TO BE PUBLISHED
~upmut dtnurl nf !i~tMNJ ~ ~
201 7 -SC-000556-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
ALAN RICHARD STEWART RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Alan Richard Stewart was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth
of Kentucky on May 21, 1993. His bar roster address is46 Brentwood Lane,
Appleton, WI 54915, and his KBA Member Number is 84734. On July 26, ·
201 7, the Supreme Court of Minnesota indefinitely suspended_ Stewart from the
practice of law, with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of five
years. On October 12, 2017, the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed a
petition asking this Court to order Stewart to show cause why we should not
impose reciprocal discipline and, in the event we found cause lacking, to
impose that discipline pursuant to Supreme Cm~rt Rule (SCR) 3.435. On
October 17, 2017, we issued a show cause order that Stewart should, within
twenty days of the date of the order, show cause as to why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law for five years, as consistent with the order
of the Supreme Court of Minn~sota. Stewart has failed to file any response.
This matter is now ready for decision by the Court.
I. BACKGROUND.
A. Procedural History and Charges.
In February of 2015, Stewart was suspended from the state bars of
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Kentucky on charges unrelated to this petition. On
December 16, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) entered a
default judgment against Stewart, excluding him from practice, based on facts
which we will discuss. USPTO ·notified the Director of the Office of Lawyers
Professional Responsibility (Director) in Minnesota of the judgment. The
Director then petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota for reciprocal
discipline. Stewart did not respond to the notice or petition and the Supreme
Court of Minnesota deemed the allegations as admitted. ~!though the Director
requested that Stewart be. disbarred, the Supreme Court of Minnesota ordered
that Stewart be indefinitely
J
suspended
.
from
.
the practice of law with no right to
petitio"n for reinstatement for five years ..
The facts, as determined by the Supreme Court of Minnesota and
USPTO, are as follows:
. ) '
Stewart neglected the patent application of his client, F.W.;
failed to communicate with her; and misappropriated $8,000
in unearned fee~. Stewart told F.W. that he would file her
patent application within 2 or 3 weeks of receiving her
paperwork. F. W. provided Stewart· her hates and drawings
and then checked on the status of her application 3 weeks
later. Stewart told F.W. that he had not yet worked on her
application, attributing the delay to family medical issues ,'
and injuries h_e had suffered from a bicycle accident. He
never completed the patent application and stopped \
2
responding to F.W.'s communications. Nonetheless, Stewart
cashed F.W.'s two advance-fee checks totaling $8,000 and
failed to return these unearned fees even after F. W.
terminated the representation and demanded a refund.
Stewart cashed F.W.'s second check on the same day that
F.W. terminated the representation. ·
Stewart has been ineligible to handle USPTO matters since
February 2015, when he was no longer an active member of
any state bar. But between March 2015 and June 2015,
Stewart filed multiple trademark matters on behalf of clients
as 'attorney of record' and as a purported member of the
Wisconsin bar.
Between November 2014-and July 2015, the USPTO sent
Stewart multiple requests for information via certified mail.
Stewart persorially signed for several of them, but never .
responded. Further, Stewart failed to respond to t:P.e
USPTO's formal complaint, notice· of hearing and order, and
default-judgment notice, all of which were signed for at
Stewart's address.
[Based on these findings, o]n December 16, 2015, the
USPTO entered a default judgment excluding Ste.wart from
practice, concluding that Stewart intentionally violated
multiple federal regula~ions governing practice before the
USPTO; caused harm to F.W.; and failed to acknowledge,
defend, or rectify. his misconduct.·
II. ANALYSIS.
When the Court is presented with an attorney facing disciplinary action
in -another jurisdiction, this Court must only decide whether identical
reciprocal discipline or a lesser sanction is warranted here in the
Commonwealth. This Court shall "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 (b) that misconduct established
warrants substantially different discipline in this state." SCR 3.435(4).
Without such "substantial evidence," "a final adjudication in another
3
jurisdiction that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct shall establish
conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this
State." .SCR 3.435(4)(c) (emphasis added).
In the case before us, Stewart has· failed to provide any response or
evidence contradicting the jurisdiction in the corollary proceedings or any
misconduct mitigating what our Court should impose upon him. As such, we
shall follow the rules of this Court and impose identical discipline.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent,.Alari Richard Stewart, is subject to reciprocal discipline for
the misconduct found by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Respondent's
misconduct is established conclusively for purposes of disciplinary
I
proceedings in this State.
2. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a
period of five years. The period of suspension shall commence on the
date of entry of this Opinion and Order.
3. Respondent must apply for reinsta,tement by order of this Court after his
period of suspension, according to the terms and requirements of SCR
3.510.
4. In accordance with SCR 3.450, R~spondent is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, if there are
any,, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this
Opinion and Order.
4
\
s: Should Respondent currently have any clients, pursuant to SCR 3.390,
he shall, within ten days from the entry of this Opinion and Orde:r, notify
all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all
courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the
'--
practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Office of
Bar Counsel. To the extent possible, Stewart shall immediately cancel
and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged.
' .
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: December 14, 2017.
5