Bench & Bar January/February 2026

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2026 BENCH & BAR MAGAZINE

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION SINCE 1871

Insurance for Kentucky Lawyers

https://hubs.li/Q02c9-250 More Information:

Group Term Life Insurance Protection: Life insurance protects loved ones if something happens to you. Financial Stability: Prevents immediate financial hardship due to the loss of income and

Disability Income Insurance Unforeseen Risks: Accidents can occur anywhere, jeopardizing financial security. Stability Through Disability Insurance: Coverage for disabilities ensures financial stability.

Business Overhead Insurance Business Continuity: Safeguards your business during a covered disability, preventing financial strain. Overhead Expense Coverage: Covers your portion of essential business expenses.

allows family to meet financial obligations.

vol. 90 no. 1 THIS ISSUE OF THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION’S B&B-BENCH & BAR WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY. COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE EILEEN M. O’BRIEN chair , lexington PAUL ALLEY florence ELIZABETH M. BASS hendersonville , tenn . JENN L. BRINKLEY pensacola , fla . KYLE R. BUNNELL lexington FRANCES E. CATRON CADLE lexington ALLISON I. CONNELLY lexington JAMES P. DADY bellevue JOHN M. GHAELIAN lexington P. FRANKLIN HEABERLIN prestonsburg JESSICA R. C. MALLOY louisville SANDRA J. REEVES corbin JOHN SCHAAF georgetown GERALD R. TONER louisville ZACHARY M. VAN VACTOR louisville SAMUEL W. WARDLE louisville LITANY L. WEBSTER cincinnati , ohio MICHELE M. WHITTINGTON lexington

CONTENTS 2 President’s Page BY TODD V. MCMURTRY

6 Standing on the Shoulders of Giants BY SHANNON “A.J.” SINGLETON 10 Advice to the Young Lawyers Division from the “Old Folks Practice Group” BY “OLD GUYS” RICK ROBINSON AND JOHN C. "JACK" GREINER 14 Wisdom from the Well: What Old Lawyers Know That Young Lawyers Should Hear BY MARK A. OGLE FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

KATHRYN D. WILLIAMS louisville MARK A. WINSOR lawrenceburg

COLUMNS

20 Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law 23 University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

18 Young Lawyers Division BY KYLE R. BUNNELL Effective Legal Writing BY CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG 22 University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law 24

PUBLISHER JOHN D. MEYERS EDITOR EILEEN M. O’BRIEN

MANAGING EDITOR SHANNON H. ROBERTS DESIGN & LAYOUT JESI L. EBELHAR

26 Law Practice Management BY STEPHEN EMBRY

28 Lawyer Wellbeing BY DR. ERIC Y. DROGIN

THE B&B - BENCH & BAR (ISSN-1521-6497) IS PUBLISHED BI-MONTHLY BY THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, 514 WEST MAIN STREET, FRANKFORT, KY 40601-1812. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT FRANKFORT, KY AND ADDITIONAL MAILING OFFICES. ALL MANUSCRIPTS FOR PUBLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE MANAGING EDITOR. PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION WITH CREDIT. PUBLICATION OF ANY ARTICLE OR STATEMENT IS NOT TO BE DEEMED AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN BY THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, ITS BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SECTIONS, DIVISIONS, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS. ANNUAL DUES AND IS NOT LESS THAN 50% FOR THE LOWEST SUBSCRIPTION PRICE PAID BY SUBSCRIBERS. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL (502) 564-3795. POSTMASTER SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: B&B - BENCH & BAR 514 WEST MAIN STREET FRANKFORT, KY 40601-1812 SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: $20 PER YEAR. MEMBERS SUBSCRIPTION IS INCLUDED IN

BAR NEWS

40 Kentucky Bar Foundation 42 Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program 44 Continuing Legal Education DEPARTMENTS

50 Who, What, When and Where 30 BOG Minutes 32 Chief Justice Debra Hembree Lambert Honored with the National Goss Award

2025-2026 Board of Governors Front row seated left to right: Stephanie McGehee-Shacklette, Kyle R. Bunnell, J. Tanner Watkins, KBA President Todd V. McMurtry, Matthew P. Cook, Amelia M. Adams, and Dr. Michael Knight. Second row standing left to right: LaToi D. Mayo, W. Mitchell Hall, Jr., Sarah H. Knight, James A. Sigler, Douglas G. Benge, Catherine D. Stavros, Mary Pettus-Rowland, Matthew C. Tierney, Ryan C. Reed, Miranda D. Click, Steven D. Ray, and John D. Meyers

Cover Photo: Tim Webb Photography

1

bench & bar

Several inside graphics by ©istockphoto.com/JesiEbelhar

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

T his past October, my alma mater, Centre College, installed and ded icated a statue of Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan. Created by nationally renowned Louisville-based sculptor, Ed Hamilton, the college asserts that the installation symbolically captures “the story of Harlan’s dissents, which may not have won the day, but have stood the test of time.” In that Harlan and I are both Centre College alumni and members of the same fraternity, I decided to read up on him to determine if his life offered insights for lawyers practicing over 150 years later. Although times have certainly changed, I do see Harlan as an inspiration to today’s Kentucky lawyers. Harlan is a shining example of what I will call the “Lawyer Statesman.” That is a lawyer

skilled in his craft, advancing dissent ing opinions to seek positive change, and acting with moral authority derived from their knowledge of the law. Although the word statesman implies political leadership, I see it more broadly as describing one who uses the law to create meaningful political and legal change. And such change often requires one to dissent from the majority’s views. Born 1833 in Boyle County, Harlan later attended Centre College. He studied law at Transylvania University. He served as a Col onel in the Union Army. He practiced law in Frankfort and Louisville. He was deeply involved in politics and was appointed as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1877. Despite the fact that Harlan and his family had owned

slaves, and that he once strongly supported slavery, Harlan’s views evolved, becoming an early expression of what is now uniformly accepted: all persons, no matter their differ ences, are equal under the law. (Thanks to the Brandeis School of Law, which has an excellent online history of Justice Harlan). Over his career on the Supreme Court, Harlan dissented on a number of significant cases involving civil rights with the most famous being his dissent in Plessy v. Fer guson , 163 U.S. 537 (1896). “Plessy argued that enforced segregation in theoretically separate-but-equal accommodations com promised the principle of legal equality and marked Black people as inferior. The Court majority disagreed, declaring the law constitutional while saying it stamped Black people with ‘a badge of inferiority’ only if ‘the colored race chooses to put that

2

Photos provided for publication from Centre College.

january/february 2026

Don’t leave anything to chance.

Sure, there is a chance you’ll never need us. But why take that chance? Lawyers Mutual is dedicated to Kentucky lawyers and makes your work our priority. Call (502) 568-6100 or visit LMICK.com for more information on how you can cover and protect your practice. We want you to focus on what matters.

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

construction upon it.’" Harlan’s Great Dis sent by Charles Thompson. In “The Great Dissenter,” Peter S. Cannel los’ biography of Harlan, the author paints a picture of Harlan at the time of his dissent in Plessy as an established jurist who had developed his vision of a color-blind Con stitution. Nevertheless, his role of dissenter must have taken its toll. “Despairing of the future under a compromised Constitution; furious over the betrayals of his judicial brethren; seething with compassion over the wrongs done to people of color, Har lan’s dissent was a monumental statement.” Canellos at p. 325. It is hard to believe that a man of Harlan’s accomplishments could be despairing, furious, and seething. But he was and this fact shows the toll being a dissenter can take. As well, it shows how courageous one must be to step forward, break from the crowd, and argue for truth and justice when it is against the will of the majority. Despite public and judicial opinions being strongly contrary, Harlan argued boldly for racial equality. In Plessy , Justice Harlan wrote: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.” This clear enunciation of a guiding principle of law

has stood the test of time and defined how American's interact with each other to this day. But these words were not written in a vacuum, Justice Harlan was taking an unpopular stand on a then-divisive issue. This took incredible bravery. He had moral courage, intellectual honesty, and the willingness to speak the truth even when the majority were against him. He was a lawyer-statesman. Harlan’s ability to dissent came from his skill as a judge and lawyer. By the time of his dissent in Plessy , Harlan “had introduced novel legal theories and interpretations, seeking to preserve what he saw as the true intent of the post-Civil War [consti tutional] amendments; in 1896, he offered a perfect distillation of those theories, fully thought through and mature.” Canellos p. 346. Thus, to be a lawyer-statesman, you must have honed your craft to build your worldview on a solid foundation. When he authored his dissent in Plessy , Harlan had spent decades as a lawyer and decades as a justice of the Supreme Court. Do we have lawyer statesmen today? From my perspective, it strikes me that we lack people with vision who can look into the future and dissent today in order to make meaningful changes tomorrow. Our society is in a rut, and we need lawyer-statesman to break the status quo. There are countless

issues where there are two cohesive sides vehemently opposed to the other’s position. We seem too tribalistic and divided to give room to dissent. As well, lawyers need to shed bland corporatism, which does not breed leaders willing to take controversial stands. Too often, practicing law seems more about who has the best billboard or marketing campaign instead of who is a leader. Lawyers need to see themselves as agents of change and not revenue genera tors. Who has intellectual honesty, moral clarity, takes a long view and is willing to stand alone? The bigger question may be who has the moral courage to stand up to their tribe or faction? The 21 st century seems to me to have been a rudderless century of war, divisiveness, and economic stagnation. At this time, we need ethical leaders who take the long view with moral clarity. We need lawyer-statesmen. So, how do we make this happen? I sug gest that those of you who find yourselves wanting to dissent should raise their hand and dissent. Be bold! Take on a case for a dissenter. But only do so when you have carefully considered your position and believe it has merit. Be like Harlan and hone your craft. Law does not have to be so corporate and careful. In decades past we have had great lawyers who dissented. Abra ham Lincoln is perhaps the most famous lawyer-dissenter. There are many others. So many of these people have helped create meaningful change and progress. As Kentucky lawyers, we are the heirs of Harlan’s legacy. The lawyer-statesman ideal is not nostalgia; it is a challenge to each of us who sees injustice or corruption to act. Harlan faced all of the established forces. He acted anyway. A lawyer-statesman does not need to be right for today but needs to be right for tomorrow. While we do not have the platform of the United States Supreme Court, we do have sway and influ ence where we live. We all face our Plessy moments that require us to raise our hand to defend an unpopular person or make that unpopular argument in court. Be the person who embodies Harlan and seek positive and meaningful change through vigorous dissent. Photos provided for publication from Centre College.

4 january/february 2026

5

bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS 6 january/february 2026 BY SHANNON “A.J.” SINGLETON

W e often hear people say that “law school teaches you how to think as a lawyer,” but it is often also noted that law school does not prepare you for how to practice law. The practice of law remains largely an apprentice pro fession, and we learn how to be lawyers by practicing with and observing other, more experienced lawyers. Some of us are blessed to have worked with wise and skilled attor neys who took us under their wings and became tremendous mentors. I was fortu nate to have “studied under” a number of incredible lawyers who helped guide my career and shape how I approach the prac tice of law. Two mentors I had the privilege to learn under are Charles E. (“Charlie”) Shivel, Jr., and John T. (“Jack”) Ballantine. These two tremendous lawyers taught me the importance of extensive preparation for arguments, depositions, and presentations. They taught me how to craft arguments. They taught me that some issues were simply not material and that some battles were not worth waging. They instilled in me the importance of maintaining a solid reputation for being honest in the practice of law, and of remaining professional, while remembering always that ours is a profes sion requiring us to treat one another with respect. CHARLES E. SHIVEL, JR. When I first arrived at what was then Stoll, Keenon & Park LLP, in October 2000, one of the two business and commercial litigation partners I was assigned to work with was Charlie Shivel. A graduate of Berea College and the University of Kentucky School of Law, Charlie was a seasoned litigator and a demanding boss who worked each case thoroughly and who expected those work ing on the case with him to work just as hard. If Charlie was working on a case over the weekend, then it was understood that you would be in the office as well. But this was not mere face time; these were moments of collaborating, strategizing, and learning to be a better lawyer. One of Charlie’s common refrains was: “What do the Rules say? If you don’t know

the Rules, you can’t play the game.” Those of us who worked with and under Charlie often heard some form of that refrain, and it helped us develop as lawyers because there was real meaning behind the saying. First, it was a subtle reminder that, to be a good litigator – or any lawyer – one needs to have a solid understanding of whichever Rules may apply to the issue one is addressing. The “Rules” in question could be the Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, the local Rules of Court, or even the Rules of Professional Conduct. Hearing that refrain (or knowing we would hear that refrain) when meeting with Charlie rein forced the importance of having more than a casual command of the Rules, especially because the answer, in whole or in part, could often be found in the Rules or their annotations. This “what do the Rules say” refrain also instilled both a level of self-reliance and the discipline of first searching for the answer on one’s own before approaching Charlie with the issue at hand. If only to prevent the embarrassment of asking a question whose answer would have been obvious if only for a bit of digging into the Rules or substan tive law, one would first try to answer the question oneself. This resulted, of course, in preparing for a discussion with Charlie by thinking through and researching various angles, and only then approaching him with the issue. This focus on preparation was also evident in how Charlie approached the practice of law. Whether it was an upcoming deposi tion he was taking, or an oral argument he planned to make, no one was going to be more prepared than Charlie. He was deter mined to know the facts and the law better than the opposition so that no one could claim he had not done his best due to lack of preparation. It was also professionally satisfying to develop case strategy with Charlie, as he was very intentional about how he liti gated his cases. When I began working at Stoll, Keenon & Park, a number of the cases Charlie had me working on were coal

mine litigation cases, where underground coal mine maps often played a key role in telling the story of what had happened. As a young lawyer, I had the privilege of helping Charlie take a deposition of an underground mine operator and saw how, during that deposition, Charlie walked the mine operator through questions about what had happened in such a way that the eventual “cold” deposition transcript would clearly portray what had happened in the various parts of the mine. Before we left for the deposition, Charlie made sure we brought with us a number of different colored markers to use with the large mine maps that would be deposition exhibits. To allow the reader of the depo sition transcript to more easily visualize where on the map something might have happened, Charlie would, for example, take a blue highlighter and, on the record, state that he was marking with the blue high lighter a “B” with a circle on deposition Exhibit 2, a map of the mine. Charlie would then proceed to ask the deponent about events that had allegedly occurred in that area of the mine marked by the blue-colored “Circle B.” Charlie would then proceed to mark another part of the map in a different color and proceed accordingly. This is just one example of Charlie’s focus on preparation and intentionality. He had, of course, taken the time to go over all of the issues in advance of the deposition, but he had also thought ahead about how he needed to present the questions to the deponent so that, at the end of the deposi tion, the transcript was clear. Charlie was not haphazardly marking the map with his highlighter; he knew in advance exactly what he wanted or needed. It was this insis tence on both preparing and thinking in advance of any number of possibilities that was Charlie’s hallmark. He was determined to put in the work to be the most prepared person on the case. JOHN T. BALLANTINE. Jack Ballantine was the quintessential “gen tleman and scholar,” having received his undergraduate degree from the University

7

bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

of Kentucky and his law degree from Har vard University. Jack was also described as “a lawyer’s lawyer” and had a reputation as a formidable trial lawyer. He was very involved in legal ethics issues in Kentucky, having been on the Kentucky Bar Associa tion’s Ethics Hotline and a member of the KBA Ethics 2000 Committee, whose report was submitted to the Kentucky Supreme Court and culminated in a major overhaul of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Con duct. While I did not have the privilege of ever seeing Jack work his magic as a litiga tor, it was Jack’s work with legal ethics issues and his focus on professionalism that I got to see firsthand. In 2006, the law firms of Stoll, Keenon & Park, LLP, and Ogden Newell & Welch PLLC merged to form Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, and Jack Ballantine, previously with the Legacy Ogden law firm, became Stoll Keenon Ogden’s first general counsel. Shortly thereafter, I was asked to be the merged law firm’s deputy general counsel, working with and under Jack. It was in this context that I observed Jack’s practi cal application of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the firm’s general counsel, which helped shape my own growth as a legal ethics lawyer and law firm general counsel. I cherish the memories of working with Jack through legal ethics issues and of discussing not only the ins and outs of the matter, but also how we would convey our analysis to our inquiring colleagues. Jack would with greater and greater frequency allow me to take the lead in the joint expla nation, which, I imagine, instilled in others the confidence Jack had in me and my anal ysis. This process and Jack’s confidence in me when I was still a relatively young law firm general counsel also bolstered my own growing confidence in my assessments of legal ethics issues and helped shape my ability to effectively convey those assess ments to colleagues, some of whom were far more experienced than I. All the while, Jack instilled in me the crucial recognition that a general counsel’s client is the organi zation and so, as general counsel and deputy general counsel of the law firm, our client was the law firm itself.

I came to appreciate that Jack’s calming influence and even-keel demeanor, which presented the reassuring presence that makes for a trusted advisor, were influenced by Jack’s own mentors. Early in my tenure working with Jack as his deputy, an oppos ing counsel had done or said something that angered me, but Jack settled me down. Jack shared that – when he was, as he described it, a “cub lawyer,” he was working for Squire Ogden. Like me, Jack had been frustrated by something someone else had done. Jack said that Squire Ogden settled him down and explained: “Jack, you can get in a fight with a skunk, and you can whup the skunk. But you’re going to come out smelling like the skunk.” Indeed, it was Jack’s professionalism, in both word and deed, and his recognition of the importance of having a solid reputa tion in life and within the profession, that was reflected in this fable. While develop ing a good reputation in the profession may take many years, that same reputation can be ruined in an instant. Jack was also generous with his time in developing younger lawyers: providing sage advice and a steadying presence, to help mold better writers. When one submitted a draft memorandum or brief to Jack for his review, he was not shy about putting a red pen to it. Any young lawyer who submitted their draft to Jack for his review knew what was coming – a lot of red ink – but his com ments and suggestions for improvement were what we were looking for. With the time he invested in providing those com ments and suggestions, Jack taught young lawyers to be better writers, clearer commu nicators, and better lawyers. It has been several years since I had the privilege of working with Charlie and Jack, and memories do fade. But without ques tion, the two of them, and so many others who helped me along my own journey to being a better lawyer, left a lasting impres sion on me. Perhaps that is the sign of a good lawyer mentor: someone who not only guides one’s future but leaves a pos itive lasting impression that makes one a better lawyer and a better person. As more

experienced lawyers, we owe it to less expe rienced lawyers, and to the preservation of the profession, to invest time in mentoring. Mentoring is not merely a sharing of “war stories.” Rather, it is showing others how to practice law and how to maintain a solid reputation for one’s commitment to excel lence, ethics, and professionalism. Equally important, it is sharing how to become that trusted advisor to clients that we should all aspire to be. In doing so, perhaps we will inspire other attorneys like Charlie and Jack inspired me.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

SHANNON "A.J." SINGLETON is gen eral counsel to and a member of the law firm of

Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, with his pri mary office in Lexington. A litigator by trade, he has focused his practice over the last several years on legal ethics and risk management issues. He is a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, former chair of the ABA Business Law Section’s Professional Responsibility Committee, a member of the ABA Business Law Section Council, and a member of the Kentucky Bar Association’s Ethics Com mittee. He frequently lectures on legal ethics and risk management issues, including in presentations specifically designed for in-house counsel. Single ton received his undergraduate degree from Furman University and his law degree from the University of Washing ton School of Law.

8 january/february 2026

Fill your jobs faster with the KBA Career Center! We offer effective recruitment solutions that connect you with qualified professionals.

JOBS.KYBAR.ORG

EMPLOYERS: Find Your Next Great Hire

EMAIL your job to legal professionals

MANAGE jobs and applicant activity right on our site

PLACE your job in front of highly qualified KBA members and job seekers

LIMIT applicants only to those who fit your requirements

FILL your jobs more quickly with great talent

SEARCH our resume database of qualified candidates

Quickly connect with highly engaged professionals through same-day job postings. Questions? Contact the KBA Membership Department at membership@kybar.org.

JOBS.KYBAR.ORG

9 bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

Advice TO THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION FROM THE “OLD FOLKS PRACTICE GROUP” BY “OLD GUYS” RICK ROBINSON AND JOHN C. "JACK" GREINER

I f you attend any gathering of seasoned (read: older) lawyers, you are likely to hear stories about how, early in their career, someone their senior influenced their career. The influence could come from a colleague, a judge or a client, with some of the best advice coming from a lawyer that beat them in court. We are no exception and, before we are too old to remember the influential advice received early in our career, we thought we should write it down.

FLAKES, RAKES AND SNAKES

The other takeaway was the admonition by a senior partner about what types of people the firm did not want as clients – flakes, rakes and snakes. Most lawyers with a hint of grey hair have run into all three types of clients. At the time, believing the key to our success was signing up new clients, we all wanted to be rainmakers. Now, we are the old guys giving the lecture. It is important to remem ber that a lawyer does not have to represent everyone. The choice of representation is a mutual understanding between the lawyer and the client. Unless you feel it, walk away.

Just about every time you do, the client you refuse to represent will turn out to be either a flake, rake or snake. THE FLAKE Initially, the flake seems like any other ordinary client. Flakes are very good at disguising themselves as normal, but – as the lawyer-client relationship progresses – they become inconsistent in their needs. One day they love the advice you give them. The next day, you have ruined their lives. With a flake, you go from being the greatest lawyer since Clarence Darrow to pond scum overnight.

When we entered the law practice, it was a tradition at our firm for the new associ ates to spend a day completing orientation. The day-long marathon covered everything from the firm’s history to billing practices. At the end of the day, there were two solid takeaways. First and foremost, was the fact that we had just blown a day of billing which needed to be made up for our annual minimum hourly billing requirement.

10 january/february 2026

Flakes also frequently display an inordinate certainty about the law, even or especially when they do not know what they are talking about. Covenants not to compete are a good example – fifty percent of flakes erroneously think they are not enforceable, and the other fifty percent think, equally erroneously, that courts will enforce the most onerous covenants down to the letter. Flakes have been recognized (kind of) by courts. In an often-cited criminal case out of California, an erstwhile judge observed: “I am firmly of the belief that jurors are quite capable of seeing through flaky testimony and pseudoscien tific claptrap. I quite agree that we should not waste our valuable court time watching witch doctors, voodoo practitioners or brujas go through the entrails of dead chickens in a fruitless search for the truth. How ever this is only because the practice is too time consuming and its proba tive value is zilch.” 1 There is an old adage that five percent of your clients cause ninety-five percent of your headaches. In our opinion, that five percent refers to the representation of flakes. THE RAKE The next level of horrible clients are the rakes who want the best advice money can buy; yet, they have a solid opinion of how much that advice should cost. From a historical nature (and in our opin ion), rakes were people of low moral or ethical standards. For purposes of this educational dissertation, rakes are wealthy people who have obtained their prestigious social status off the financial backs of others. They want the best legal advice, but they do not necessarily care to pay for it. The rake has often jumped from firm to firm seeking the lowest cost legal advice they can find. Rakes love to tell you how much you will benefit from representing them at discount. If you represent the rake at a discount, surely clients having pockets lined with gold will follow.

Notably, Abraham Lincoln was correct in stating that a lawyer’s time and advice are their stock in trade. The rake would have tried to negotiate Abe’s fee. The Kentucky Rules of Professional Con duct actually address the representation of rakes —“A lawyer shall not make an agree ment for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expens es.” 2 The Rule goes on to state the factors to be considered in determining the reason ableness of a fee. When the rake attempts to negotiate a lower hourly billable rate, tell them they can have the work they are requesting done quick, cheap or correct; but they can only choose two of the three. As an example, we represented a rake one weekend. The client – a real estate devel oper – wanted to sue his bank for fraud in the inducement and bad faith. In the ini tial meeting (on a Friday), the client wanted the complex complaint to be filed first thing on the following Monday morning. Money, he assured us, was not an issue. Thus, we worked through the weekend to prepare the complaint. When we presented the lengthy document on Monday morning, he balked – concerned over potential cost. We were dismissed and the bill for a weekend’s worth of work went unpaid. When a potential client tells you it’s about the principle rather than the money, you can be assured it will eventually be about the money. You now may be wondering what is the best way to deal with rakes? First, plainly state the basis for your fee in the engagement letter. In our “weekend at the office” case, we should have demanded an upfront retainer and had language in the engagement letter about how those funds would be used and replenished. Second, if the fee is an hourly rate, carefully track your time. Third, scru tinize each bill before they are sent. Make sure the time is accurate, and make sure it is fair. For instance, if a colleague spun their wheels, write the time down, but do not be afraid to discount it. Fourth, send monthly bills and demand timely payment. Don’t let

While not necessarily identified by some sort of odd personality quirk, sometimes the flake can be spotted in the initial inter view. Their goals are often outlandish, and their communications are inconsistent. Eccentric is often a pseudonym for a flake. Once a potential client has cancelled two meetings and forgot another, it is appropri ate to label them as a flake. Another clear indicator of a flake is asking for advice and then telling you what your advice should be. They have already deter mined what path they are going to take and are seeking affirmation rather than advice.

11 bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

ENDNOTES 1 Any good Kentucky Bench & Bar article must have footnotes. This is our first. Peo ple v. Williams , 132 Cal. App. 3d 920, 928 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (Gardner, J., concur ring) (emphasis added). 2 Ha! Another footnote. See KY Rules of the Supreme Court (SCR) 3.130, Rule 1.5. 3 We’re rolling now. “Snake in the Grass” is a metaphor for treachery that was first used around 37 B.C. by the Roman poet Virgil in Eclogues. 4 “Weekend Update: Girl You Wish You Hadn’t Started a Conversation with on Christmas”, Saturday Night Live: Week end Update Thursday , Season 3 episode 2 (NBC, Sept. 27, 2012) https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=RGsQES_OdrQ (last visited Nov. 17, 2025). the rake build up a big balance. Fifth, be prepared to withdraw if you are not getting paid. This advice does not mean that every client who scrutinizes billing or work product is, in fact, a rake. Years ago, we had a won derful client who paid massive amounts of fees and kept a large number of lawyers very busy for several years. He paid on time, and he paid our stated hourly rates. However, he would review each monthly billing to ensure he was getting the advice for which he paid. To that end, he had a rule to not spend time reviewing drafts wherein law yers spent his money changing “beautifuls” to “lovelies.” A client that wants to make sure you under stand the scope of the work they demand is not a rake. They are simply a damn good client.

THE SNAKE The snake 3 is as interested in a lawyer’s malpractice insurance coverage as they are in the lawyer’s advice. The snake is a bit harder to spot but will unleash a law suit or bar claim on a lawyer at the drop of a hat. When a new client comes to your door, there is nothing wrong with doing a back ground check. This advice is especially true with a person who had previously used another lawyer. In these instances, it is reasonable to ask – Why did that relationship end? Did the snake sue for malpractice or file a bar complaint? Was it justified? Do they have a reputation for suing lawyers? Nevertheless, being careful with client intake is not an all-encompass ing solution. Once the attorney-client relationship is established, communication is another key defense to a snake. We once worked

with a lawyer who maintained an “asbestos” file. In the file he kept all the communication he had with the client, so that he could document his recom mendations and the client’s agreement to those strategies. These file folders were lined with dated “sticky notes” that he made contemporaneously to phone calls with the client. The two parts of this lawyer’s plan are equally important – frequent communication and docu mentation of those communications. This due diligence can also be done via the billing process. A time entry simply stating “meeting with client” will have little value defending a lawsuit filed against you by a snake; however, a detailed time entry stating what was discussed in that meeting could be worth gold if faced with such a lawsuit. Even a snake has a hard time suing over a strategy they approved.

CONCLUSION The practice of law remains a business based upon obtaining fees from clients. Success in the profession is as much about client selection as it is about case selection. In your career, you likely will encounter unavoidable challenges, over which you have little control. However, flakes, rakes and snakes, are problems that can and should be avoided. They are the equiv alent of the “the girl you wish you hadn’t started a conversation with at a party.” 4 Avoiding them upfront is totally in your control.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS JOHN C. "JACK" GREINER is an attorney with Faruki PLL and is the area's leading authority on media law and First Amendment matters. He has represented clients in public records disputes, access to courts, open meeting cases and a variety of defamation cases. Jack is also an experienced commercial litigator, handling contract disputes for clients in state and federal courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

RICK ROBINSON is a solo practitioner in Northern Kentucky and is the author of 13 award winning books. His latest book—1968 - a primer for understanding baby boomers —is currently being made into a feature documentary. Rick also plays electric mandolin in an Irish punk rock band. When he is not talking, writing or singing, he can be found knee deep in a cold river silently pestering trout.

12 january/february 2026

Claim Your FREE Trust Accounting & Billing Software Now included in your KBA membership, Smokeball Bill helps law firms manage trust accounting compliantly, bill easily, and get paid faster.

Smokeball is the trusted provider of legal practice management software to small and mid-size firms. Or visit smokeball.com/kentuckybill Scan to get FREE Smokeball Bill

13 bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

Well: Wisdom from the What Old Lawyers Know That Young Lawyers Should Hear BY MARK A. OGLE

H ow did this happen? In April 1986, when I passed the bar and was sworn in, I had no idea what to expect. I know you are thinking “not another article by an older (I prefer the word experienced) lawyer trying to tell younger lawyers what they should know.” Nevertheless, my almost 40 years of legal experience has imparted a certain amount of wisdom to me along the way, and while it might be a little presumptuous of me to think that I can teach the young lawyers anything, here it goes. When I started practicing law, I thought I knew it all. I had served as a law clerk

whose civility often spoke louder than their advocacy, and by clients who revealed the human cost behind every legal principle. I realized that wisdom is not taught to you in law school – it seeps into you over time, from the people who have already walked the path, and it comes from those moments when we learn from those who have drawn longer and deeper from the well. What I came to understand is that no lawyer achieves wisdom alone. Every case and even every court appearance, deposition, discov ery response and client encounter tells a story and provides a lesson, adding to our shared wisdom and experience. The “well”

for one of the best litigators in the state. I thought I knew what mattered: great research, good arguments, sharp brief writ ing and winning. I believed that if I read enough cases, memorized enough statutes and prepared enough arguments, I’d find the key to becoming a good lawyer. But as time moved on and I developed my prac tice, I started to realize that it wasn’t just the things I learned in law school, but I began to draw from a deeper source—the well of experience that surrounded me. It’s a “well” filled by mentors who shared their time and mistakes freely, by judges who taught lessons in patience and prepara tion from the bench, by opposing counsel

14 january/february 2026

the goal. Every motion had to be flaw less, every argument the best and every court appearance a performance. I guess I watched too much Perry Mason as a kid. I mistook confidence for competence and polish for wisdom. I was always searching for approval from judges and colleagues and somehow, I thought success was mea sured by doing it all by myself. But the practice of law has a way of humbling the most stubborn perfectionist. My first court appearance was in District court for a crim inal arraignment. I was nervous but acting completely confident. My job was to enter a not guilty plea and obtain a pre-trial date for one of the senior attorneys in the firm.

of wisdom is not owned by one person. The “well” gets deeper every time a mentor stops and takes the time to answer the question of a young lawyer, or the judge offers advice to correct a situation. My journey is but one cup drawn from the “well,” but it is filled with information and knowledge gathered from the contributions of many. This piece is not about me, but it is about the bits of wisdom that I learned from listening to those who came before me. THE ARROGANCE OF EARLY PRACTICE As stated earlier, I thought perfection was

I appeared in court dressed in a suit and looking sharp. I found the courtroom and walked in to see many other lawyers and defendants from the jail. The courtroom was full. The judge walked in, and everyone rose to their feet. I was hoping the judge would call on someone else first, so I could learn what I was supposed to do. However, I think the judge noticed that I was new, and he decided to call my case first. He con gratulated me upon becoming a member of the bar and proceeded to call my client to podium. I started by having my client state his name and address and then I spoke up and let the court know that he would be pleading not guilty and requested a pre-trial

15 bench & bar

FEATURE: SENIOR LAWYER ADVICE

THE HARD LESSONS Every lawyer, no matter how skilled or sea soned, will lose. Some losses are expected — the ones you see coming as the evidence stacks up against you. Others hit harder: the cases you believed in, fought for, and carried home in your chest long after the courtroom emptied. Early on, I took every defeat personally, convinced that a client’s disappointment was proof of my inade quacy. It took time — and more than a few sleepless nights — to understand that car rying a client’s burden is not the same as carrying their case. The law demands com passion, but it also requires boundaries. We serve best when we bring clarity, not when we drown in shared emotion. The advice I give young lawyers is this: care deeply, but don’t confuse empathy with ownership. You are the advocate, not the outcome. The client needs your strength, not your sorrow — your steadiness, not your sleeplessness. Earlier in my career I tried a case, and I got a decision from the judge that I was con vinced was wrong. I was so upset, and my client was so disappointed, that I agreed to appeal the case for free. After investing sig nificant time and energy in the litigation, the Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s decision. The key lesson here is that the hard cases, the losses, the sleepless nights provide a space where true professionalism can grow. The best lawyers I know aren’t the ones who never fall; they’re the ones who rise quietly and walk back into the court without anger or bitterness, but with perspective. I have learned that the tools that truly matter in this profession aren’t found in a briefcase or law library. They are the skills and qualities that give meaning to every thing else we do. The art of storytelling — the ability to translate facts into human truth — can move a judge or jury more than any citation ever will. Kindness to staff, the people who keep the gears of our practice turning, is not a small courtesy; it’s a reflec tion of our character. And respect — for clients, for colleagues, for the court — is the currency that builds a lawyer’s reputation THE TOOLS THAT MATTER

date. Everything seemed to be working out just fine. At that moment, the judge turned to the clerk and asked the clerk for an even number. Not knowing that the clerk was about to give the judge a pre-trial date on an even numbered day, I spoke up and said “10.” The judge said “Counselor, 10 is an even number, but I was talking to the clerk.” Everyone in the courtroom started to laugh, even the defendants in stripes. I was humili ated and could not get out of the courtroom fast enough. The key lesson here is to not take yourself too seriously. The practice of law is human work and not just legal work. We are all going to make mistakes. Be humble and reach out to others who have already walked the path you are on. Some of the most powerful lessons in law don’t come from lectures, but from quiet teachers — the people who rarely announce that they’re teaching at all. Judges, for instance, often reveal their wisdom not through rulings, but through restraint: a raised eyebrow that reminds you to slow down, a gentle admonition that reminds you to prepare better next time. I remem ber appearing in front of this well-respected judge on a family law case, prior to the advent of family courts, where I was making a very strong argument and was very close to being held in contempt due to the tone of my voice. The judge could have easily found me in contempt, but instead, he called me to bench and gave a bit of good advice. He said, “Saying it louder does not make your argument any better.” He took the time to teach me rather than embarrass me. The key lesson here is keeping your cool at all times. Your professionalism is more important than your overzealous advocacy. Clients are among the most profound teachers a lawyer will ever have, though their lessons often arrive wrapped in frus tration, fear, or grief. Early in my practice, I thought my role was to fix problems — to deliver outcomes, not absorb stories. But with time, I learned that every client carries a deeper truth about the human condition: the limits of control, the cost of pride, the resilience that emerges in loss. Every client has their own story to tell. A client’s tears in THE QUIET TEACHERS

the hallway can teach more about empathy than any seminar on professionalism. Their gratitude after a difficult verdict can remind you that dignity sometimes matters more than victory. Spending a day with a client during difficult mediation and reaching an acceptable result is achieved in no small measure by learning to listen to your client. And their silence, when they no longer trust the system, reminds you why our integrity must never bend. In their struggles, clients hold up a mirror — showing us not just what the law can do, but what it means to serve another person with compassion and respect. The key lessons here are that a wise lawyer is one who will represent the client with healthy detachment and will listen for what is not being said. The unspoken lesson can be a powerful one. Even opposing counsel or colleagues can be some of our most effective, if unintentional, teachers. The best of them reminds us that advocacy and civility are not opposing forces — that you can argue fiercely with out ever losing your respect for the person across the table. I’ve learned from those who came armed with sharper arguments than mine, forcing me to prepare harder, think deeper, and never mistake bluster for strength. I’ve learned, too, from those who practiced quiet decency — who picked up the phone before filing a motion, who shook hands after a bruising hearing, who understood that today’s adversary may be tomorrow’s ally. And yes, I’ve learned even from the difficult ones: the bullies, the chronic interrupters, the ones who con fuse volume with persuasion. They teach patience, professionalism, and the discipline of not matching tone for tone. In the end, every opposing counsel adds something to your education — whether it’s a new argu ment, a new strategy, or a reminder of the kind of lawyer you never want to become. The key lesson here is watching how other lawyers practice their cases, both good and bad. Over time, I’ve come to see that law is an apprenticeship in awareness. The more you listen, the more you realize that everyone around you — from the most seasoned judge to the most anxious client to the most difficult opposing counsel — have something to teach if you’re quiet enough to hear it.

16 january/february 2026

In my very first jury trial as a young lawyer, the judge presiding over the case went above and beyond his duty. The judge called me to the bench after one of the final pre-trial hearings and told me to contact an older lawyer in the area he said he would be happy to discuss my case. The older lawyer had just tried a similar case and the judge thought he would be willing to help me. I did reach out to the lawyer, and he was so gracious. He spent an entire day with me helping me learn how to tell a story and teaching me strategies to employ at trial. I have never forgotten that lawyer and now anytime a younger lawyer reaches out to me, I make time for him or her. The key lesson here is that it is our responsibility to keep the “well” full and help prepare the next generation of lawyers.

We fill the well by practicing with integ rity, by extending grace when it’s easier to be sharp, by listening more than we speak. For young lawyers just beginning to lower their buckets into this water, I offer this: stay curious, stay humble, and stay human. The law will test you, teach you, and, if you let it, shape you into something steadier and kinder than when you began. That is the true wisdom from the well — not what we know, but what we learn, share, and leave behind for the next to draw. My hope for you is that the LAW is your vocation, not just your occupation.

long after the verdicts are forgotten. Reputa tion, once earned, becomes both shield and compass; it precedes you into every court room and lingers long after you’ve left it. The older lawyers understand this: success is built not on sharp elbows, but on steady hands and a good name. The key lesson here is to make your word, your bond and treat everyone with respect. DRAWING DEEPER FROM THE WELL There comes a point in every lawyer’s journey when the well you’ve drawn from becomes one you’re called to fill. After years of learning from mentors, judges, and even adversaries, you begin to see that wisdom isn’t meant to be hoarded — it’s meant to be handed down. The stories, the scars, the shortcuts, and the small acts of grace that once steadied you can now steady someone else. A young lawyer doesn’t need a lecture as much as they need a listener — someone who remembers how hard those first years were and who can offer both guidance and perspective without judgment. Mentorship isn’t a formal role; it’s a way of practicing gratitude. When we take time to teach, to explain, to forgive a mistake instead of con demning it, we repay a debt to those who once did the same for us. In that exchange, the profession renews itself. The well deep ens, and wisdom continues to flow.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MARK A. OGLE is a family lawyer with Bricker Gray don Wyatt, LLP, with a reputation of treating his

CONCLUSION — WHAT THE OLD LAWYER KNOWS

clients with compassion. He has been an integral part of shaping domestic relations law for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. His appellate practice has set in place new law as it pertains to non-biological third party rights to children where the biolog ical parent failed to act timely to assert his/her rights, and he helped to establish a clearer definition for parties, attorneys, and judges regarding the complicated area of subject-matter jurisdiction and modi fication of custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. Ogle has a growing Family Law Media tion practice that has expanded throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He is a past president of the Kentucky Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and is currently the acting del egate from the Kentucky Chapter on the AAML National House of Governors. He is a member of the Family Law Sections of the American Bar Association, Kentucky Bar Association, Northern Kentucky Bar Association, and is a frequent speaker, at both national and local bar association events. He is a certified family mediator and general civil mediator by the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts. Ogle is a graduate of Centre College, where he earned All-Conference honors in basketball and baseball, and the Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

After almost 40 years of practicing law, I see that every meaningful lesson in this profes sion has come from the well — the deep, collective reservoir of experience shared by those who cared enough to teach. I’ve drawn from it in moments of doubt, exhaustion, and victory. And with each passing year, I’ve realized that wisdom isn’t a destination; it’s a continuous act of drawing and giving back.

17 bench & bar