described in Count III. We disagree with the trial commissioner and the Board, however, that an appropriate sanction for this violation is a suspension from the practice of law for forty-five days, with that suspension being probated for two years. Upon careful consideration of Appellant’s conduct in charging an unreason able fee, taken as a whole, we believe that a thirty-day, unprobated, suspension is the proper disciplinary sanction, with the requirement that Respondent complete six additional CLE credits in addition to the number of required yearly CLE credits, with those additional credits being specific to office management, client agreements, and billing practice requirements under the applicable Supreme Court Rules. See Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Glidewell, 241 S.W.3d 316 (Ky.2007) (<HOLDING>). D. Count IV — SCR 3.130-1.7(b) (conflict of
holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client holding that suspension for fortyfive days with requirement of paying restitution of 47950 to client plus costs was appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorneys conduct relating to representation of client in divorce action in failing to act with diligence failing to keep client informed failing to adequately explain matters to client and failing to return unearned advancefee upon termination of representation and for attorneys conduct in failing to respond to two letters from office of bar counsel seeking explanation of inconsistencies in attorneys response to bar complaint holding multiple instances of neglecting client matters engaging in misrepresentation failing to notify a client of his suspension from the practice of law and failing to respond to inquiries from the iowa supreme court board of professional ethics and conduct warranted eighteenmonth suspension