Appellate Decisions
| Jurisdiction | Kansas,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 77 No. 7 Pg. 36 |
| Pages | 36 |
| Publication year | 2008 |
July 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 bar 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 DWIGHT A. CORRIN
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
IN DISCIPLINE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NOS. 96,885 AND 99,494 — JUNE 6, 2008
FACTS: Respondent, a private practitioner in Wichita, was the subject of two disciplinary hearings. 'The first hearing arose from two separate client complaints and was uncontested. The panel found violations of KRPCs 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (communication) and SCR 207 (cooperation with the disciplinary administrator).
The panel recommended that a two-year suspension be stayed while respondent was placed on supervised probation subject to several terms and conditions.
While that case was pending before the Court, a hearing before the same panel members on a third complaint resulted in a rare interim order issued by the panel giving respondent the opportunity to disburse funds held in his trust account for more than a year. When the panel reconvened nearly five months later, respondent had not followed the directives of the order, and his trust account still held funds belonging to himself and 19 clients. The hearing panel found violations of KRPCs 1.4, 1.15(a) and (b) (safekeeping property), and 8.4(g) (misconduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) and SCR 207. Finding six aggravating and two mitigating factors, the panel recommended indefinite suspension, concluding that probation was no longer a viable option.
HELD: Respondent filed exceptions to some of the panel's findings. However, the Court found substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence for the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of rules violations and all the mitigating and aggravating factors. The Court adopted the panel's recommended sanction of indefinite suspension for both matters and further ordered respondent to pay out all client funds held in his trust account under the supervision of the disciplinary administrator's office.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER N. COWGER
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
DISBARMENT
NO. 99,955 — MAY 9, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner from Topeka. Three complaints resulted in a disciplinary hearing on allegations of multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). While the hearing panel's report was pending before the Kansas Supreme Court, respondent wrote to the clerk of the appellate courts voluntarily surrendering his license to practice law in Kansas pursuant to SCR 217
The hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence of violations of KRPCs 1.2(d) (scope of representation) when respondent assisted a client in engaging in criminal conduct by purchasing marijuana from his client; 1.4(a) (communication) when he failed to keep a client informed about the status of an expungement case, 1.7 (conflict of interest) when he used the attorney-client relationship to obtain illegal drugs, 1.8(b) (conflict of interest — prohibited transactions [prior to July 1, 2007]) when he abused information regarding his client, 1.15(a) (safekeeping property) when he placed unearned fees in his operating account rather than the trust account, 8.4(b) (criminal misconduct) when he purchased marijuana on 10 to 15 occasions from a client, and 8.4(g) (conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice) and SCR 207 for failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.
HELD: The Court examined the disciplinary administrator's files and found that the surrender should be accepted and respondent disbarred.
IN RE SUSAN L. HARRIS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,500 – MAY 16, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Kansas City, Mo. She was admitted in Missouri in 1995 and Kansas in 1996. However, her Kansas license was administratively suspended in 2003 for failure to complete annual registration requirements and has remained suspended.
Respondent was disbarred in Missouri in 2005 based on that jurisdiction's default rule. Although respondent wrote to the Kansas disciplinary administrator that she was filing a petition to set aside the Missouri order, she failed to do so. Eighteen months later, a formal complaint based on the Missouri disbarment was filed in Kansas, but respondent failed to appear at the Kansas hearing. Applying SCR 202 on reciprocal discipline, the hearing panel concluded she violated KRPCs 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 5.5 (unauthorized practice), all of which had been alleged in the underlying Missouri complaint, and 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and SCR 207 (cooperation with disciplinary administrator). The panel unanimously recommended disbarment.
HELD: Respondent did not file exceptions to the final hearing report and failed to appear before Kansas Supreme Court for oral argument. Despite the uncontested nature of the proceedings, the Court set aside the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law because they were based on substantive allegations of misconduct that were never considered, due to Missouri's default rule. Instead, the Court found respondent's statement that she intended to initiate a petition to set aside the default disbarment was false and violated KRPC 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The Court ordered indefinite suspension with a special condition that no petition for reinstatement be filed unless accompanied by proof of reinstatement in Missouri.
IN RE DIANE L. HILLBRANT
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,691 – MAY 16, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was admitted in Kansas in 1984 and is also admitted in Illinois with a registration address in Minnesota but is not admitted there. She also holds licenses to practice pharmacy in Kansas and Minnesota. Following a series of bizarre legal claims and correspondence with Minnesota businesses, she was charged with six counts of unauthorized practice of law in Minnesota in 2004, was convicted of five counts and was sentenced to 450 days in jail, a $5,000 fine and restitution exceeding $19,000. The convictions were upheld on appeal. The state of Illinois suspended her license for a total of one month.
The Kansas formal complaint was based on reciprocal discipline arising out of the Minnesota and Illinois proceedings and alleged violations of KRPCs 1.1 (competence), 4.1 (truthfulness), 4.2 (contact with represented persons), 5.5 (unauthorized practice), and 8.4(c) (deceit, fraud). Respondent filed an answer and appeared at the formal hearing, where she stipulated to the facts and rules alleged in the formal complaint.
The panel's final hearing report quotes extensively from the bogus legal demands respondent served in Minnesota. The panel found clear and convincing evidence of the rules alleged in the formal complaint, concluded that five mitigating and five aggravating factors were present and recommended indefinite suspension based on respondent's dishonest conduct.
HELD: No exceptions were filed. The Court accepted the uncontested findings of fact and conclusions of rules violations and adopted the recommended sanction.
IN RE DALE E. LOVELACE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,501 – MAY 16, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was admitted in Kansas in 1992, is also admitted in Missouri and practiced primarily in Kansas City, Mo. In 2005, the United States charged him with failure to pay income taxes. He pled guilty and served 12 months in prison. In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court suspended respondent from the practice of law, and he is now eligible to apply for reinstatement. At the Kansas hearing based on the federal and Missouri proceedings, the panel found respondent failed to pay income taxes for seven years and owes approximately $250,000 in taxes, interest, and penalties.
The panel found clear and convincing evidence of a KRPC 8.4(b) (criminal misconduct) violation and considered four aggravating factors and five mitigating factors. A majority rejected respondent's proposed probation plan and recommended definite suspension of six months. One member opined that the probation plan was the appropriate sanction.
HELD: Respondent filed exceptions to many of the panel's conclusions and recommendations. The Court found clear and convincing evidence to support the factual findings, the legal conclusion of a Rule 8.4(b) violation and the aggravating and mitigating factors as stated by the panel. However, in the interim, respondent was diagnosed with occupational and single episode depression for which he is on three daily medications. He has requested disability inactive status. The Court concluded indefinite suspension is the appropriate level of discipline, given the nature of the misconduct and the admitted present inability to practice. Ordinarily, a respondent must wait three years to apply for reinstatement from indefinite suspension, however, the Court expressly stated that respondent may apply for reinstatement in six months with specific conditions.
IN RE ROSIE M. QUINN
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION STAYED
NO. 99,295 — MAY 23, 2008
FACTS: Respondent, a private practitioner in Kansas City, Kan., faced a hearing on several allegations relating to mismanagement of her client trust account. An audit of the account revealed that she caused the deposit of a personal injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial