It’s been a busy week for embattled Northern Kentucky Defense Attorney Ben Dusing.
Before he left for a trip to the Poland/Ukraine border, which he posted about with increasing frequency on both Facebook and Twitter, Brian Halloran filed a petition Tuesday, March 15 to get Dusing removed from the ballot for Kenton County Family Court judge.
“Defendant, Benjamin G. Dusing is not qualified to be a candidate in the primary, or general elections for Kenton County Circuit Court, Second Division, Family Division as he [sic] no longer a licensed, active attorney in good standing with the Kentucky Bar Association,” it reads. “A candidate for Circuit Judge must be licensed to practice law in the Courts of the Commonwealth.”
On Thursday, March 17, Michael and Laura Hild filed a complaint for monetary damages against Dusing, who Michael Hild went to high school with.
Hild claims Dusing failed to properly represent him in a federal securities law case in New York.
“During the preparation and trial of the securities case, and unbeknownst to Mr. Hild, Mr. Dusing’s attention and efforts were diverted because of two domestic relations cases pending in Kentucky state courts,” the complaint reads. “He was substantially distracted from representing Mr. Hild in the federal case, resulting in an actual conflict of interest in his representation of Mr. Hild, and not being thoroughly prepared for trial and not adequately representing Mr. Hild at trial.”
Then on Friday, March 18, Dusing’s attorney Katy Lawrence made two big moves on his behalf while he was on route to the Ukraine/Poland border:
- He filed a motion for reconsideration to the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking that his law license be reinstated.
- He also filed a motion to disqualify attorney Stephanie Dietz, who represents the mother of Dusing’s youngest child in a custody case.
We’ll start with the motion for reconsideration
The motion is “to reconsider the issuance of the Order based on new evidence that illuminates the true nature of some of the evidence submitted by the Inquiry Commission in support of its Petition for Temporary Suspension.”
Dusing claims in his motion that one reason the Supreme Court suspended his license is Dietz’s affidavit, in which she “detailed her ‘utter fear’ of Dusing and her consequent actions to protect herself.”
In that order, the motion for reconsideration reads, “this court acknowledged Mr. Dusing’s assertion that the allegations of Ms. Dietz and Mr. Hild are ‘the result of an “alignment of interests and serious common incentive to work together to attack Ms. [sic] Dusing and assial his character and credibility.”
The motion asserts that Dusing “now has evidence that Ms. Dietz, through her paralegal, solicited at least one other client of Mr. Dusing, Ms. Amanda Busch, to file a bar complaint against him by suggesting to Ms. Busch that Mr. Dusing was distracted during her trial (the same allegation made by Mr. Hild).”
The motion claims that the paralegal that Busch, who Dusing represented in a criminal trial until his law license was suspended, was one of Dusing’s ‘victims’ and that she could have a second shot at her trial if she claimed that Dusing’s counsel was ineffective.
Dusing says, in the motion, that “this evidence casts serious doubt on the veracity of Ms. Dietz’s claims that she fears Mr. Dusing.”
The motion continues: “If Ms. Dietz was truly afraid of Mr. Dusing, would she have had her paralegal contact Mr. Dusing’s clients?”
Dusing asks that the court “reconsider its Order and reinstate Mr. Dusing to the practice of law, pending the resolution of any disciplinary proceedings that may be instituted against Mr. Dusing.”
Which leads us to Dusing’s motion to disqualify Dietz
Dusing uses the claims that Dietz’ paralegal contacted his clients as evidence that Dietz should be disqualified from representing the mother of Dusing’s youngest child in their custody case.
“There is no question that this Court has the authority, and indeed the obligation, to order the disqualification of counsel in such circumstances,” the motion reads.
Dusing’s attorney, Katy Lawrence, filed the motion late Friday on his behalf.
A hearing is scheduled for March 25 at 1:30 p.m.
Two sides to every story
Dietz spoke to LINK nky late Sunday, March 20.
“These allegations need to be handled through the court system and not through social media,” she said.
The story, Deitz said, is about what forensic psychologist Dr. Ed Connor testified to in a hearing related to the custody of Dusing’s youngest daughter on March 4, which LINK attended virtually.
At the hearing, Dusing addressed the Facebook videos that led to the Kentucky Supreme Court suspending his law license, calling them “very amateurish and stilted political satire.”
Dusing is running for Kenton County Family Court judge and told LINK nky the day after the Feb. 24 suspension that he planned to stay in the race.
Dusing’s ex-fiancee and the mother of their 2-year-old requested Dusing’s visitation be suspended or supervised until he completed the psychological evaluation ordered in the Supreme Court decision.
Judge Denise Brown granted the request for modified parenting on Friday, March 11, allowing Dusing two hours of supervised visits with daughter twice a week.
“The court concludes [Dusing’s] pattern of behavior would seriously endanger the child’s mental and emotional health if his parenting time were to remain unsupervised,” Brown wrote. “[Dusing] has shown an ongoing pattern of placing his needs above the needs of the child and his family, as reflected in his ongoing choice to expose the child, her family, and this personal litigation to the public under the guise of political speech and civic duty.”
The indefinite Supreme Court decision requires Dusing to submit to a full psychological evaluation to determine his mental fitness to continue the practice of law.
“The Commission has established probable cause to believe that Dusing’s conduct poses a substantial harm to his clients or to the public,” said the court’s 9-page ruling. “Dusing must, within 20 days of the date of the entry of this Opinion and Order, notify in writing all clients of his inability to provide further legal services.”
In November 2021, Dusing told two attorneys involved in his daughter’s custody case to “knock it the **** off” in a Facebook post, adding: “Give me a ****ing reason to blow your ***** up.” Dusing said the Facebook post was “political speech,” intended to draw attention to public corruption, not to threaten violence.
But Kenton County Family Court Judge Christopher Mehling called it a “direct threat” to his staff attorney Alice Keyes and Stephanie Dietz, who represents Dusing’s ex-fiancee in the custody case.
The Nov. 2 Facebook video caused Judge Mehling to withdraw from Dusing’s case and ask the commonwealth attorney to investigate.
Dusing previously had parenting time every other weekend, one overnight per week and one weeknight per week. On Feb. 24, 2022, Dusing’s ex-fiancee filed an emergency motion to suspend Dusing’s parenting time. The motion was granted until the March 3 hearing.
During that March 4 hearing, which lasted 3 ½ hours, Dusing repeatedly downplayed the nature of the videos, which forensic psychologist Connor referred to as threatening.
“When I looked at these videos,” said Connor, who also evaluated Dusing in 2020, “I believe he has either not engaged in therapy recommended in May 2020 or if he has, the therapy has not been effective.”
