Futrell v. Kentucky Bar Association, 97-SC-394-KB

• Decision Date: 04 September 1997
• Docket Number: 97-SC-394-KB
• Citation: 950 S.W.2d 480
• Parties: <PartyHeader>TIMOTHY R. FUTRELL A/K/A TIM FUTRELL, MOVANT v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT </PartyHeader>
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

[2]

950 S.W.2d 480

[3]

TIMOTHY R. FUTRELL A/K/A TIM FUTRELL, MOVANT

v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT

[4]

97-SC-394-KB

[5]

Kentucky Supreme Court

[6]

September 4, 1997

[7]	Robert F. Stephens, Chief Justice. All concur. Johnstone, J., not sitting.
[8]	Attorney For Movant: Tim Futrell, pro se, Cadiz, Ky.
[9]	Attorneys For Respondent: Bruce K. Davis, Barbara S. Rea, Jay R. Garrett, Jane Hampton Herrick, Kentucky Bar Association, Frankfort, Ky.
[10]	The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephens
[11]	OPINION AND ORDER
[12]	That part of the motion by Timothy R. Futrell to resign under terms of disbarment which relates to Kentucky Bar Association files No. 2169, 2187, 2211, 2230 and 2347 is GRANTED.
[13]	The Inquiry Tribunal issued charges of professional misconduct which arise out of the same facts as the criminal offenses for which Futrell was convicted by a jury in Christian Circuit Court in Case No. 91-CR-167, for five counts of the felony offense of theft by failure to make required Disposition of property, in violation of KRS 514.070, the property in question belonging to his clients. He was also convicted of three counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument in violation of KRS 516.060, also a felony.
[14]	The Inquiry Tribunal charged that Futrell misappropriated settlement funds from five clients and converted the money to his own use.
[15]	The request of Futrell for a retroactive application of the period of disbarment is DENIED. The Court will not grant him credit for the period that has elapsed since the order of temporary suspension of March 24, 1994, or the time from which he withdrew from the practice of law in 1991. The order of this Court that Futrell post bond and not take on additional clients was rendered to protect the public and not to be used as a matter of defense.
[16]	There is no evidence that the KBA has failed to diligently prosecute this matter. Any delays have been occasioned by the multitude of charges and the complexity of the alleged unethical and criminal conduct of Futrell.
[17]	The legal authorities cited by Futrell to support his request for credit, or retroactive disbarment, are unconvincing. Futrell has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to mitigation and the steps that he has taken toward what he considers to be rehabilitation, do not justify forgiveness for his criminal and unprofessional conduct and a pattern of such conduct involving duplicity and deceit over a period of years toward the

...