Appellate Decisions
| Jurisdiction | Kansas,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 77 No. 8 Pg. 24 |
| Pages | 24 |
| Publication year | 2008 |
All opinion digests are available on the KBA members-only Web site at www.ksbar.org. We also send out a weekly eJournal informing KBA members of the latest decisions. If you do not have access to the KBA members-only site, or if your e-mail address or other contact information has changed, please contact member services at info@ksbar.org or at (785) 234-5696. You may go to the courts' Web site at www.kscourts.org for the full opinions.
Supreme Court
Attorney Discipline
IN RE MICHAEL C. ALLEN
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,645 – JULY 25, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was admitted in 1992 and engaged in a solo immigration law practice. In February 2006, he abandoned his practice, leaving many clients in the lurch. When r failed to complete his annual registration requirements, he was administratively suspended in October 2006; his license remains suspended.
One client couple filed a disciplinary complaint. At the formal hearing, the panel concluded that respondent accepted the matter and collected advance fees, which he placed in his operating account and converted to his personal use, failed to complete the terms of the representation agreement, and sent letters to his clients advising them that he was closing his office due to health problems and that they would need to seek replacement counsel. In this case, he did refund $1,287 of the advanced fees to his clients.
The hearing panel found violations of KRPCs 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16 (terminating representation), and 3.2 (expediting litigation). The panel further found three aggravating factors and four mitigating factors to be present. The panel approved the disciplinary administrator's requested sanction that respondent be indefinitely suspended retroactively to the date of administrative suspension and be required to furnish a list of clients who were harmed in the abrupt closure of his practice.
HELD: Respondent stipulated to the facts and violations alleged, concurred in the proposed discipline and filed no exceptions to the final hearing report. Based on the undisputed record, the Court affirmed the panel's findings of facts and conclusions of rules violations. The Court also unanimously agreed with the imposition of indefinite suspension but to take effect on the date of the order rather than the recommended retroactive application.
IN RE STEPHEN J. DENNIS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE DISBARMENT
NO. 99,646 – JULY 18, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Johnson County but was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in October 1999 and has not been reinstated by the Kansas Supreme Court. He was also disbarred by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. However, in 2002, Judge Wesley Brown signed an order permitting him to practice in federal court in Kansas under the supervision of another attorney. In 2003, Brown signed an order allowing him to practice without supervision before that court.
In 2006, opposing counsel in a lawsuit filed a disciplinary complaint based on respondent's misconduct in an employment suit, and in 2007 Judge Kathryn H. Vrati filed a similar complaint regarding his conduct in other litigation. The complaints were combined for disciplinary hearing. The panel found violations of KRPCs 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The hearing panel further found five aggravating factors and two mitigating factors to be present and unanimously recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended.
HELD: Respondent filed exceptions to the panel's subject matter jurisdiction, conclusions of law and recommended sanction. The Supreme Court enumerated instances in the record where respondent's conduct fell short of required standards and amply supported the conclusions of rules violations, dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, and considered the appropriate level of sanction. The Court noted respondent's "inability to understand or appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions that led to these proceedings" and ordered disbarment.
IN RE KEVIN C. HARRIS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE TWO-YEAR DEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,705 – JUNE 27, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Johnson County. He was appointed as the guardian of his elderly father in a probate proceeding. After the death of their father, respondent's sister wrote to the judge to complain about the way respondent had failed to follow orders of the court. Respondent responded to the letter by suing his sister and her attorney civilly for defamation. However, he failed to respond to discovery requests in the matter. The suit was eventually found to be frivolous in nature and was dismissed, and monetary sanctions were imposed against respondent.
A disciplinary complaint proceeded to formal hearing. The panel concluded that respondent violated KRPCs 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel). Six aggravating factors and two mitigating factors were found, and the panel recommended that respondent's license be suspended for a period of two years.
HELD: Respondent filed exceptions to the factual findings but not to the conclusions of law. The Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence to support the panel's findings and reviewed the factors in mitigation and aggravation. Despite respondent's challenges to those findings, the Court found the panel's rationale persuasive and adopted the recommended sanction.
IN RE CLAY F. HUMMER
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE DISBARMENT
NO. 19,298 – JULY 24, 2008
FACTS: Respondent, who is admitted in Kansas but resides in Texas, wrote to the clerk of the appellate courts voluntarily surrendering his license to practice law in Kansas pursuant to SCR 217. At the time he sent the letter, a formal disciplinary hearing had been held and respondent was awaiting the decision of the panel. The formal complaint alleged violations of KRPCs 8.4(c) (misconduct involving deception), 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (misconduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law) based on respondent's conviction of nine counts of violating a court's no stalking order and one count of computer trespass.
HELD: The Court examined the Disciplinary Administrator's files and found that the surrender should be accepted and respondent disbarred.
IN RE STEPHEN J. JONES
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,884 – JUNE 27, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was admitted in Kansas in 1968 and practiced in Wichita. He was the appointed administrator in a probate case that was opened in 1998. By 2000, all the property had been liquidated and all the debts paid. However, respondent took no action to prepare the final accounting to close the estate and distribute the proceeds to the heirs, who contacted him many times over the next several years. Finally, an heir filed a disciplinary complaint in February 2006. Respondent then obtained a journal entry of final settlement in December 2006.
The hearing panel found violations of KRPCs 8.1(b) (cooperating with the disciplinary investigation), 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (misconduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice) and SCRs 207 (cooperation with the disciplinary administrator) and 211(b) (failure to file answer to formal complaint). The panel found seven aggravating and three mitigating factors to be present and recommended suspension for two years.
HELD: Respondent filed exceptions to the findings facts and conclusions of rules violations. However, the Court found clear and convincing evidence to support the panel's determinations. With regard to the recommended sanction, the Court noted several instances of similar prior disciplinary offenses and imposed indefinite suspension.
IN RE REBECCA L. PILSHAW
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATING TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT PUBLIC CENSURE
NO. 100,060 – JUNE 27, 2008
FACTS: Respondent is currently a district court judge of the 18 th Judicial District of Kansas, Sedgwick County. A complaint was filed with the Commission on Judicial Qualifications concerning respondent's treatment of prospective jurors called for a criminal jury trial in May 2004. The commission held a public hearing on the matter and issued a final report, finding clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated Canons 2A (avoiding impropriety) and 3B(3) and (4) (performing judicial duties impartially and diligently) of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Respondent wrote to the Supreme Court stating that she would not file exceptions to the findings of fact or conclusions of violations but reserved her right to address the Court regarding the disposition.
HELD: The Court affirmed the uncontested findings of the commission and reviewed respondent's request for informal admonishment. However, the Court noted that respondent's actions negatively impacted the proper administration of justice in a felony criminal matter over which she presided and concluded that the appropriate discipline is public censure.
IN RE LEROY C. ROSE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE DISBARMENT
NO. 08,370 – JULY 24, 2008
FACTS: Respondent, a Garden City private practitioner, wrote to clerk of the appellate courts voluntarily surrendering his license to practice law pursuant to SCR 217. At the time of the surrender, there were six cases pending against respondent in the Disciplinary Administrator's office. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial