IN RE: STEVEN O. THORNTON — OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2026-SC-0269-KB IN RE: STEVEN O. THORNTON IN SUPREME COURT OPINION & ORDER This case is before the Court upon the Board of Governors’ (Board) recommendation to suspend Steven O. Thornton from the practice of law for five years, concurrent with any other suspension currently being served, and restitution; to complete the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program; and to pay costs. The Board found Thornton guilty by default of twenty-three violations in eight separate cases. Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.210. His bar number is 70895, and his listed bar address is 1011 Lehman Avenue, Suite 102, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42103. Pursuant to SCR 3.370(10), we may adopt the findings and conclusions of the Board when no notice of review has been given. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Leadingham, 318 S.W.3d 598, 599 (Ky. 2010). We do so now and impose the recommended suspension upon Thornton. I. Findings of Fact by the Board In the first case, 22-DIS-0296, Thornton was retained by Daniel Towe on March 29, 2021, to aid him in his parole hearing. He was paid a retainer of $2,500 on May 7, 2021. He sent a letter on April 12, 2021, acknowledging

-- 1 of 10 --

2 receipt of Towe’s medical records. He spoke with Towe’s mother at least twice afterward and met with her on April 26, 2021. After this date, subsequent phone calls by Towe or his mother went unanswered nor were they returned. A parole hearing was scheduled for March 1, 2022. Thornton believed the hearing was set for March 2, 2022. When Thornton could not attend the hearing, he made no attempt to reschedule and did not inform the parole board of his impending absence. Towe filed a complaint after Thornton failed to appear at the parole hearing. Thornton responded to the bar complaint but failed to explain his inaction. Thornton returned the retainer fee in February 2023. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violating SCR 3.130(1.3);1 3.130(1.4)(a)(4);2 and 3.130(1.16)(d).3 Service was made on May 31, 2023. Thornton did not respond. In the second case, 23-DIS-0080, Justin Rosado filed a bar complaint alleging that he hired Thornton to represent him in his criminal case, and that Thornton had failed to provide him with information about his case, to communicate with him, and to adequately represent him during plea 1 “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” 2 “A lawyer shall . . . promptly comply with reasonable requests for information[.]” 3 “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.”

-- 2 of 10 --

3 negotiations. This allegedly occurred between February and April 2022. Thornton was served with the bar complaint on April 19, 2023. The Inquiry Commission included a letter advising Thornton that it required additional information and that failure to respond could result in an additional charge of misconduct. Thornton did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violating SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).4 Service was made on August 3, 2023. Thornton did not respond. In the third case, 23-DIS-0160, Thornton was hired by Mariah Rose to represent her in her divorce. She paid Thornton $4,000 total on June 30, 2021, and July 26, 2021. Thornton made one filing in family court on her behalf. Beginning in the winter of 2021 or spring of 2022, Rose began having difficulty getting into contact with Thornton. She attempted to contact him by phone, email, text message, and twice visited his office only to find it closed. On August 1, 2022, the last date of communication between Rose and Thornton, he advised her that he was not available for a telephonic or personal meeting. On November 14, 2022, Rose filed a pro se motion in family court to terminate Thornton as counsel. Thornton filed a motion to withdraw on November 17, 2022. He was removed as counsel of record on December 7, 2022. On November 21, 2022, however, Rose sent a letter to Thornton 4 “[A] lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not . . . fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.”

-- 3 of 10 --

4 demanding an accounting of the $4,000 she had paid. Similar requests had been made previously. Thornton did not answer, and the $4,000 was never returned. Thornton was served with the bar complaint on June 5, 2023, and did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violating SCR 3.130(1.3); 3.130(1.4)(a)(3);5 3.130(1.15)(b);6 3.130(1.16)(d); and 3.130(8.1)(b). Service was made on September 13, 2023, and Thornton did not respond. In the fourth case, 23-DIS-0324, Wanda Jaggers hired Thornton in a custody case. She paid him $2,800. This occurred in April 2021. Thornton and Jaggers had a Zoom call on April 7, 2021, and on November 15, 2021. Jaggers also texted Thornton on November 15, 2021, with concerns about visitation. Thornton responded he would get back to her but did not. On December 22, 2021, Jaggers received notice of a hearing on January 12, 2022. She was sick and could not attend. She asked Thornton to have the hearing rescheduled. The Board made no finding about whether the hearing was rescheduled. On January 11, 2022, Thornton told Jaggers he had lost her file. Jaggers’ last communication with Thornton was on March 23, 2022. 5 “A lawyer shall . . . keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter[.]” 6 “Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client any funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.” The Board found Thornton not guilty of this charge.

-- 4 of 10 --

5 Thornton was subsequently indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on February 16, 2023. Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Thornton, 714 S.W.3d 363, 364 (Ky. 2023). Thornton failed to advise Jaggers of his suspension. She learned of it in May 2023 through an internet search. The Board concluded Thornton failed to bring Jaggers’ case to a resolution, did not communicate with her after March 2022, and never returned the $2,800 fee. Thornton was served with the bar complaint on December 16, 2023, and did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violating SCR 3.130(1.3); 3.130(1.4)(a)(3); 3.130(1.16)(d); and 3.130(8.1)(b). Service was made on February 2, 2024, and Thornton did not respond. In the fifth case, 23-DIS-0340, Jonathan Belcher hired Thornton to represent him in a Child Protective Services matter that potentially involved criminal charges. Belcher paid Thornton $3,500. Thornton attended three telephonic conferences on Belcher’s behalf. In March 2023, Thornton sent a letter to Belcher advising him of his indefinite suspension but also including a notation that he had filed a motion with this Court that, if granted, would reinstate him. The motion was denied. Thornton did not timely advise Belcher of this denial. Sometime in September 2023, Belcher learned of Thornton’s continuing suspension from Thornton. Belcher terminated Thornton and demanded his case file, a refund of his fee, and an itemized bill for services rendered. Thornton told Belcher to call back the next day and everything would be prepared. Subsequent attempts at contact through phone calls and text

-- 5 of 10 --

6 messages were unanswered. The bar complaint was served on December 8, 2023, and Thornton did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violations of SCR 3.130(1.3);7 3.130(1.4)(a)(3); 3.130(1.16)(d); and 3.130(8.1)(b). Service was made on February 12, 2024, and Thornton did not respond. In the sixth case, 24-DIS-0020, Alayna Hunt hired Thornton to represent her in a matter involving the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Thornton was paid $3,500 for his services in September 2022. Once again, Thornton advised Hunt of his indefinite suspension in March 2023, but included a notation that he had filed a motion that would, if granted, reinstate him to the practice of law. Thornton failed to timely advise Hunt that his motion had been denied. Beginning in May 2023, and thereafter, Hunt attempted to contact Thornton numerous times through phone calls and text messages, but Thornton either failed to give an adequate response or failed to respond altogether. On November 6, 2023, Thornton appeared in a telephonic conference before the CHFS and advised Hunt she needed to retain new counsel. He also promised to refund a portion of her fee. Thornton never did refund any portion of the fee despite attempts to contact him by both Hunt and her new counsel. He also did not return her case file, either to her or her new counsel. Thornton was served with the bar complaint on February 7, 2024, and did not respond. 7 The Board found Thornton not guilty of this charge.

-- 6 of 10 --

7 The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violating SCR 3.130(1.3); 3.130(1.4)(a)(3); 3.130(1.16)(d); and 3.130(8.1)(b). Service was made on March 12, 2024, and Thornton did not respond. In the seventh case, 24-DIS-0122, Russ Camp hired Thornton to represent him in three domestic relations matters. Camp paid Thornton a total of $6,750 on February 23, 2022, and May 6, 2022. One of these matters ended up being a divorce filed in Tennessee by a lawyer in that state. Thornton told Camp he would apply the portion of his fee for that case to his work in the other two cases. Thornton never initiated the child custody proceeding (the second case) and appeared for only a few pretrial conferences in the remaining case. Thornton told Camp of his indefinite suspension but related that he had filed a motion that, if accepted, would see him reinstated to the practice of law. Thornton did not timely advise Camp that the motion had been denied. Camp was compelled to represent himself at several pretrial conferences. Camp learned that Thornton was still indefinitely suspended in January 2024. Camp and his new counsel requested his case file. Thornton never responded. Thornton also failed to account for or refund any of his fees. He was served with the bar complaint on May 22, 2024, and did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violations of SCR 3.130(1.3);8 3.130(1.4)(a)(3); 3.130(1.16)(d); and 3.130(8.1)(b). Service was made on September 23, 2024, and Thornton did not respond. 8 The Board found Thornton not guilty of this charge.

-- 7 of 10 --

8 Finally, in the eighth case, 25-DIS-0008, Paula Maxwell hired Thornton to represent her in a divorce on October 25, 2021. She paid him a $2,500 retainer. Maxwell subsequently decided to call off the divorce. She requested a refund of the retainer, minus any fee for their lone meeting on October 25. Thornton refused to return the retainer and did not account for how his services merited full retention of the $2,500. Thornton was served with the bar complaint on February 4, 2025, and did not respond. The Inquiry Commission charged Thornton with violations of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d). Service was made on April 24, 2025, and Thornton did not respond. II. Conclusions of Law by the Board The Board cited Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Weiner, 630 S.W.3d 722 (Ky. 2021); James v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 397 S.W.3d 405 (Ky. 2013); and Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Hall, 173 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. 2005) in support. All of these decisions imposed a five-year suspension from the practice of law. All involved an attorney with multiple disciplinary cases, and all involved at least twenty-three separate counts of misconduct. Aside from the indefinite suspension previously cited, the Board also noted Thornton has received numerous sanctions over the years. A one-year suspension in In Re: Thornton, 713 S.W.3d 134 (Ky. 2025); a 181-day suspension in Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Thornton, 392 S.W.3d 299 (Ky. 2013); and a public reprimand in Thornton v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 279 S.W.3d 516 (Ky. 2009). He has also received four private reprimands throughout his career.

-- 8 of 10 --

9 III. Recommendation of the Board Eleven members of the Board voted for a five-year suspension, completion of the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program, restitution, and costs. Four voted for permanent disbarment. One member voted for a four-year suspension. IV. Conclusion and Order “Under SCR 3.370(10), if no request for review is filed by either party nor a notice of review issued by the Court, the Court shall adopt the decision of the Board of Governors.” Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Leadingham, 317 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Ky. 2010). We accept the Board’s findings of fact. We agree a five-year suspension is an appropriate sanction supported by relevant cases as detailed in the Board’s conclusions of law. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) Respondent, Steven O. Thornton, is adjudged guilty on all counts consistent with the Board’s recommendation and is suspended from the practice of law for five years from the date of Thornton’s indefinite suspension on February 16, 2023. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Thornton, 714 S.W.3d 363 (Ky. 2023); (2) Because Thornton's suspension exceeds 180 days, he must fulfill all relevant requirements under SCR 3.502 for reinstatement; (3) Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Thornton, if he has not already done so, shall, within twenty days from the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, and notify all courts in

-- 9 of 10 --

10 which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters to the Office of Bar Counsel. Pursuant to SCR 3.390(2), Thornton shall, to the extent possible, immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is engaged; (4) During the time of his suspension, Thornton shall not accept new clients or collect unearned fees; (5) Thornton shall immediately refund $4,000 to Mariah Rose; $2,800 to Wanda Jaggers; $3,500 to Jonathan Belcher; $3,500 to Alayna Hunt; $6,750 to Russ Camp; and $2,500 to Paula Maxwell. (6) Thornton shall attend, at his expense, and successfully complete the Ethics and Enhancement Professionalism Program (EPEP); (7) In accordance with SCR 3.450, Thornton is directed to pay all costs associated with these disciplinary proceedings, in the amount of $1,691.78, for which execution may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order. Lambert, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Goodwine, Keller, and Nickell, JJ., sitting. All concur. Thompson, J., not sitting. ENTERED: October 22, 2026 ______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE

-- 10 of 10 --