IN RE: Mark Carter EPPLEY (2026)

OPINION AND ORDER

Respondent, Mark Carter Eppley, KBA Member No. 95204, whose bar roster address is P.O. Box 54446, Cincinnati, Ohio 45254, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 11, 2012. On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ohio imposed a two-year suspension, fully stayed on conditions, for extensive violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA), through the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC), petitions this Court for the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rules of the Supreme Court (SCR) 3.435.

We issued a show-cause order directing Eppley to state why identical discipline should not be imposed. Eppley responded and did not contest the charges and did not object to reciprocal discipline. We now issue this Opinion and Order imposing reciprocal discipline.

I. BACKGROUND

The KBA's petition summarizes the Ohio disciplinary proceeding and attaches a certified copy of the Ohio Supreme Court's order and opinion. In those proceedings, Eppley was found to have neglected two clients’ legal matters, charged excessive fees, mishandled client funds, failed to maintain appropriate trust-account records, failed to timely return client files and unearned fees, engaged in unauthorized practice in Tennessee, and made misleading communications about his law firm.

Ohio found that Eppley effectively misappropriated nearly $35,000 in client funds by depositing payments into his law-firm operating account and, in one instance, his personal bank account rather than a client trust account. He failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon termination and failed to promptly refund even the undisputed portion of one client's fee. He also represented and advised a client in Tennessee for more than two years without being licensed or admitted pro hac vice, and used the firm name “Eppley Legal Group” despite being a solo practitioner while maintaining outdated information about a departed associate on his firm website.

The parties stipulated to numerous rule violations, and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that Respondent violated Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3)-(4), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(d), and 5.5(a).

II. ANALYSIS

The Ohio Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension, fully stayed, conditioned upon:

1. Refraining from further misconduct;

2. Serving a two-year term of monitored probation;

3. Participating in monthly meetings with a monitoring attorney;

4. Providing the monitoring attorney full access to trust-account and business-account records; and

5. Completing three hours of CLE in law-office management and three hours in client-trust-account management.

The KBA petition requests that identical discipline be imposed in the Commonwealth.

SCR 3.435(4) mandates that this Court impose identical discipline unless the respondent proves, by substantial evidence: (a) lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state proceeding, or (b) that the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in Kentucky. Under SCR 3.435(4)(c), the foreign jurisdiction's adjudication of misconduct is conclusive.

Eppley has provided no substantial evidence of fraud or jurisdictional defect in the Ohio proceedings. The record reflects that he participated in the disciplinary process, stipulating to facts and violations, and that the Ohio Supreme Court acted within its authority in imposing discipline. The KBA petition identifies no irregularities suggesting fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

The KBA petition provides a detailed comparison between the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct violated by Respondent and their Kentucky analogues. Those comparisons show that the corresponding Kentucky rules—SCR 3.130(1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.15), (1.16), and (5.5)—are substantively the same. While Ohio's trust-account rule contains additional record-keeping requirements not present in SCR 3.130(1.15), the core obligations regarding the safekeeping of client property are consistent across both jurisdictions. Identical discipline is appropriate where the misconduct violates Kentucky's analogous rules, even if the formulation of those rules differs somewhat. Ky. Bar Ass'n 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.”).

Eppley's conduct—neglect, failure to communicate, excessive fees, mishandling of client funds, failure to return files and unearned fees, unauthorized practice, and misleading communications—would warrant discipline under Kentucky law independent of the Ohio findings. Nothing in the record supports the imposition of a lesser or different sanction in Kentucky.

Eppley, in his response to our show-cause order, did not object to reciprocal discipline, and our review of the record does not identify grounds under SCR 3.435(4)(a) or (b) to avoid the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline. The Ohio Supreme Court's adjudication conclusively establishes the misconduct, and this Court will impose the same sanction unless an exception applies.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent Mark Carter Eppley is retroactively suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for two years, effective January 22, 2026, with the entire suspension stayed, to run concurrently with his Ohio suspension.

2. Respondent's stayed suspension is subject to the conditions outlined in the Supreme Court of Ohio's order in Case No. 2025-0788 issued on January 22, 2026.

3. Respondent shall immediately discontinue use of any misleading firm name or designation in Kentucky, including “Eppley Legal Group,” unless compliant with SCR 3.130(7.1) and (7.5).

4. Respondent shall pay all costs associated with this proceeding pursuant to SCR 3.450.

/s/ Debra Hembree Lambert

 CHIEF JUSTICE

All sitting. All concur.