Full Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2021-SC-0517-KB IN RE: THOMAS DUANE JUANSO IN SUPREME COURT OPINION AND ORDER Thomas Duane Juanso (“Juanso”), a Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) member (Member Number 93712), was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on October 15, 2010. His bar roster address is 7103 Woolrich Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40207. The KBA moves this Court to permanently disbar Juanso from the practice of law pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (“SCR”) 3.167(5). For the reasons stated below, this Court denies the KBA’s motion. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2020, the KBA Inquiry Commission issued a six-count charge against Juanso. This Court previously detailed the underlying facts supporting the charge in Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Juanso, 626 S.W.3d 540 (Ky. 2021). After being served with the disciplinary charge, Juanso failed to file an answer. On June 17, 2021, this Court indefinitely suspended Juanso from the practice of law pursuant to SCR 3.380(2) (currently SCR 3.167) due to his failure to answer the charge. Juanso, 626 S.W.3d 540. The charge proceeded to the Board of Governors (“Board”) in default under SCR 3.210(1). The Board’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation found Juanso guilty of five counts, including the following: Count I, SCR 3.130(1.3) (failing to diligently perform work for his client); Count II, SCR 3.130(1.4(a)(4)) (failing to adequately communicate with his client); Count III, SCR 3.130(1.16(d)) (failing to return his client’s file or the unearned fee); Count IV, SCR 3.130(8.4(a)) (failing to advise his client to seek counsel in writing when attempting to limit his liability); and Count VI, SCR 3.130(8.1(b)) (failing to respond to the bar complaint). The Board found insufficient proof of Juanso’s guilt as to Count V, SCR 3.130(8.4(c)) (making misrepresentations to his client). The Board recommended suspending Juanso from the practice of law for 90 days, with conditions. Juanso did not dispute the Board's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation. On March 24, 2022, this Court issued a one-page Order rejecting the Board’s recommended sanction and instead concluding that a 180-day suspension was more suitable in light of Juanso’s misconduct. Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Juanso, 2021-SC-0517-KB, 2022 WL 882755 (Ky. Mar. 24, 2022). The Court further ordered Juanso to return his client’s file and retainer, attend and successfully complete the Ethics and Professionalism Enhancement Program, and pay all costs associated with the action in the amount of $464.09. On March 30, 2022, the KBA filed a motion to clarify the Order, requesting that the Court include a factual recitation of Juanso’s misconduct and specify the Rules of Professional Conduct Juanso violated. The KBA sought clarification to 2 use the Court’s Order as precedent. On August 5, 2026, the Court denied the motion. This matter is now before the Court following the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment because Juanso failed to seek reinstatement within five years of this Court’s imposition of an indefinite suspension. SCR 3.167(5). ANALYSIS The disciplinary process involving a respondent who has failed to answer a charge generally begins with an indefinite suspension, as permitted under SCR 3.167(1). An order of indefinite suspension pursuant to SCR 3.167(1) is not imposed as discipline for any particular count within the underlying charge; rather, it is an interim sanction compelled by the respondent’s failure “to file an answer to a Charge . . . .” During the period of indefinite suspension, the disciplinary proceedings continue. See SCR 3.167(4) (“Any disciplinary proceedings pending against a Respondent who has been indefinitely suspended . . . shall continue and proceed pursuant to SCR 3.160, et seq.”). If a respondent fails to seek reinstatement within five years of an order of indefinite suspension, the KBA is required to seek permanent disbarment pursuant to SCR 3.167(5). However, once we determine that a respondent violated our Rules of Professional Conduct, the available discipline is limited to a public reprimand, suspension from the practice of law for a definite period, or permanent disbarment. SCR 3.380. As the procedural history of this matter demonstrates, Juanso’s prior indefinite suspension on the underlying charge is no longer active. This Court’s 3 Order, dated March 24, 2022, superseded Juanso's indefinite suspension and constitutes a final adjudication of the charge. We may have been inclined to grant the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment had we deferred final adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings pending “a motion of the [KBA] for a final disposition, upon the presentation of additional charges against [the respondent], or upon the Court's own initiative.” See In re Null, 701 S.W.3d 224, 227. (Ky. 2024). However, this Court did not defer final adjudication of the subject charge and instead imposed a 180-day suspension. If Juanso seeks reinstatement, he must follow the reinstatement process delineated in SCR 3.502, as his “suspension has prevailed for 181 days or more. . . .” As with any reinstatement application, the KBA may oppose Juanso’s reinstatement. See In re Myles, 718 S.W.3d 923, 926-27 (Ky. 2025). This Court’s Order, entered March 24, 2022, provided a final adjudication of the disciplinary charge. ACCORDINGLY, the KBA’s motion for permanent disbarment pursuant to SCR 3.167(5) is DENIED. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: October 22, 2026 ______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE 4