplinary cases Grayson is currently indefinitely

suspended under SCR 3 380 pursuant to this Court’s September 28, 2017

Opinion and Order in 2017 SC 000240 KB Kentucky Bar Association v

Grayson 530 S W 3d 460 (Ky 2017) Grayson further requests the indefinite

suspension imposed in 2017 SC 000240 KB be dlssolved as moot upon

imposition of the currently requested discipline The Kentucky Bar Association

(KBA), through the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC), has no objection to Grayson’s

requests “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 ” SCR 3 480(2), See Anderson 1) Kentucky Bar Association, 262 S W 3d

636, 638 (Ky 2008) (The Court has d1scretion to accept or reject the negotiated

sanction )

As charged, the cases present a pattern of lack of diligence,

misrepresentations, inadequate communications with the clients, and failure to

refund unearned fees One case involves Grayson’s felony conviction for

possession of a forged instrument Grayson repeatedly states that her

misconduct stems from depression for which she has sought treatment but the

record contains no medical evidence Grayson’s verified statements alone are

not sufficient for a mental health dlsability to be conSIdered as mitigation See Kentucky Bar Association v Hill, 476 S W 3d 874 (Ky 2015) discussed infra

Although it may be that a five year suspension, with conditions, is the

, 1'. , 5. appropriate discipline for Grayson, that conclusion cannot be reached through

consrderation of Grayson’s verified motion, the KBA’s response, and the record

currently before the Court Because Grayson relies largely on findlngs related

to her depression to mitigate her penalty (with no ev1dentiary support other

than her own statements regarding diagnosis and treatment), and we cannot

find at this time that other suggested mitigating circumstances some of which are also related to Grayson’s depression are sufficient to conclude the

proposed sanction is proper, we must reject the negotiated sanction We

remand this case for hearing

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A Prior Disc1plmary Proceedings Grayson is presently under indefinite suspension, effective October 8,

2017, pursuant to this Court’s September 28, 2017 Opinion and Order in

2017 SC 000240 KB for failing to respond to charges initiated by the KBA

Inquiry Commission in 17 DIS 0026 and 17 DIS 0027 A private admonition

issued May 23, 2018 the conduct underlying the admonition occurred within

the same time period as the cases currently before the Court

Leading up to this current action, in January 2018, this Court was asked

by Grayson, represented by counsel, to review the Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of the Board of Governors in 2017

SC 000659 KB for four default cases 17 DIS 0026 and 17 DIS 0027 the two

cases resulting in Grayson’s indefinite suspension, and two others, 17 DIS

0099 and 17 DIS 0112 A discrepancy existed between the Board’s vote on the

. u . a , ’.

recommended discipline and that actually presented in the Board’s

Recommendation The Board’s September 15, 2017 vote breakdown indicated

that the majority voted to suspend Grayson for five years, but the Board’s

December 2017 Recommendation stated that the recommendation was a five

year suspension with three years probated

Grayson also tendered answers to the four default cases and asked that

the dis01plinary proceedings be remanded to the KBA for the filing of the

answers into the record and for further proceedings before the KBA, allowing

her to prov1de ev1dence addressing factual allegations and to prov1de mitigating

evidence, particularly an objective healthcare assessment, relevant to the

proper resolution of the proceedings Grayson’s January 2018 brief described

mental health issues as playing a role in her inability to properly address the

four disciplinary cases, as establishing a valid excuse for the default, and

stated those issues were presently being assessed and evaluated

In support of her remand request, Grayson specifically stated that for

approximately the last two years she has been prescribed antidepressant

medication by her primary care physician, and following the events in the latter

part of 2017 that are before the KBA and this Court, she has sought

comprehensive and aggressive mental healthcare assessment, evaluation, and

treatment through a number of healthcare providers, including a psychiatrist

She stated that at that time, she had been diagnosed with depressron (the

scope and degree yet to be fully determined) and anxiety, and possible Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder (P'I‘SD) Grayson also stated that she recognized the

. ,. ‘. : ’.

need to establish an appropriate connection between the conduct at issue in

the Charges and any adverse health condition of hers which existed during

that time She noted that the process of assessment and evaluation had begun

but had not yet concluded, but that part of the process had included her

reaching out to KYLAP to assist in obtaining an appropriate mental health and

physical health assessment and evaluation

The four tendered answers contained like statements regarding

Grayson’s mental health The tendered answers also stated that the ongoing

and pendlng assessment regarding her health condition during the relevant

time period of the Charge would provide material information and mitigating

evidence in determining the appropriate outcome of the proceeding She stated

that a comprehensive mental healthcare assessment had yet to be performed,

and a long term treatment and counseling plan had yet to be established In

regard to KYLAP’s requested assistance, Grayson also stated that part of the

assessment would include determining the connection, if any, between her

adverse health condition and the underlying conduct set out in the Charge By

its June 14, 2018 order, this Court granted Grayson’s request to remand the

matter to the KBA to allow filing of answers and development of the record so

the Court could determine the appropriate discipllne

The four cases initially presented in 2017 SC 000659 KB are part of the

nineteen cases considered in the present action, which maintains the same

case number Upon approval of the proposed sanction, the DEC requests the

Court deem the consensual discipline as resolution of 2017 SC 000240 KB *6 i t a

B Mitigation Grayson’s Statement Regarding Her Mental Health

Grayson states in her verified motion that her personal and professional

life began deteriorating around 2016, eventually culminating in the present

disciplinary proceeding Several years ago (on a date not disclosed in the

record), Grayson’s primary care physic1an prescribed depression medication for

Grayson Matters in Grayson’s personal life including attempting to help her

best friend suffering from serious mental health and alcohol problems and who

died in early 2017, helping her friend’s teenage daughters, and attempting to

help her older and younger sisters who were also having their own personal,

health, and employment problems began to take their toll on her mental

health, which had adverse consequences in her personal and professional life

During those earlier times, Grayson states she was not fully disclosing to

her physician all of the adverse matters in her life and the negative effects on

her And, as the various disciplinary proceedings began to pile up, Grayson

did not reach out to others, personally or professionally, for help According to

Grayson, her chronic depression and anxiety were not properly diagnosed until

after the various attorney disciplinary proceedings arose Grayson alleges she ultimately reached out and received appropriate healthcare intervention in late

2017 and into 2018 As a result, Grayson maintains she was able to bring her

life into an ongoing stable condition Grayson states she has benefitted from

counseling, treatment, a new approach to addressing life stressors, and

prescribed depression medication, and that she is committed to continuing on

a positive path The proposed disc1p1ine is conditioned on Grayson entering

,, 1i into an appropriate KYLAP agreement to monitor her ongoing compliance with

treatment recommendations of her healthcare professionals

C Violations Charged or Acknowledged3 across Nineteen Cases

The motion for consensual discipline concerns seventy counts of

misconduct across nineteen disciplinary cases In terms of interaction with

clients, the charged violations largely pertain to Grayson not acting with

reasonable diligence when representing her clients, misrepresenting the status

of their respective cases, not communicating with the clients to keep them

reasonably informed or to provide requested information, and not refunding

unearned fees Criminal conduct related to possession of a forged instrument

is also involved Grayson admits violating the following Supreme Court Rules

SCR 3 130(1 3) A lawyer shall act With reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client ” KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS

0027 17 DIS 0099 17 D18 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0257 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17

DIS 0410 17 DIS 0440* 17 DIS 0445 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022

seventeen counts total

SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) A lawyer shall (2) reasonably consult with the

client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished ”

3 An asterisk by a disciplinary case indicates that Grayson acknowledges the allegations of the pending disciplinary case would support a violation of the Supreme Court Rule The pending charges are included in the total violation count for the applicable Supreme Court Rule

‘. I 1 i

KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0410 17

D18 0445 18 DIS 0124 18 DIS 0022 seven counts total

SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) A lawyer shall (3) keep the client reasonably

informed about the status of the matter KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17

DIS 0027 17 DIS 0257 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS

0410 17 DIS 0440 17 DIS 0445* 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022* eleven

counts total

SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) A lawyer shall (4) promptly comply with

reasonable requests for information ” KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026, 17 DIS

0027 17 DIS 0099 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0410

17 DIS 0440 17 DIS 0445* 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022* eleven counts

total

SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall

take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests,

such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of

other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled

and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned

or incurred The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent

permitted by other law KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS 0099 17

DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS 0341 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS

0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0410 ten counts total *9 ,. I I f

SCR 3 130(3 2) “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite

litigation consistent with the interests of the client ” KBA File Number 17 DIS

0244, one count total

SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) [A] lawyer shall not (b) knowmgly fail to

respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary

authority KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0099 17

DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 D18 0244 17 DIS 0257 eight

counts total

SCR 3 130(8 4)(b) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,

trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects ” KBA File Number 18

DIS 0042’“ one count total

SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ”

KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17

DIS 0244 17 DIS 0257 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS

0390 17 DIS 0440* 17 DIS 0445 18 DIS 0124* 18 DIS 0022’“ fourteen

counts total

D Nineteen Dlsciplmary Cases Unless otherwise noted, Grayson admits she violated the Rules of

Professional Conduct as alleged in each Charge or implicated by her conduct in *10 I :‘ s i

the cases in which a Charge has not been issued 4 Across twelve of the

fourteen cases which contain a charge of misrepresentation, in addition to

making other statements regarding the alleged misrepresentations, Grayson

makes a similar statement that any misrepresentations were not intentional

conduct, although her misrepresentations were knowingly made, and that any

such mlsrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic

depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed KBA File Numbers 17 DIS 0027 17 DIS 0112 17 DIS 0189 17 DIS 0228 17 DIS 0244 17 DIS

0257 17 DIS 0368 17 DIS 0371 17 DIS 0378 17 DIS 0390 17 DIS 0440

17 DIS 0445 18 D18 0124* but not 17 DIS 0390 or 18 DIS 0022* which

deals With a pending civil malpractice case Grayson further states that

beginning in late 2017, and continuing to the present, she has taken concrete

and productive steps to address her depression and anxiety problems

The criminal case at issue in KBA File 17 DIS 0042 (infra, case nineteen)

and involving the complaints made in 17 DIS 0027 (Infra, case two) and 17

DIS 0368 (Infra, case ten), was resolved in October 2018 through a plea

agreement with Grayson’s two year sentence being probated for one year, and

Grayson’s payment of expenses and letters of apology to the two former clients

KBA File 18 DIS 0022 (infra, case eighteen) concerns allegations stemming *11 ‘I I I I: *12 . .’ i f

Grayson for explanation about hearing notices and other court orders were

unsuccessful

Grayson states she actively participated in the various hearings before

the Martin Circuit Court through October 2016 Grayson acknowledges that

by the latter part of 2016, there was a breakdown of communlcation with the

Williamsons communication was sporadic and brief and she did not satisfy

in full her communication obligation to the Williamsons

On April 17, 2017, the Inquiry Commission initiated a Charge against

Grayson alleging she violated the following five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by

failing to perform the work for which she was hired (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by

not informing Mrs Williamson of the status of the adoption matter, (3’ SCR

3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not responding to Mrs Williamson’s request for information

and attempts to reach her (4) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failmg to refund the fee to

Mrs Wllliamson after the birth mother revoked her consent to adoption; and

(5) SCR 3 130(8 l)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint

Grayson acknowledges Mrs Williamson is entitled to a full refund in the

sum of $¹ 500

2 KBA File 17 DIS 00279 The Patrick Matter

Gina Patrick hired Grayson in November 2015 to facilitate

custody/ adoption of her grandson and paid her $1,176 According to Patrick,

Grayson advised Patrick and her husband to appear in Martin Circuit Court on *13 ,. i I I

August 17, 2016 When they met Grayson outside the courtroom, Grayson

informed them that court had been cancelled that morning, but the Judge had

deCIded to Sign the adoption papers because their case had been passed

several times, and that they would receive their paperwork in approximately

three weeks After three weeks, Patrick contacted the Martin Circuit Court

Clerk’s office and learned nothing had been filed and there were no past or

scheduled court dates When Patrick went to Grayson’s office and asked for

documentation of her pending adoption, Grayson provided Patrick with an

“Agreed Custody Judgment” signed by Judge McKenzie Wells on August 17,

20 16

In early October, Grayson told Patrick that the adoption case was filed

and that a custody hearing was scheduled, after which Patrick would get a date

for the final adoption At the custody hearing, the circuit court heard a Motion

to Accept Agreed Judgment which gave Patrick custody of her grandson The

adoption papers remained unfiled two weeks later When Patrick appeared on

her pro 56 motion to ask the court about the status of the adoption, Judge

McKen21e Wells informed Patrick that the August 2016 judgment was

unrelated to Patrick’s pending case or an adoption and that the signature on

the document was not hers Judge McKenzie Wells explained that the

November 4, 2016 Agreed Custody Judgment was the last action of record by

the court and that as to the forged August 2016 judgment, the Patricks would

need to confer with an attorney for legal advice *14 .- I a {

Grayson, in her verified motion, explains that court filing delays were

initially due to a fallure to secure the birth father’s signature on the Entry of

Appearance until November 2015 and after that, Patrick communicated to her

that the mother was having second thoughts about the Patricks adopting the

child Although the paperwork had been signed, the documentation was kept

in Grayson’s file When the birth parents were again in agreement to moving

forward on the custody and adoption proceedings, Grayson took custody

related documents to the Martin Circuit Clerk’s office for filing However, due

to a mix up, the filing didn’t occur Grayson realized the error when

responding to Patrick’s request for an update, and advised Patrick of the mix

up

Grayson filed the custody proceeding with both birth parents’ Entries of

Appearance on October 4, 2016 On November 4, 2016, the court entered an

Agreed Custody Judgment granting the child custody relief sought 1n the

Petition Thereafter, Grayson advised Patrick the adoption proceeding needed

to be filed and Patrick would need to pay the filmg fee Patrick dld not return

to Grayson’s office to pay that fee

Grayson states that any misrepresentations she made concerning the

adoption status and procedural steps were not intentional misconduct,

although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made She also states that any such misrepresentations were made during the time when

Grayson’s chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly dlagnosed,

which issues have now been addressed *15 a ’ r .’

On April 17, 2017, the Inquiry Commission initiated a Charge against

Grayson alleging she violated the following five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by

faillng to perform the work for which she was hired (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by

failing to inform Patrick of the status of her adoption matter; (3) SCR

³ 130(1 4) (a) (4] by failing to respond to Patrick 5 attempts to contact her (4)

SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (5) SCR

3 130(8 4) (c) by conduct including, but not limited to, telling Patrick her

adoption was pending when no such action had been initiated, and providing

Patrick with a document bearing an inaccurate case number and a signature

purported to be that of Judge Jame McKenzie Wells when the judge had not

signed the document

Grayson has reimbursed Patrick’s previously paid attorney fees, such

payment being part of the resolution of the criminal case discussed infra

3 KBA File 17 DIS 0099 The Fraley Matter

In January 2017, Samantha Fraley retained Grayson to assist her In

obtaining sole custody of her seven year old child Fraley completed initial

paperwork, but did not provide an address for the father to be served Fraley

paid Grayson for filmg fees and $100 toward attorney fees Grayson prepared a

Petitlon for Custody, which Fraley signed on January 30, 2017 The petition

was not filed and a 11ttIe over two weeks after Fraley retained Grayson, the

father filed hIS own petition in Martin Circuit Court Fraley complained about

Grayson’s failure to file her petition, Grayson’s lack of response to her calls, *16 a .’ , I

and Grayson not creating a file for her case, a fact discovered when Fraley went

to pick up her file and give it to another attorney

Grayson states that she and Fraley conferred concerning the options

available after the Initiation of the Martin C1rcuit Court case, but acknowledges

and expresses regrets for the breakdown in communication with Fraley

On June 9, 2017, the Inquiry Commission charged Grayson violated four

rules ( 1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file a custody petition on behalf of Fraley

(2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing to respond to Fraley s attempts to contact her

regarding the status of her custody matter (3) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to

return the unearned attorney fee and unpaid filing fees to Fraley after the

representation ended‘ and (4) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar

Complaint

Grayson acknowledges that while she performed some services after

initially conferring with Fraley, Fraley is entitled to a full refund of $276

⁴ KBA File 17 DIS 0112 The Alexander Matter

In August 2016, Sandra Alexander retained Grayson to file an ancillary

probate proceeding in Kentucky and paid her $350 in attorney fees Alexander

was the Executrix of a decedent’s Estate in West Virginia That estate included

real property 1n Martin County, Kentucky, necessitating the ancillary

proceeding

Alexander complained that Grayson told her the entire matter would be

finished by mid November 2016, that Grayson told her the matter had been

filed and an order signed by the judge, and that the order had been mailed to *17 " ~ .’

the wrong address 1n January 2017, but that the proceedings had concluded

Alexander later learned the action was never filed Through mid March 2017,

Alexander’s and her sister’s attempts to contact Grayson at her office were

unsuccessful In mid March, Alexander sent a letter terminating the

representation

Grayson states any alleged misrepresentations were made during the

time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly

diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed

Grayson acknowledges there was a breakdown in communication with

Alexander during January and February of 2017 Grayson also acknowledges

that although she conferred with Alexander, reviewed certain documents, and

corresponded with Alexander, the contemplated ancillary probate proceedings

were not initiated Alexander denies ever instructing Grayson not to

communicate with her SISter and receiving a December 14, 2016 letter from

Grayson confirming that Alexander did not want Grayson to communicate with

Alexander’s sister

The Charge filed on June 9, 2017, alleged Grayson violated four rules (1)

SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the ancillary probate petition and /or perform

any work for her clients (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing to return

Alexander’s phone calls and failing to respond to requests for information from

Alexander and her sister (3) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar

Complaint and (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) by failing to take any action on behalf of

Alexander and her siblings, despite being paid and depositing the check, and *18 .- 3 : 5

misrepresenting the status of the matter to the clients when she claimed on

several occasions that the matter was pending and would soon conclude

Grayson acknowledges that Alexander IS entitled to reimbursement of the

full $350 attorney fees previously paid

⁵ KBA File 17 DIS 0189 The Smlth Matter

In July 2016, Linda Smith retained Grayson to pursue custody of her

then five year old grandchild who was living in Ohio Smith paid Grayson

$1,500 on August 2, 2016 In her bar compliant, Smith complained that

Grayson misrepresented to her that Grayson was talking to a judge, that the

custody matter was moving forward, and that her case was pending and to be

on standby Grayson states that during her representation of Smlth, she did

not Speak with the judge, but did speak to the judge’s staff on the issue of

jurisdiction and venue Grayson does not recall telling Smith that she had

talked to the judge, and does not recall making any material misrepresentation

of fact regarding the procedural status of any proceedings in Kentucky

Grayson states any such misrepresentations were made during the time when

her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which

issues she says have now been addressed

Smith also complained that at Grayson’s direction, she prepared for a

Child Protective Services (CPS) visit to her home When no one from CPS

arrived, Smith called CPS and learned there was no record of an appomtment

or a court order for a home visit Grayson states she described to Smith

actions Smith would need to take in order for Kentucky to exercise jurisdiction *19 f . 2

over her grandson and acknowledges that Smith frequently called Grayson’s

office and Grayson would again indicate that the child needed to be physically

present in Kentucky before Kentucky CPS could do an investigation At a point

in time, Smith showed up at Grayson’s office with her grandson Grayson

states she contacted the local social services agency who were to go out that

day to interview Smith and to assess the grandchild

The Charge filed on September 22, 2017, alleged Grayson violated four

rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to take any action to file or otherwise

pursue Smith s custody matter (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failmg to perform any

work for Smith and failing to return the unearned advance fee payment, (3)

SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (4) SCR

3 130(8 4) (c) by making multiple misrepresentations to Smith concerning

existence of the custody matter

Grayson acknowledges that Smith is ent1t1ed to full refund in the sum of

$1,500, although she performed services in her representation of Smith

6 KBA File 17 DIS 0228 The Spence Matter

Mr Tracy Spence retained Grayson in September 2015 for the filing of an

uncontested divorce, and by the end of January 2016 paid Grayson a total of

$600 Spence complained that although he and his wife signed several

documents, the divorce petition was not filed Furthermore, when Spence and

his wife called to check on the status of their divorce, they were told the

paperwork had been sent to Frankfort Grayson’s verified motion explains that

in early January 2016 and again in early February 2016, she notified Spence *20 ,. i 1 f

by letter that Mrs Spence needed to return to the office to Sign a necessary

document and that he had not yet paid the filing fee for the divorce Spence

denies receiving the letters

The Charge filed on September 22, 2017, alleges Grayson violated four

rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the pet1tion for dissolution on behalf

of Spence“ (2) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failing to 1nform her client she could no

longer represent him or otherwise act to protect his interests before

abandonmg the case, and by faillng to return the unearned advance payment;

(3) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint and (4) SCR

3 130(8 4) (c) by misrepresenting to Spence that the divorce petition had been

filed and a divorce was forthcoming

Grayson states that any such representations were not intentional

misconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were

knowingly made She further states that any such misrepresentations were

made during the time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been

properly diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed

Grayson acknowledges that she did not provide complete representation

to Spence In his d1vorce proceeding and he is entitled to a partial refund 1n the

sum of $300

⁷ KBA File 17 DIS 0244 The SIddell Matter

In mid November 2016, Lisa Siddell retained Grayson to represent her in

an uncontested divorce proceeding, paying Grayson $600 The Siddells were

told the d1vorce would be final within sixty days Although Grayson filed the *21 ,. .’ r f

documents on December 27, 2016, Grayson failed to submit the matter for a

decree of dissolution as required by Family Court Rules Siddell contacted

Grayson for an update in February 2017, and Grayson stated the divorce was

final When Siddell arrived at her appointment to get a copy of the decree,

Grayson was not there and Siddell’s later attempts to reach Grayson were

unsuccessful Siddell was informed by the court clerk’s office that the divorce

was not final When contacted, Grayson stated the divorce was signed by the

Judge, but Grayson forgot to file the documents with the clerk’s office Grayson

stated she would have the divorce finalized within the week When Siddell

arrived at her appomtment to pick up the documents, Grayson’s office was

locked and Grayson did not answer Siddell’s calls

Grayson acknowledges in her verified motion that Siddell had a number

of conversations with her concerning whether the case had been submitted to

the court for the entry of the decree Grayson recalls telling Siddell that she

would file the necessary documentation for Its entry, but Grayson

acknowledges that she did not submit the case for the entry of the decree

Grayson does not independently recall making any material misrepresentations

to Siddell concerning the procedural status of the divorce case Grayson states

that any such material misrepresentations were not intentional conduct,

although Grayson acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made

Any such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic

depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues she

claims have now been addressed *22 ,. f a .’

The Charge filed September 22, 2017, alleged Grayson violated five rules

(1) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by failing to respond to Siddell 3 calls and respond to

her requests for information concerning the status of the uncontested divorce,

(2) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) by not completing the representation failing to take

action to protect her client’s interests, and failing to return the unearned

portion of the fee' (3) SCR 3 130(3 2) by failing to submit the matter for a

decree as required by the Family Court Rules (4) SCR 3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to

respond to the Bar Complaint and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) by making

misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the uncontested

divorce, including telling the client the divorce was final and the Judge had

signed the decree

Grayson acknowledges Siddell is entitled to a partial refund in the sum of

$300 8 KBA File 17 DIS 0257 The Carol Sue Fletcher Matter

On or about February 10, 2017, Carol Sue Fletcher retained Grayson to

represent her in an uncontested divorce proceeding, paying her a total of $600

by March 31, 2017 Fletcher complalned of the time Grayson took to have Mr

Fletcher Sign the necessary documents, but eventually the documents were

fully executed by both Mr and Mrs Fletcher Further, after not receivmg a

decree and belng unable to reach Grayson by phone, Fletcher went to

Grayson’s office in June or July 2017 Grayson informed Fletcher the judge

was behind, Grayson had been on vacation, and Grayson would obtain the

signed decree from the judge for Fletcher When Fletcher returned an hour *23 . f .- .’

later to obtain the promised copy, Grayson’s office was locked and she did not

answer the door Fletcher learned from the Martin Circuit Clerk’s office that

there was no pending divorce matter Fletcher was unable to reach Grayson

after the office Visit

Grayson states in her verified motion that Grayson is unsure why Mr

Fletcher did not Sign the Property and Separation Agreement but the

necessary documents for filing the divorce were not available during the time of

Grayson’s representation of Mrs Fletcher Grayson also does not recall

making any such material misrepresentations of fact to Fletcher, and believes

she would recall making such statements had they been made Grayson

further states any such misrepresentations were not intentional mlsconduct,

although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made Any

such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic

depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues she

claims have now been addressed

The Charge filed September 22 2017 alleged Grayson violated four

rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the divorce (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by

failing to tell Fletcher she had not filed the divorce and not responding to

Fletcher’s attempts to get information about the status of her divorce, (3) SCR

3 130(8 1)(b) by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c)

by collecting a $600 fee, failing to file the divorce, and misrepresenting the

status of the case, first claiming the Judge was behind and later that she would

prov1de the decree to Mrs Fletcher *24 . I 3 f

Grayson acknowledges Fletcher is entitled to a partial refund in the sum

of$300

⁹ KBA File 17 DIS 0341 The Hall Matter

Shonda Hall hired Grayson in early August 2017 At that time there

was a pending post divorce custody matter concerning Hall in Floyd Circuit

Court A hearing was set for August 25, 2017, a time Grayson was not

available Because she was not available at that time, Grayson did not enter

her appearance in the case Nevertheless, she accepted a $500 fee from Hall

Hall learned later through the clerk’s office that Grayson had not entered an

appearance in the case

Hall complained that after hiring Grayson, she had difficulty reaching

her and was unable to substantively discuss her case Hall attempted to

contact Grayson on August 24 to confirm she would appear in court on August

25; Hall was not informed by Grayson that the August 25 hearing had been

rescheduled to September 22 Hall terminated the representation when she did

not receive a reSponse Grayson adVISed Hall to make an appointment the

following week to obtain a refund Grayson then blocked Hall on Facebook,

their primary method of communication Grayson states that because she was

not counsel of record, she was not rece1v1ng the filings in the proceeding and

she was depending on Hall to keep her adv1sed that a continuance had been

granted

Grayson acknowledges that her conduct fell below that requ1red of an

attorney, that confusmn developed between Grayson and Hall regarding the *25 ’ ; f

procedural status of the court proceedings and the significance of what was

occurring; that there was a communication breakdown between her and Hall;

and that she should have been more proactive in her representation of Hall and

communicated her understanding of the representation to Hall

The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1)

SCR 3 130(1 3) by accepting the representation and failing to take action to

represent her chent (2) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(2) by failing to inform Hall that she

was not available on the scheduled hearing date, by not entering an

appearance in the case, and relying on Hall to inform her of the status of the

case' (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by failing to respond to her client’s requests to

meet with her and discuss the custody matter and (4} SCR 3 130(1 l6)(d) by

failing to return the unearned portion of the fee following the termination of the

representation

Grayson acknowledges Hall is entitled to a full refund in the sum of

$500 10 KBA File 17 DIS 0368 Inquiry Commissmn Complaint regarding the Naomi Fletcher Matter

In October 2014, Naomi Fletcher contacted Grayson concerning a

custody/ adoption proceeding regarding her grandson Grayson prepared an

Agreed Order regarding custody which the Fletchers and the birth parents

signed In May 2015, Grayson gave Fletcher a copy of an Agreed Order Signed

by Martin Family Court Judge McKenzie Wells on May 17, 2015 the case

number on the order was 15 CI 77 In 2017, when Fletcher went to the clerk’s

office to inquire about the status of the proceedings, she learned 15 CI 77 was *26 .- -' i 7.

not a family court case nor was she a party to the case The clerk also noted

the Signature on the Agreed Order was not Judge McKenzie Wells’s The

clerk’s office had no record of adoption or custody proceedings filed on behalf of

Fletcher

Grayson states in her verified motion that after the Agreed Order was

signed by the Fletchers and the birth parents, an unrelated matter caused

conflict between Fletcher and the birth mother which complicated the custody

agreement In January 2015, Fletcher indicated she wanted to hold off on

instituting legal proceedings regarding the child and filing the Agreed Order

The child remained informally w1th Fletcher The situation persisted

throughout 2015 When another conflict arose in 2016 with the birth mother,

Fletcher did not want Grayson to pursue the formal custody of the child who

remained with her

Grayson states she would have likely given Fletcher a copy of the draft

agreed order signed by the prospective parties Grayson does not have facts to

dispute Fletcher’s contention the she was prov1ded a copy of what was

purported to be the Agreed Order signed by the judge However, Grayson does

not have any independent recollection of having given such a document to

Fletcher Grayson states any such misrepresentations were not intentional

misconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were

knowingly made Further, any such misrepresentations were made during the

time when her chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly

diagnosed, which issues she states have now been addressed *27 .- 3 a 5

The Inquiry Commission Complaint filed November 8, 2017, alleged

Grayson minimally violated two rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, and (2) SCR

3 130(8 4)(c) regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and

misrepresentation The allegations underlying the Inquiry Commission’s

Complaint were also the subject of criminal charges in Pike County Those

charges are further detailed infra in case number nineteen

11 KBA File 17 DIS 0371 The Dials Matter

Jaclyn Dials (Dials), along With her aunt, Barbara Dials, contacted

Grayson on March 14, 2017, concerning a contemplated custody proceeding

Barbara was given custody of Dials’s child in a dependency, abuse and neglect

proceeding Dials and Barbara agreed that custody of the child should be

returned to Dials, who was living in Ohio Dials paid Grayson $686 to

represent her Grayson initially told Dials that the process would likely be

concluded in May 2017

Dials stated in her complaint that when she next spoke with Grayson on

April 14, 2017, Grayson indicated that she was waiting for the results of Dials’s

background check before the case could move forward and that it would take

six to eight weeks to complete the custody modification Dials complained that

Grayson did not communicate with her after April 14, 2017

In June 2017, Barbara was successful in getting Grayson’s personal

phone number Grayson told Barbara the background check looked great and

Martin Family Court Judge McKenzie Wells, the Commonwealth, and the State *28 ,. . :

of Ohio all agreed Dials should receive custody of the child Grayson sent

Barbara documents to Sign and told her that the judge would Sign an order in

court on July 19, 2017, and only Barbara needed to be present Grayson

called Barbara on July 18 2017, and told her Judge McKenzie Wells did not

have time to hear the case on July 19, but since the parties agreed, the Judge

would Sign the order Grayson did not communicate with Barbara after July

18 2017

In August 2017, Dials contacted the clerk’s office to get a copy of the

motion she believed had been filed in the matter She learned the custody

modification had not been filed Dials was unsuccessful in reaching Grayson

by calling and texting

Grayson states in her verified motion that she indicated to Dials and

Barbara that she could prepare an Agreed Custody Order for submission to the

court However, Barbara, who r631ded locally and maintained contact with

Dials, returned the draft order without Dials’s notarized signature The

document, consequently, was not in form to be filed, and the matter was

complicated by Dials’s inability to reach Grayson after April 2017 Grayson does not independently recall making any material misrepresentations to the

Dials concerning the status of any legal proceeding or inquiry either in

Kentucky or Ohio regarding custody Grayson states any such

misrepresentations were not intentional misconduct, although she

acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made According to her,

any such misrepresentations were made during the time when her chronic

depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues have now been addressed

The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to prov1de substantive representation to Dials, (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to consult with her client to explain how she would assist the client with modification of a prior custody order; (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing to respond to her client’s attempts to contact her for status updates and by failing to prov1de her chent with status updates; (4) SCR 3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to complete the representation, failing to notify her client of her inability or unwillingness to proceed, and failing to refund the unearned portion of the advance fee payment and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by misrepresenting the status of the custody case to her client and her client’s aunt

Grayson acknowledges that D1als is entitled to a partial refund in the sum of $500

12 KBA File 17 DIS 0378 The Chapman Matter

In early 2013, Grayson represented Patric1a Chapman and her husband In that Martin Circuit Court proceeding, an Agreed Order was entered naming the Chapmans as the defacto custodians and awarding them full custodial rights of their grandchildren In June 2016, the Chapmans contacted Grayson regarding representing them in a proceeding for their adoption of their grandchildren The Chapmans paid Grayson $1,500 *30 i h .

The Chapmans initially received updates from Grayson regarding the

status of the alleged proceedings including the paperwork had gone to

Frankfort the paperwork had been returned, everything was on track, and the

court decided they dld not need social services to do a home visit and would

schedule a court date In the summer of 2017, having not received further

updates, the Chapmans attempted to reach Grayson by phone and even visited

her office The office doors were always locked, and even though they could see

Grayson, she did not come to the door

In July 2017, Grayson told the Chapmans that a court date was

scheduled for August 2, 2017, at 9 00 a m As they drove to the courthouse

that morning, Grayson called and told them the judge had an emergency and

had to leave Grayson indicated she would attempt to reschedule for August

16, 2017 The Chapmans did not hear from Grayson again When responding

to the bar complaint, Grayson admitted she took no action on the Chapmans’

behalf

Grayson states in her verified motion that she does not have any

independent recollection of having made material mlsstatements concerning

the procedural status of adoption proceedings to the Chapmans Grayson

regrets that circumstances were such that she had not able to conclude that

representation Grayson states that any such misrepresentations by Grayson

were not intentional misconduct, although she acknowledges her

misrepresentations were knowingly made Any such misrepresentations were *31 I . :

made during the time when Grayson’ s chronic depression and anxiety had not

been properly diagnosed, which issues she says have now been addressed

The Charge filed May 14 2018 alleged Grayson violated four rules (1}

SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to file the adoption (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing

to inform her clients about the status of the matter in 2016 and 2017, (3) SCR

3 130(1 l6)(d) by abandoning the representation with no notice to the

Chapmans, by retaining the $1,500 fee since 2016 Without providing legal

work, and by failing to return papers provided to her by the Chapmans, and (4)

SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by making numerous misrepresentations to her clients

concerning the status of the adoption, which included 1) the adoption

proceedings were pending, 2) paperwork had been sent to Frankfort, 3) the

court had considered the matter, 4) the court scheduled a hearing for August

2, 2017, and 5) the court cancelled the hearing due to an emergency

Grayson acknowledges Mr and Mrs Chapman are entitled to a full

refund in the sum of $1,500

13 KBA File 17 DIS 0390 The Maynard Matter

In April 2017, Justin Maynard retained Grayson to prepare necessary

documents regarding an uncontested divorce proceeding He paid her $750

Maynard and his wife signed documents prepared by Grayson and were told

the divorce would be final after sixty days After not receiv1ng an update,

Maynard called Grayson Grayson informed him that there had been a mix up

in Frankfort and his divorce had not been filed By that time, Maynard’s wife

had moved to Ohio and taken their child with her On September 19, 2017 , *32 ’ .. :

after Grayson responded to Maynard via Facebook Messenger that his case was

on the docket October 4, Maynard went to the clerk’s office to verify the date

He learned hIS divorce had never been filed

In her verified motion, Grayson states that although she prepared the

documents for the uncontested divorce, for reasons that are unclear, not all the

documents were signed by the Maynards and Grayson did not file the petition

and attendant documents Later, a dispute developed between the Maynards

regarding custody, and Grayson informed Mr Maynard that a petition and a

motion would need to be filed and informed Mr Maynard, based upon the filing

of the petition, of a potential court date According to Grayson, she did not tell

Mr Maynard that the divorce case was on the court’s docket for October 4

since no petition had been signed by Maynard nor had a motion for child

custody been filed

Grayson acknowledges there was a breakdown in communication with

Maynard and she should have been more diligent in his representation

Grayson acknowledges there was confusion as to what goals Maynard wanted

to pursue when the uncontested proceeding became a contested proceeding

Grayson’s communications with Maynard regardlng any court action which

could be taken or had been taken, did not reflect any intentional

misrepresentation on her part She regrets if her communications with

Maynard constituted misleading him concerning the procedural status of any

proceedings *33 ’ .. :

The Charge filed June 11, 2018, alleged Grayson violated five rules (1)

SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to perform the work for which she had been hired and

failing to advise her client how to proceed when the divorce became contested,

(2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to inform her client that he and his wife

needed to Sign additional documents before the divorce could proceed (3) SCR

3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by failing to explain the status of the matter to her client

1nclud1ng failing to inform her client the divorce, and any attendant

agreements, had not been filed with the appropriate court; (4] SCR

3 130(1 16) (d) by failing to refund the unearned portion of the advance fee

payment and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4) (c) by informing her client that his divorce had

been filed and a court appearance was scheduled for October 4, 2017

Grayson acknowledges Maynard is entitled to a partial refund in the sum

of$500

14 KBA File 17 DIS 0410 The Dams Matter

Grayson’s legal representation in this matter began in early 2017,

litigation was then pending The subject matter of that litigation concerned the

estate of Winford Davis On February 26, 2016, a civil suit was filed in the

Martin Circuit Court alleging fraud and conversion of estate assets in order to

defraud plaintiff Moore as a creditor At that time, Thelma Davis was serving

as a co executor of the estate

By the Spring of 2017 there was a pending trial date of June 12, 2017

On April 26, 2017, co executor Don Davis, by counsel, filed a motion to

continue the trial date On the same date, Grayson was hired to represent Ms *34 ’ -- 1

Davis, Don Davis paid the $7,500 retainer fee on behalf of Thelma Davis

Counsel for Mr Davis put Grayson on the certificate of service of the motion

Grayson states she was of the understanding that Don Davis, through counsel,

was still going to take the lead in the proceedings

In her bar complaint, Thelma Davis complained that the April 26, 2017

meeting was the only contact she had with Grayson Davis attempted to

contact Grayson during the representation but was unsuccessful Davis did

not agree or intend to limit Grayson’s representation Moore had filed an

amended complaint on April 20, 2017, and Grayson did not file an answer on

Davis’s behalf When the court continued the June 1, 2017 trial date to

December 4, 2017, Grayson did not inform Davis of the continuance Grayson

did not file an entry of appearance in the case nor provide Davis with a copy of

the fee agreement

Grayson states in her verified motion that the next court hearing after

June 1, 2017, was the November 2, 2017 motion hour regarding a number of

motions which had been filed by the parties in late October 2017 By that

time, Grayson was already under suspension, and had notified Davis of that

suspension and her inability to continue to represent Davis

Grayson acknowledges that there was a breakdown on her part in

communications with Davis and others during the latter time of her

representation of Davis On October 18, 2017, eight days after Grayson filed

the notice of her suspension 1n the civil suit, Davis filed a Client Security Fund *35 - .’ -. 1

Claim with the Kentucky Bar Association, which was also treated as the above

captioned disciplinary proceeding

The Charge filed June 11 2018 alleged Grayson violated five rules (1)

SCR 3 130(1 3) by falling to provide representation to Davis, (2) SCR

3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by failing to consult with Davis regarding Grayson’s role in the

litigation (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3) by failing to inform her client of motions to

continue and orders concerning the trial date (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (4) by failing

to respond to Davis’s requests for information concerning the litigation, and (5)

SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) by failing to return the unearned portion of the advance fee

payment

Grayson acknowledges Davis IS entitled to a partial refund in the sum of

$7 000 15 KBA File 17 DIS 0440 The Stacy Bar Complaint¹⁰

Abraham Stacy hired Grayson in mid 2015 to file a civil action in Martin

Circuit Court against a tax and bookkeeping business which provided services

to Stacy’s business, Pizza Stop The civil action was initiated after Gary

Brewer, an employee of that bookkeeping business, was convicted in January

2015 of stealing approximately $148,000 from Pizza Stop by issuing bogus

payroll checks

The case progressed As a result of the defendants’ motion, Brewer was

joined as a necessary party On May 11, 2016, the trial court entered *36 . I -. 1

concerning the procedural status of the proceedings including any supposed appellate proceedings as alleged by Stacy in his Bar Complaint Grayson states any such misrepresentations by Grayson were not intentional misconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made Any such misrepresentations were made during the time when Grayson’s chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed which issues she says have now been properly addressed

Because of the efforts of the KBA, through the Office of Bar Counsel, and Grayson, by counsel, to resolve all pending KBA disciplinary matters, no Charge was issued, although authorized Grayson acknowledges that the allegations of Stacy’s Bar Complaint would support a charge that Grayson violated four rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the status of the representation; (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying with reasonable requests for information from the client, and (4) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation

16 KBA File 17 DIS 0445 The Chapman Bar Complaint11

In January 2013 Clyde Chapman hired Grayson to file a medical malpractice case on his behalf In October 2013, the suit was dismissed on W but not issued

statute of limitations grounds Grayson successfully appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, and the suit resumed in the latter part of 2015

In 2016, the trial was scheduled for February 27, 2017 Per an agreed scheduling order, Chapman’s deadline for presenting his expert witness for dep051tions was November 16, 2016 In October 2016, efforts were made to schedule the expert’s deposition, but difficulties were encountered, one being that the expert then lived in New Jersey Because of the difficulty in arranging the deposition, the trial court set aside the trial date By the time of the status conference on January 13, 2017, the deposition was scheduled in New Jersey on January 16 2017 The trial was rescheduled for May 22 2017

Chapman stated in his bar complaint that he had contact with Grayson only a few times One of those times he stopped in her office and she told him it was time for his expert’s deposition and she was trying to conduct the deposition by phone because she did not have the time nor the money for a trip to New Jersey Chapman gave her $4,000 for the trip and assumed she made the trip, Chapman did not receive a receipt or make contemporaneous notes of said payment Later, despite no commumcation with Grayson to this effect, Grayson communicated to opposing counsel that Chapman had terminated her services and the deposition could not go forward Finding Grayson’s last minute cancellation egregious, the circuit court ordered Chapman to pay opposing counsels’ costs and fees spent to attend the deposition When Chapman showed the order to Grayson, she was unaware of it, but she informed him that she had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel as a legal

maneuver to buy time, but she would step back in at a later time When new counsel did not enter an appearance as ordered, the circuit court dismissed Chapman’s suit

Grayson’s verified motion states that over the weekend before the deposition, Grayson and Chapman had a number of telephone conversations

Chapman made statements to Grayson which gave her some concern regardi ng the legitimacy of his claim Ultimately, In those conversations, Chapman told

Grayson that he was terminating her representation Shortly thereafter on that Sunday, Grayson sent an email to opposing counsel advismg that her representation of Chapman had concluded, and Chapman instructed her to not go forward with the deposition as he wanted his new attorney present at the deposition In regard to the costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of the January 16, 2017 deposition, Grayson advised opposing counsel that Chapman said he would reimburse opposing counsel for their plane tickets

On January 19, 2017, the defendants filed a joint motion for the awarding of costs and fees, for the striking of Chapman’s expert, and for the dismissal of the civil suit On January 26, 2017, Grayson filed two motions The first motion was to withdraw as counsel of record for Chapman since he had terminated her The second motion was to continue the hearing on the defendants’ Joint motion because Grayson had a scheduling conflict and

because she had been terminated by Chapman and did not have any authori ty to respond to the joint motion

. ; - .

On January 27, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on the

defendants’ joint motion for fees and costs and the dismissal of the suit It is

Grayson’s recollection that both she and Chapman were present at that

hearing The trial court found that the cancelling of the deposition was

unjustified and noted Grayson’s conduct was improper because she had not

sought permission to Withdraw before she unilaterally cancelled the deposition

Later that day, Chapman came to Grayson’s office and picked up his file

On January 30, 2017, the circuit court entered an order on the motion

for the award of fees and costs The court indicated that Chapman had ten

days to pay the costs The court took under submission the defendants’ joint

motion to dismiss the civil suit Grayson dld not send that order to Chapman

On February 10, 2017, the court entered an order allowing Grayson to

withdraw as counsel of record for Chapman The court indicated in its order

that Chapman would have twenty days to retain new counsel, which would

have been up through and including March 2, 2017 Grayson did not send the

order to Chapman Chapman did not retain other counsel and there was no

entry of appearance within that time frame On March 10, 2017, the court

entered an order dismissmg the civil su1t

Grayson has no recollection of making material misstatements to

Chapman regarding the status of any proceedings before the trial court or any

proposed proceedings before the Court of Appeals Grayson states that any

such misrepresentations were not Intentional misconduct, although she

acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made She states further *41 . I I .

that any such misrepresentations were made during the time when Grayson’s

chronic depression and anxiety had not been properly diagnosed, which issues

she claims have now been properly addressed

Grayson acknowledges that the allegations of Chapman’s Bar Complaint

would support a charge that Grayson violated five rules ( 1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by

failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the

client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (2) by not reasonably consulting with the client

about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3)

SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3) by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the

status of the representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying

with reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR

3 130(8 4) (0) regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and

misrepresentation

17 KBA File 18 DIS 0124 The Robinson Bar Complaint

Blanch Robinson retained Grayson in 2016 regarding custody and

adoption proceedings concerning her granddaughter Robinson paid Grayson a

total of $826 Robinson complained that Grayson told her several times that

she sent papers to the incarcerated birth father but was not getting a reply, but

when Roblnson contacted the prison, she was told the birth father had not

received any legal documents from Grayson Following the prison personnel’s

suggestion, Robinson went to Grayson’s office and had her fax the documents

The documents were returned, signed, in two days

A few days later, Grayson told Robinson that the documents had been filed for custody of her granddaughter However, upon checking with the

circuit clerk, Robinson was informed the documents were not filed Grayson then told Robinson she was waiting to file both the custody and adoption

papers at the same time After Robinson returned adoption papers signed by her daughter, she kept contacting Grayson about getting a court date, but Grayson said the Judge was busy On February 8, 2018, Robinson was told by Grayson that since the judge knew Robinson, there would be no court date and that the Judge would Sign the adoption papers, but Robinson might informally have to meet with the Judge in her office Robinson learned of Grayson’s suspension afterward

Grayson states there were delays in the process as a result of the birth father’s incarceration, but acknowledges she could have been more diligent in pursuing the proceedings on behalf of Robinson Grayson also acknowledges that her level of communication with Robinson was not sufficiently responsive, on occasion, during the representation Grayson states that unfortunately, as a result of circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Grayson, she was not able to pursue and conclude that contemplated legal representation Grayson denies that she intentionally made material misstatements of fact to Robinson concernlng the procedural status of any contemplated proceedings Grayson further states that any such misrepresentations by Grayson were not intentional mlsconduct, although she acknowledges her misrepresentations were knowingly made She states any such misrepresentations were made *43 I i j .

during the time when Grayson’s chronic depression and anxiety had not been

properly diagnosed, which issues have now been properly addressed Grayson

regrets that circumstances were such that she not able to conclude that

representation

Grayson acknowledges that the allegations of Robinson’s Bar Complaint

would support a charge that Grayson violated five rules (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by

failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the

client (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by not reasonably consulting with the client

about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, (8)

SCR 3 130(1 4)(a) (3) by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the

status of the representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying

with reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR

3 130(8 4)(c) by misrepresenting that there were court proceedings for adoption

when no petition or other mot1ons had been filed

Grayson acknowledges Robinson should be fully reimbursed the $826

paid for attorney fees

18 KBA File 18 DIS 0022 The Inquiry Commissmn Complaint m Abeyance regarding the Slone Malpractice Suit

On October 13, 2017, Lowanda Slone and Chalice Slone, through

counsel, filed a civ1l complaint against Grayson in the Martin Circuit Court

The complaint alleged legal malpractice on the part of Grayson, concerning a

medical malpractice claim That civil suit remains a pending matter *44

I .

On May 21, 2018, the Inquiry Commission issued a complalnt based on

the Slones’ Martin Circuit Court civil proceeding The Inquiry Commission

Complaint recites allegations made in that civil suit

The Slones met with Grayson in April 2015 regarding a potential medical

malpractice case Grayson agreed to represent them, had the Slones Sign

several releases, and told them she would take care of the hospital bills

Grayson told the Slones she would file a lawsuit within one month She later told them the lawsuit had been filed and she was awaiting a date to go on the

docket Mrs Slone called and texted Grayson seeking updates on the status of

the lawsuit, but did not receive a response In March 2017, Grayson told the

Slones she anticipated receiving an offer from the opposing party

Then, in May 2017, Mrs Slone learned Grayson had not filed a lawsuit

Mrs Slone immediately contacted Grayson by text, but Grayson blocked her

Mrs Slone also learned Grayson failed to take action with respect to the

outstanding hospital bills, and they were sent to collections The Slones hired

new counsel and in July or August 2017 delivered a letter to Grayson

requesting their file Grayson advised Mrs Slone she would have to make an

appointment and pay for Grayson’s services in order to obtain her file Mrs Slone made the appomtment, but on the scheduled day Grayson called and

said she had court in Johnson County and had to cancel Mrs Slone then

called the Johnson County’s Circuit Clerk’s office to verify and learned there

was no court on that particular day *45 . I I u

The Inquiry Commission, on Grayson’s motion pursuant to SCR 3 180,

held the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance as a result of the pendency of that

civil suit

Grayson acknowledges that under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the

allegations would be she violated (1) SCR 3 130(1 3) by failing to act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, (2) SCR

3 130(1 4)(a)(2) by not reasonably consulting with the client about the means

by which the client 3 objectives are to be accomplished (3) SCR 3 130(1 4) (a)(3)

by not keeping the client reasonably informed about the status of the

representation (4) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) by not promptly complying with

reasonable requests for information from the client, and (5) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c)

regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation

Grayson’s acknowledgement differs from the Inquiry Commission’s specific

listing of potential rule violations by including a violation of SCR

3 130(1 4)(a)(2) but excluding violations of SCR 3 130(1 16)(d) and SCR

3 130(1 5)(c) 12

Since a civil proceeding is presently pending concerning the allegations

set out in the Inquiry Commission Complaint, Grayson does not address the

merits of the allegations She states that the requested resolution of the *46 l I I *47 , . *48 a

this Court to enter an order suspending her license to practice law in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of five years, effective October 8, 2017,

with conditions The KBA has no objection to Grayson’s Motion for Consensual

Discipline and requests that we order the proposed discipline

The issue in a consensual dismpline case is generally the appropriate

discipline to be imposed under the circumstances Factors relevant to the

appropriate level of sanction are taken Into consideration, such as the nature

and severity of the offense(s), the need for deterring other members of the bar,

the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, the protection of the

public, the attitude of the offender generally, and the offender’s present or

future fitness to continue in the practice of law See, e g , Gngsby v Kentucky

BarAssociation, 181 S W 3d 40 (Ky 2005); Kentucky Bar Association v Maze,

397 S W 3d 891 (Ky 2013) and Hill 476 S W 3d 874 Each case is evaluated

in light of its particular facts and circumstances, including aggravating and

mitigating factors, and generally Whether the proposed sanction is adequate

and comparable to discipline imposed for similar conduct

Citing Kentucky Bar Assoaation v Sparks 538 S W 3d 284 (Ky 2018)

and Kentucky Bar Assoaatton 1; Taylor 997 S W 2d 464 (Ky 1999) the KBA

points out that this Court has disbarred attorneys for conduct Similar to

Grayson’s Nevertheless, the KBA regards the requested sanctlon to be

appropriate when comparing the facts and the discipline imposed in Kentucky

Bar Assoctation v Johnson 457 S W 3d 720 (Ky 2015) Perkins 1) Kentucky

Bar Assoczation, 412 S W 3d 877 (Ky 2013); and Kentucky Bar Association v *49 . 3

Hammond 241 S W 3d 310 (Ky 2007) 14 The KBA particularly relies on the

American Bar Association (ABA), Standards for Imposmg Lawyer Sanctions

(ABA Standards), Rule 9 to point out the mitigating circumstances which it

believes weigh in favor of Grayson’s five year suspension rather than

disbarment, and thus distinguishing Grayson’s case from Sparks and Taylor

The KBA identifies the following as the actions taken by Grayson which

allow a lesser sanction than disbarment First, Grayson, participated in the

disciplinary process ABA Standards 9 82(e) While she did not respond

in1tially,15 after being indefinitely suspended, she contacted OBC, hired counsel

and responded to the outstanding matters Second, Grayson does not have

substantial prior discipline ABA Standards 9 32(a) Grayson’s only prior discipline is a private admonition issued in May 2018, the underlying conduct

occurring within the same time period as the cases currently before this Court

Third, other penalties or sanctions have been imposed ABA Standards

9 32(k) Grayson has been suspended from the practice of law since October

2017 and in Commonwealth v Grayson, Pike Circuit Court No 18 CR 00213,

she has been prosecuted and entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal

possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a Class D felony

14 Hammond involved seven disciplinary matters while Johnson and Perkins each Involved three separate matters By contrast, Grayson has nineteen separate disciplinary matters, rendering her case distinguishable on the breadth and scope of misconduct Also, none of the cited cases involved a felony conv1ction as involved in Grayson’s case 15 As listed, the first eight cases reached the point of Grayson being charged with failure to respond to the bar complaint

'5 A

Fourth, Grayson has expressed remorse ABA Standards 9 32(1) Lastly, the KBA notes that Grayson has asserted personal or emotional problems played a

role in the conduct at issue and her initial lack of response to charges and for

which she has been undergoing treatment for chronic depression and anxiety

ABA Standards 9 32(c)

When determining apprOpriate discipline, we may consider the ABA

Standards compilation of aggravating16 and mitigating17 circumstances See Hill 476 S W 3d at 884 Kentucky Bar Assoaatzon v Deters 360 S W 3d 224

233 (Ky 2012) Anderson 262 S W 3d at 638 39 While we agree with the KBA

that the weight accorded mitigating (and aggravating) circumstances will play a

role in determining the appropriate discipline in this case, Sparks and Taylor,

cited to Show why disbarment is not the more appropriate discipline for

Grayson, and Johnson, Perkins, and Hammond, cited on the other hand to

ShOW why a five year suspension is suitable, do not provide the guidance

required for Grayson’s case as it currently stands Grayson’s primary

mitigation defense to her numerous ethical violations is her depression

16 The following list of aggravating factors is found in Standard 9 prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, submission of false evidence false statements or other deceptive practices during disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, vulnerability of victim; substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution 17 The list of mitigating circumstances found in Standard 9 is included in n 18, infra

l b

Relevant at this p01nt is Hill, precedent requiring Grayson to provide medical

proof sufficient to support depression serving as a mitigating factor

In Hill, we found Hill’s depression to be a mitigating factor and

suspended Hill for eighteen months after being found guilty of twelve ethical

violations involving a pervaswe pattern of lying to three clients about the status

of their cases, ignoring their repeated requests for information, and charging

them for work not performed 476 S W 3d at 881 885

H1113 violations occurred in 2010 201 1 and 2012 Id at 877 89 Hill

presented evidence that as early as 2009 he began suffering from untreated

depression and resulting anxiety, and he aggravated the suffering by self

medicating with alcohol Id at 882 At others’ insistence, Hill sought help

through KYLAP, which in turn put him in touch with a licensed clinical social

worker for help with his substance abuse problems Id He was prescribed

medication for his depression and attended individual and group counseling

between March 2009 and September 2010 Id Hill’s ethical violations began

to accrue after he stopped the counseling Id

Hill began seeing a psychiatrist in 2013 Id The psychiatrist testified

that the 2009 2010 treatment and counseling were inadequate to address his

actual problems Id In January 2013, Hill entered into a KYLAP Supervision

Agreement and as agreed, began and continued attending Alcoholics

Anonymous meetings Id The psychiatrist testified to (1) a causal connection

between Hill’s untreated mental health condition and the conduct in the

disciplinary cases and (2) his opinion that Hill was on the path to recovery if he *52

I J

continued his same program and treatment Id One of Hill’s clients also

testified that there were improvements in Hill’s demeanor, appearance, and

attitude toward his work between 2010 2012 and after he started his

therapeutic regimen in 2013 Id at 883

The Board of Governors reviewed Hill’s case after the trial commiss10ner

found H111 guilty of twelve of fifteen violations and recommended that Hill be

suspended from the practice of law for five years Id at 875 The Board

unanimously agreed with the trial commissioner’s guilt findings, but

recommended a 181 day suspension along with other conditions, those being

that Hill obtain the approval of the KBA’s Character and Fitness Committee

prior to readmission and that he continue substance abuse counseling through

KYLAP Id Hill did not contest the Board’s findings of guilt on the twelve

ethical violations but argued that in hght of the mitigation evidence he

presented, even the Board’s recommended sanction was excessive Id at 875,

We expressed the rule for when mental health disabilities, such as

depression, may be accorded mitigation effect in a lawyer disciplinary case as

follows

For evidence of a lawyer’s disability to be accorded a mitigating effect in a KBA disciplinary case, it must be shown that the disability caused the misconduct KBA v Steiner, 157 S W 3d 209, 213 (Ky 2005) (the burden of establishing a successful mitigation defense remains with the attorney), KBA v Chnstian, 320 S W 3d 687 (Ky 2010) The attorney must also Show a recovery from the condition demonstrated by “meaningful and sustained proof of successful rehabilitation ” Id at 690 (citing ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Section 9 32(i)(3)) Moreover, “the

I

misconduct must have stopped and recurrence proved to be unlikely ” Id In this vein, consideration should also be given to the attorney’s involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous and “earnest participation in the Kentucky Lawyer’s Assistance Program ” KBA v Hawkins 260 S W 3d 337 339 (Ky 2008) ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Section 9 32 13

Id at 884, see also Bratcher v Kentucky BarAssociation, 487 S W 3d 897 (Ky

2016) (citing Hill)

Here, although Grayson did not cite Hill when requesting a remand of the

disciplinary action before this Court in 2018, Grayson recognized the need to

prov1de mental health mitigation evidence In particular, she stated that she

recognized the need to establish an appropriate connection between the conduct at issue in the Charges and any adverse health condition of hers which existed during that time However, upon return of this case to the Court through a verified motion for consensual discipline, neither Grayson nor the KBA point to any medical proof in the record to sustain findings consistent

18 Standard 9 32 factors which may be considered in mitigation

Mitigating factors include (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (0) personal or emotional problems, ((1) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; (6) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, (1) inexperience in the practice of law; (g) character or reputation; (h) physical disability, (i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or dmg abuse when (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability, (2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct, {3) the respondent’s recovery fiom the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period ofsuccessful rehabilitation, and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely; (1] delay in disciplinary proceedings; (k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions, (1) remorse; (m) remoteness of prior offenses (Emphasis added J

. ‘ 1’ with the rule expressed in Hill Indeed, no medical proof in the form of medical records, a physician’s report or even a letter is offered Although it is Widely known that depression is a serious mental illness, and lawyers are not immune to its debilitating effects, without sufficient medical evidence to explain the relationship between Grayson’s depression and her numerous serious ethical violations, Grayson’s depression claim cannot be viewed as mitigating

III CONCLUSION

Although it may be that a five year suspension, with conditions, is appropriate disc1pline for Grayson, the Court cannot make that determination based upon Grayson’s verified motion, the KBA’s response, and the record currently before it Therefore, the Court denies Grayson’s request for imposition of the sanction negotiated with the KBA and this case is remanded for hearing and further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order

All sitting All concur

ENTERED February 20 2020

CHIEF JUSTICE

Footnotes

[1] SCR 3 480(2) states in full The Court may consider negotiated sanctions of disciplinary invesugations, complaints or charges prior to the commencement of a hearing before a Trial Commissioner under SCR 3 240 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 consrder a negotiated sanction If the member and Bar Counsel agree upon the specifics of the facts, the rules v101ated, and the appropriate sanction, the member shall file a motion with the Court which states such agreement, 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 Disc1plinary Clerk shall submit to the Court within the 10 day period the active disciplinary files to which the motion applies 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] KBA Member No 88262, bar roster address P O Box 2186, Inez, Kentucky 41224 Grayson was admitted to the practice of law May 1, 2000

[4] 17 DIS 0368 {Inquiry Commission Complaint) Infra case ten 17 DIS 0440 (Bar Complaint, Charge authorized but not issued), infra, case fifteen, 17 DIS 0445 (Bar Complaint, Charge authorized but not issued), infra, case sixteen, 18 DIS 0124 (Bar Complaint), Infra, case seventeen; 18 DIS 0022 (Inquiry Commission Complaint in abeyance), infra, case eighteen, and 18 DIS 0042 (Investigative file), infra, case nineteen from a pending legal malpractice action against Grayson Grayson seeks a global resolution of all pending disciplinary matters Grayson acknowledges that thirteen of the former clients are entitled to a partial or complete refund of the fees previously paid the restitution totaling $15 352 5 1 KBA File 17 DIS 00265 7 The Williamson Matter In April 2016, Ashley and Brandon Williamson retained Grayson to assist with a custody/ private adoption proceeding of a then unborn child The Williamsons paid a $1,500 retainer for the contemplated representation When the birth mother revoked her consent to adoption after giving birth in May 2016, Mrs Williamson was of the belief that the legal proceedings were over and that no further action could be taken In early June 2016, Grayson advised Mrs Williamson that the case was not over,3 and that the custody/ adoption proceeding could proceed, but Grayson did not contact her with further explanation Mrs Williamson’s multiple attempts to contact

[5] Grayson proposes that the restltution be paid within six months of this Court’s order 5 Case cons1dered in 2017 SC 000240 KB as a default case, Dismpline Indefinite Suspension

[7] Including itself, twelve files are now consolidated under 17 DIS 0026 17 DIS 0099 0112 0189 0228 0244 0257 0341 0371 0378 0390 and 0410

[8] The day after giving birth in May 2016, the birth mother revoked her consent to adoption Grayson then filed in the Martin Circuit Court the previouslrprepmed Petition for Sole Custody and the birth mother’s premously signed Entry of Appearance, and tendered the Agreed Order signed by all parties regarding custody Counsel for the birth mother filed a Notice of Revocation of Consent and Motion to Determine Revocation of Consent as Valid

[9] Case considered in 2017 SC 000240 KB as a default case, Discipline Indefinite Suspension

[10] Charges authorized but not issued summary judgment in favor of all the defendants except Brewer On June 9, 2016, Grayson, on behalf of the plaintiff, Pizza Stop, filed a motion for summary judgment against h1m On July 13, 2016, the trial court sustained the motion and entered a summary Judgment in favor of Grayson’s client against Brewer Stacy complained that at one point, Grayson told him that the circuit court judge had sent the case to the Court of Appeals for a decis1on, and that he mlght have to go in front of the Court of Appeals to testify As time went on and Stacy sought updates, Grayson would not answer his calls, would not return his messages, and would keep her office door locked Stacy learned of the May 1 1, 2016 summary judgment when another attorney checked the case status for him Stacy complained that he paid out around $5,000 for attorney fees, arbitration fees, and other fees Grayson states that following the trial court’s July 13, 2016 summary judgment, Grayson and Stacy conferred Grayson recalls that they discussed whether Stacy wanted to appeal the May 11 2016 summary judgment and he decided to attempt to seek relief in a Fayette Circuit case On August 3, 2016, Grayson sent Stacy a letter to confirm Stacy’s dec1sion to not appeal the adverse ruling in the Martin Circuit Court proceeding, Stacy denies receivmg that letter and that he decided to seek other relief in Fayette Circuit Court Grayson acknowledges that she did not maintain proper commumcation with Stacy during the latter part of the representation Grayson does not independently recall making any material misstatements of fact to Stacy

[12] Without placing limits on potential violations, the Inquiry Commission’s Complaint states that Grayson s actions may be In violation of (1] SCR 3 130(1 3] (2) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(3) (3) SCR 3 130(1 4)(a)(4) (4) SCR 3 130(1 5)(c) (Fees) by not complying with the contingency fee agreement requirements (5) SCR 3 130(1 16)(d)' and (6) SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) pending disciplinary proceedings as set out in the proposed consensual discipline, 1' e , a five year suspension, effective October 8, 2017, would not be materially different if the 18 DIS 0022 disciplinary proceeding was addressed on the merits Grayson requests, as a matter ofJudicial economy and to facilitate a global resolution of all pending disciplinary proceedings, that KBA File 18 DIS 0022 be closed

[19] KBA File 18 DIS 0042 Investigative File regarding the Criminal Charges This disciplinary proceeding stems from a criminal proceeding against Grayson in Pike Circuit Court On February I, 2018, Grayson was indicted on six counts three counts of forgery 1n the second degree and three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree The documents at issue in that proceeding are the same documents which are the subject of two of the above described attorney disciplinary proceedings, 17 DIS 002713 (Patrick complaint) and 17 DIS 0368 (Fletcher complaint) (supra cases two and ten, respectively) In 17 DIS 0027 the Inquiry Commission charged Grayson with Violating SCR 3 130(8 4)(c) through conduct including, but not limited to providing Patrick with a document bearing an inaccurate case number and a signature purported to be that of Judge Janie MCKCI‘IZIC Wells when the judge had not signed the document 17 D18 0368 contains allegations similar to 17 DIS 0027 In 17 DIS 0368, the Inquiry Commission 13 Grayson’s current indefinite suspension is related in part to disc1plinary proceeding 17 DIS 0027 alleged Grayson gave Fletcher a copy of the Agreed Order signed by the parties, but also containing what appeared to be a Family Court Judge’s signature, a date when the judge signed the Agreed Order, and a supposed case number Both 17 DIS 0027 and 17 DIS 0368 were placed in abeyance because of the related pending criminal litigation On May 30, 2018, the trial court, by agreed order, dismissed counts 1, 3, and 5, the three counts of forgery in the second degree Counts 2 and 4, two of the criminal possession of a forged instrument charges, were also dismissed On September 10, 2018, Grayson entered a guilty plea to count 6, the third criminal possession of a forged instrument count related to 17 DIS 0027 On October 15 2018 the Court entered its Judgment and Sentence Grayson recelved a two year sentence which was probated for one year That unsupervised probation ran until October 2019 Grayson was also required to reimburse Gina Patrick and Naomi Fletcher the attorney fees they had previously paid and to submit letters of apology to those two clients Grayson has satisfied those conditions Grayson acknowledges that her criminal conviction constitutes a violation of SCR 3 130(8 4) (b) by “commit[ing] a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects ” Grayson states she has accepted responsibility for her conduct II ANALYSIS Grayson admits that she is guilty of the above ethical violations and moves this Court to accept her Motion for Consensual Discipline She asks