IN RE: RICHARD DAVIS NULL — OPINION AND ORDER CONTINUING INDEFINITE SUSPENSION AND DENYING IMPOSITION OF RESTITUTION

RENDERED: OCTOBER 22, 2026

TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2026-SC-0324-KB

IN RE: RICHARD DAVIS NULL

IN SUPREME COURT

OPINION AND ORDER

Richard Davis Null was admitted to the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA)

on April 24, 1998. His KBA Member Number is 87271 and Bar roster address

is 535 Broadway, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.

The KBA Board of Governors (Board) recommended that Null be found

guilty of four counts of violating the Supreme Court Rules. It recommended a

suspension of 181 days, restitution of $3,500 to a former client, and payment

of costs of this action. For the reasons below, we adopt the Board’s finding of

guilt but continue Null’s indefinite suspension and reject the Board’s

recommendation to impose the condition of restitution.

9. BACKGROUND
10. Current Charge

Sandra Eggleston hired Null to represent her son, Matthew Eggleston, in

a criminal case and paid Null $3,500. Null made two appearances in Livingston

District Court in April 2021 but failed to appear at arraignment in July 2021

after indictment. Null made two appearances at pretrial conferences in

September 2021 and October 2021. Trial was set for March 2022.

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Ms. Eggleston texted Null on January 12, 2022, requesting Null provide her son with the discovery disclosed by the prosecution. She also asked Null where her son’s car was being held. The exchange ended when Ms. Eggleston indicated she would file a bar complaint against Null, prompting Null to block her from future communication. Null appeared at a pretrial conference on January 19, 2022, but Mr. Eggleston was not present. Null had not recently spoken with his client and did not know where he was. The court issued a bench warrant and continued the trial. It was later discovered Mr. Eggleston had been in custody in Illinois on unrelated charges. Null did not appear at a pretrial conference on May 18, 2022. Another pretrial conference was held on September 21, 2022, but the record is not clear regarding Null’s presence. Null made no additional appearances in Mr. Eggleston’s case. On December 15, 2022, Null was suspended from the practice of law for one year with 180 days probated on a separate disciplinary matter. Null failed to inform Ms. Eggleston or his client of his suspension. Nor did he refund unearned fees to Ms. Eggleston. The record is unclear regarding when Null stopped representing Mr. Eggleston. The Department of Public Advocacy was appointed to represent Mr. Eggleston in 2024. The court listed Null as withdrawn counsel on April 8, 2025.

-- 2 of 8 --

3 On September 5, 2025, the Inquiry Commission issued a charge against Null, alleging the following violations under SCR 3.130: Count I SCR 3.130(1.3): “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Count II SCR 3.130(1.4)(a): A lawyer shall . . . (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter[.]” Count III SCR 3.130(1.16)(d): “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.” Count IV SCR 3.130(3.4)(c): “A lawyer shall not: knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.” The charge was sent by certified mail to Null’s bar roster address but was returned as unable to forward. The McCracken County Sheriff was unable to serve Null. Pursuant to SCR 3.035(2), the charge was served on the Executive Director of the KBA. Null has not answered this charge. The Board unanimously voted guilty, with one recusal, on each count. The Board split regarding recommended discipline. Thirteen members supported suspension for 181 days, refunding $3,500 to Ms. Eggleston, and payment of costs. Six members supported continuing indefinite suspension, refunding $3,500 to Ms. Eggleston, and payment of costs. The costs were $283. B. Prior Discipline Null has a substantial disciplinary history. In 2008, he received a private reprimand and was ordered to complete the Ethics and Professional Enhancement Program.

-- 3 of 8 --

4 In September 2013, this Court imposed a 61‑day suspension, probated for two years, on Null for failing to commence one client’s divorce case and failing to complete another, coupled with misrepresentations regarding the status of filings and refunds. Null v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 408 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2013). Null admitted violating rules requiring diligence, communication, protection of client interests upon termination, and honesty. As part of a negotiated sanction, Null agreed to refund money to a client, obtain an evaluation through the Kentucky Lawyers Assistance Program, and avoid any further disciplinary charges during probation. This Court accepted the negotiated resolution but noted that Null’s conduct reflected difficulties managing his solo practice. Id. at 76-78. Null received a private admonition on July 8, 2019. He received another private admonition on August 19, 2019, and was ordered to refund $375 to a former client. On June 16, 2020, Null again received a private admonition, and this time was ordered to refund $300 to a client. He received one more private reprimand on March 9, 2022. In December 2022, this Court imposed a one‑year suspension on Null, with 180 days to serve and 185 days probated, based on eight consolidated disciplinary actions involving extensive misconduct. Null v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 714 S.W.3d 354 (Ky. 2022). Null repeatedly failed to act with diligence, misrepresented the status of cases to clients, disclosed confidential information, lacked a trust account for client funds, failed to refund unearned fees, ignored lawful information requests from Bar Counsel, and engaged in

-- 4 of 8 --

5 dishonesty. Id. at 355–60. We approved a negotiated sanction requiring Null to undergo ethics and trust‑account training, refund multiple clients, satisfy bar‑related obligations, and notify current clients and courts. Id. at 362. After Null later failed to comply with probation terms or respond to a show‑cause order, this Court imposed the probated portion, converting the matter into a full one‑year suspension. Null v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 677 S.W.3d 344 (Ky. 2023). In August 2024, this Court indefinitely suspended Null after concluding that he had abandoned clients, failed to maintain a valid bar roster address, disregarded multiple disciplinary charges, and ignored prior orders of the Court. In re: Richard Davis Null, 701 S.W.3d 224 (Ky. 2024). We rejected the Board’s recommended two‑year suspension and found indefinite suspension warranted due to Null’s pattern of failing to communicate with clients, not refunding unearned fees, evading service, violating numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, and refusing to participate in the disciplinary process. We emphasized that Null’s whereabouts were unknown, he had ceased complying with practice rules after his 2022 temporary suspension, and the indefinite suspension would remain until further review was triggered by Null, the KBA, or this Court. Id. at 226–27. In August 2026, this Court again addressed Null’s continued misconduct. Null failed to notify a client of his suspension, ignored repeated requests to return the client’s documents, and did not refund an unearned retainer. In Re: Richard Davis Null, --- S.W.3d ---, 2026 WL 2511287 at *1–2

-- 5 of 8 --

6 (Ky. 2026). After Null failed to answer new disciplinary charges or respond to a show‑cause order, the Board recommended indefinite suspension with additional conditions. However, we concluded that conditions cannot be imposed alongside an indefinite suspension. We found Null guilty of violating rules requiring communication, surrender of client property, and compliance with tribunal obligations, and ordered that his existing indefinite suspension remain in force, warning that failure to seek reinstatement within five years of the 2024 order would require that the Office of Bar Counsel move for permanent disbarment. Id. at *3. II. ANALYSIS As noted above, this Court indefinitely suspended Null from the practice of law, as ordered on August 22, 2024, for his failure to participate in a prior disciplinary action. Null did not answer the current charge issued by the Board and has remained unresponsive in the disciplinary process since his temporary suspension on December 15, 2022. Because he did not dispute the Board’s findings of fact, we adopt the Board’s finding that Null is guilty of the following violations: one count of SCR 3.130(1.3); one count of SCR 3.130(1.4)(a); one count of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d); and one count of SCR 3.130(3.4)(c). While the Board unanimously agreed that Null was guilty of these four counts, it was divided regarding the recommended discipline. Thirteen members supported suspending Null for 181 days, and six members supported continuing his indefinite suspension.

-- 6 of 8 --

7 Our Court respects the work and recommendations of the KBA Board of Governors in Bar disciplinary matters. We do not depart from their recommendation lightly. Our rules direct us to “enter such orders or opinion as it deems appropriate on the entire record,” and so we conduct an independent review of the record and findings of fact. Ky Bar Ass’n v. Maze, 397 S.W.3d 891, 897 (Ky. 2013) (quoting SCR 3.370(7) and (8)). Based on this review, we cannot grant leniency to an unresponsive and uncooperative attorney. This marks the third time Null has not participated in disciplinary proceedings against him over the last four years. He has abandoned his professional commitment to this Court, but more importantly, he has abandoned his clients. If an attorney is so distressed or incompetent that he repeatedly fails to participate in disciplinary proceedings, this warrants stricter discipline to protect our citizens than a limited period of suspension. Null was initially placed on indefinite suspension on August 22, 2024, and this Court issued an order on August 20, 2026, continuing that indefinite suspension. We will continue that indefinite suspension in the disciplinary matter before us given the serious nature of this charge, Null’s ongoing lack of participation in the disciplinary process, and his disciplinary history. As we explained in our August 20, 2026 Opinion and Order, “our rules do not allow us to impose conditions in an order indefinitely suspending an attorney from the practice of law,” which prevents us from ordering restitution. Null, --- S.W.3d ---, 2026 WL 2511287 at *3.

-- 7 of 8 --

8 III. ORDER Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that: 1. Richard Davis Null is found guilty of the above-described violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 2. Null remains indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 3. All prior orders of this Court, including but not limited to those concerning the refunding of money by Null to each of his former clients, remain in full force and effect. 4. If he has not already done so, Null must, within 10 days after issuance of this order, notify, by letter duly placed with the United States Postal Service, all courts or other tribunals in which he has matters pending, and all clients of his inability to represent them and of the necessity and urgency to promptly obtain new counsel as required by SCR 3.390. Null shall simultaneously provide a copy of all such letters of notification to the Office of Bar Counsel. 5. If he has not already done so, Null shall immediately cancel any pending advertisements, to the extent possible, and shall terminate any advertising activity for the duration of the term of suspension. 6. If he has not already done so, Null is instructed to promptly take all reasonable steps to protect the interests of his clients. He shall not, during the term of suspension, accept new clients or collect unearned fees, and he shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.130(7.50); and 7. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Null is directed to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $283.00, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order. Lambert, C.J., Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, Keller, and Thompson, JJ., sitting. All concur. Nickell, J., not sitting. ENTERED: October 22, 2026. ______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE

-- 8 of 8 --