TO BE PUBLISHED
6;~)Uyrrmr QIflurt ot (
2003-SC-000327-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
V. IN SUPREME COURT
ROBERT N . TRAINOR RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) moves this Court to enter an order
directing Robert N . Trainor, whose KBA member number is 71335 and who
was admitted to practice law in this Commonwealth on October 1, 1976, to
show cause why he should not be subject to reciprocal discipline after being
publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Ohio . In addition, the KBA
requests that if such cause be lacking, this Court enter an order in accordance
with SCR 3.435(4) publicly reprimanding Trainor. Having received no response
from Trainor in this case and finding that there is no cause as to why Trainor
should not receive reciprocal discipline, this Court grants the KBA's motion
and orders that Trainor be publicly reprimanded in this Commonwealth.
On August 9, 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio entered an order publicly
reprimanding Trainor for violating DR 1-104(A) of the Ohio Code of Professional
Responsibility,' which requires a lawyer to
inform a client at the time of the client's engagement. of
the lawyer or at anytime subsequent to the
engagement if the lawyer does not maintain
professional liability insurance in the amounts of at
least $100,000 .00 per occurrence and $300,000 .00 in
the aggregate . . . .
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Trainor, 851 N .E .2d 505 (Oh . 2006) . The Ohio court's
sanction was based on Trainor's conduct during August 2002, when he failed
to inform a client that his professional liability insurance coverage had been
cancelled two years previously . Following the public reprimand imposed on
Trainor by the Supreme Court of Ohio, Trainor attempted to rectify his actions
by notifying his Ohio clients that he lacked malpractice insurance and
obtaining a professional liability insurance policy. The KBA, after learning of
Trainor's Ohio discipline, then filed this petition requesting that Trainor receive
reciprocal discipline in the Commonwealth of Kentucky .
If an attorney licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth receives
discipline in another jurisdiction, SCR 3 .435(4) requires this Court to
impose the identical discipline unless Respondent
proves by substantial evidence :
(a) a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-
state disciplinary proceeding, or
At the time Trainor was charged with this violation, in August 2005, the rules
governing an attorney's conduct in Ohio were codified as the Ohio Code of
Professional Responsibility, and Trainor was charged with violating DR 1-104(A) of
that Code. On February 1, 2007, however, the Code was replaced by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, and the rules were re-numbered. Thus, the current
version of DR 1-104(A) is Rule 1 .4(c) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct .
(b) that. misconduct established warrants
substantially different discipline in this State.
Furthermore, SCR 3 .435(5) requires this Court to recognize that "in all other
respects" a final adjudication of misconduct in another jurisdiction establishes
conclusively the same misconduct for purposes of a (disciplinary proceeding in
Kentucky .
Here, the Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
found that Trainor violated DR 1-104(A), which obligates attorneys to notify a
client if they do not carry sufficient professional liability insurance . Although
the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct do not include an equivalent to
this requirement, SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c) prohibits a lawyer from "[k]nowingly or
intentionally disobey[ing] an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists ." As the
KBA points out, Trainor's failure to inform a client about his lapsed liability
insurance in Ohio constitutes a violation of SCR 3 .130-3 .4(c) because Trainor
disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the Ohio Supreme Court . See KBA
v . Meehan, 237 S.W .3d 546, 547 (Ky. 2007) ("SCR 3 .435 does not require that
the rules be identical to allow for the imposition of reciprocal discipline") .
Given that Trainor has been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and
that Trainor's actions are also governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct in
this Commonwealth, Trainor is subject to the reciprocal discipline of a public
reprimand pursuant to SCR 3 .435(4) .
Lastly, this Court notes that Trainor's prior disciplinary record does not
warrant a more severe sanction in' this Commonwealth . In 2003, Trainor was
charged by Ohio's Board of Commissioners with failing to maintain accurate
records for client fund accounts . This conduct resulted in the Ohio Supreme
Court imposing a six-month suspension, which was stayed on the condition
that Trainor provided occasioned accountings of his funds to a Disciplinary
Counsel investigator . Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Traino , 99 Ohio St. 3d 318, 791
N.E .2d 972 (Oh. 2003) . In addition, per SCR 3.435(4), this Court imposed a
reciprocal six-month suspension on Trainor in October 2004, which was also
stayed so long as Trainor obeyed the conditions outlined by the Supreme Court
of Ohio . Finding that a public reprimand is still the appropriate discipline, and
that there is no cause why Trainor should not face reciprocal discipline in this
case, this Court grants the KBA's motion and adopts the recommended
discipline of a public reprimand.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
L Pursuant to SCR 3 .435(4), Robert N . Trainor is publicly reprimanded
for his violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Kentucky
Rules of Professional Conduct.
2 . Pursuant to SCR 3 .450, Robert N. Trainor is directed to pay the costs
associated with this proceeding, for which execution may issue from this Court
upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
Entered: February 19, 2009 .
Kentucky Bar Association v. Robert N. Trainor
Combined Opinion