IN RE: Jay Michael DADE (2026)

Jay Michael Dade, Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) Number 97948, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth on April 24, 2018. His bar roster address is listed as 7101 College Boulevard, Suite 1200, Overland Park, Kansas 66210.

In this default case under Supreme Court Rule (“SCR”) 3.210, the KBA Board of Governors (“the Board”) recommends this Court find Dade guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3); SCR 3.130(1.4); SCR 3.130(3.3)(a); SCR 3.130(3.4)(c); SCR 3.130(8.4)(c); and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b). For these violations, the Board recommends that Dade be suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for one-hundred and eighty-one (181) days and be required to pay all costs associated with this matter. We agree with and adopt the Board's recommendation.

I. BACKGROUND

Per this Court's Opinion and Order entered on April 24, 2025, Dade was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth pursuant to SCR 3.167(1) for failure to answer the Charge against him or participate in the disciplinary process. In our prior Opinion and Order, this Court explained the underlying facts as follows:

The underlying Charge arose out of a Bar Complaint filed against Dade concerning his representation of his client KentuckyOne in litigation brought against KentuckyOne for wrongful termination. Although Dade was not physically located in Kentucky, he served as primary defense counsel for KentuckyOne and was KentuckyOne's sole contact. Another attorney served as “local counsel” for KentuckyOne in the litigation and, according to the OBC,[1] his responsibilities were limited to “advising [Dade] about Kentucky practice and reviewing and filing pleadings that [Dade] prepared.” It was this attorney who would later report Dade's conduct to the KBA initiating these proceedings.

During the discovery phase of the litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents from KentuckyOne which was granted by the trial court. Despite repeated requests for extensions, Dade failed to produce the discovery in conformity with the trial court's order and ultimately the plaintiff filed a motion of contempt. That motion was granted, however, the trial court determined that no penalties would be imposed if KentuckyOne produced the identified documents within thirty days. Dade neither tendered the documents nor filed any other form of response.

After not receiving the ordered discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and requested attorney fees for noncompliance. The trial court ruled by granting the plaintiff a missing evidence instruction for trial purposes and ordered KentuckyOne to pay $8,954.00 in attorney fees. Later, another motion to compel discovery was filed by the plaintiff which again went unanswered resulting in an yet another contempt order requiring KentuckyOne to pay an additional $3,475.00 in attorney fees to the plaintiff.

Dade's local counsel has alleged that he initiated contact with the claims manager handling the litigation to inquire for himself whether KentuckyOne or its carrier were aware of the discovery issues in the litigation. During their discussion, the claims manager stated that Dade had told the claims manager that the plaintiff had failed to file an itemization of the damages and that Dade was waiting on the court to sanction the plaintiff. In reality the plaintiff had filed an itemization of damages in excess of $5 million. The claims manager was not aware of the discovery issues, the contempt findings, or the awarded fees. According to local counsel, he also personally contacted Dade who admitted KentuckyOne was not aware of any of the problems with the litigation, stated “the case got away from me,” and when pressed on the issue, informed [local counsel] “I don't have any answers for you.” Dade was terminated from representation and KentuckyOne ultimately resolved the litigation through a settlement.

Dade's conduct was reported to the KBA and the OBC opened the Complaint for a formal response. A copy of the Complaint was sent by certified mail to Dade's bar roster address at the law firm of Jackson Lewis, PC, in Overland Park, Kansas. On October 25, 2023, the certified mail's green card was signed for by Sam Gomez, a legal assistant at the Jackson Lewis firm's Overland Park office. However, Dade himself acknowledged receiving the complaint by calling the OBC to report receipt. On November 6, 2023, the OBC sent an email to Dade memorializing the phone call and providing additional information about the disciplinary process. Dade replied to that email on the same day but ultimately never filed a response to the complaint. The OBC has received no further communication from Dade.

After no response to the Complaint was received from Dade, on January 22, 2024, the KBA Inquiry Commission filed a Charge against Dade for violating SCR 3.130(1.3) for failing to diligently represent his client in civil litigation, SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) and(b) for failing to adequately communicate with his client and failure to discuss matters that affected the representation, SCR (3.3)(a)(1) for making false statements to the Jefferson Circuit Court in the ongoing civil litigation, SCR (3.4)(c) for disobeying the trial court's pretrial orders regarding discovery and other matters, SCR (8.4)(c) for misrepresenting the extent of his activity in the ongoing litigation, and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) for failing to respond to a lawful request for information in a disciplinary action.

The Charge was mailed to Dade by certified mail which was signed for on February 13, 2024. It was not clear to the OBC whether the signature was Dade's and, as a precaution, after Dade failed to file an answer to the Charge, on June 26, 2024, Dade was served by Executive Service pursuant to SCR 3.035(2).

This Court concludes that the bar roster address, which Dade maintains with the KBA, is the address at which he agreed to accept service and at which he was properly served. To date, Dade has neither filed an answer to the Charge nor made any further contact with the OBC or the KBA.

On December 20, 2024, the OBC moved this Court for an order indefinitely suspending Dade from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for his failure to file an answer to the Charge. As a result of the OBC's motion, on January 13, 2025, this Court ordered Dade to, within twenty days, show cause as to why he should not be indefinitely suspended. Dade did not respond.

In unrelated proceedings, on January 17, 2025, the KBA suspended Dade from the practice of law in Kentucky for non-payment of KBA dues for the July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, fiscal year, and noncompliance with the minimum continuing legal education (CLE) requirements for the 2023 to 2024 educational year. SCR 3.050 and SCR 3.675 allow for bar members to appeal such suspensions to this Court within thirty days. No appeal from that administrative suspension has been filed by Dade with this Court.

In re Dade, 713 S.W.3d 91, 91–93 (Ky. 202[5]).²

The record before us indicates Dade continued to have no contact with the OBC or the KBA after entry of our prior Opinion and Order. The matter went before the Board on May 15, 2026. After deliberation, the Board voted unanimously to find Dade guilty of violating the Supreme Court Rules as charged.³ With regard to the recommended discipline, 13 members voted for one-hundred and eighty-one (181) day suspension, including all costs assessed to Dade; five members voted to recommend a one-hundred and eighty (180) day suspension, including all costs assessed to Dade.

II. PRIOR DISCIPLINE

As indicated supra, on April 24, 2025, this Court entered an Opinion and Order indefinitely suspending Dade for failure to answer the Charge, pursuant to SCR 3.167. He remains suspended.

On January 17, 2025, Dade was administratively suspended by the KBA for both nonpayment of dues and noncompliance with CLE requirements.

III. AGGRAVATING FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD

The Board considered six aggravating factors: dishonest and selfish motive; a repeated pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; multiple instances of lying to the Court and counsel; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding; and refusal to keep client apprised of ongoing and repeated discipline by the Court. Due to Dade's failure to participate in the disciplinary process, there were no known mitigating factors.

IV. ANALYSIS

Due to Dade's failure to respond, the Charge was submitted to the Board as a default case pursuant to SCR 3.210(1), which provides, in relevant part, “[i]f no answer is filed after a Respondent is notified, the Inquiry Commission shall order the record, together with such investigative evidence as may have been obtained, to be submitted to the Board.” In a 13-5 vote, the Board recommends that Dade be suspended for 181 days and pay the costs associated with this action.

After careful review, we believe the record fully supports the Board's conclusion as to Dade's guilt. Dade has failed to file a notice in this Court to review the Board's decision pursuant to SCR 3.370(8), nor do we elect to review the decision of the Board under SCR 3.370(9).

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Jay Michael Dade is found guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3); SCR 3.130(1.4); SCR 3.130(3.3)(a); SCR 3.130(3.4)(c); SCR 3.130(8.4)(c); and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b); and

2. Jay Michael Dade is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 181 days; and

3. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Jay Michael Dade is ordered to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings against him, said sum being $362.19, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.

/s/ Debra Hembree Lambert

CHIEF JUSTICE

FOOTNOTES

1.   Office of Bar Counsel.

2.   We note that, at the time this opinion and order was rendered, the Westlaw citation to 2024-SC-0574-KB contained the incorrect year. It should be 2025, not 2024.

3.   One member of the Board of Governors recused, leaving 18 members to vote.

All sitting. All concur.