Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2008 |
| Pages | 30 |
| Citation | Vol. 77 No. 6 Pg. 30 |
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 PATRICK S. BISHOP
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,076 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Fort Scott who was admitted in 1979. Two different complaints were filed by the Fletchers, one involving a vehicular accident injuring Mr. Fletcher and one involving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order between Mrs. Fletcher and her former husband. In the personal injury matter, respondent filed a petition but failed to obtain service of process on the defendant. The court dismissed the matter in 2001 but respondent lied to his client regarding the status of the claim until 2005. In the post-divorce matter, respondent represented Mrs. Fletcher for 11 years but failed to prepare an acceptable order. He provided false excuses for the delay in that matter as well.
The hearing panel found respondent violated KRPCs 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (misconduct) and SCR 207 (failure to cooperate with disciplinary process). The panel found eight aggravating factors, including a diversion that counts as prior discipline in any subsequent proceedings, and three mitigating factors. Respondent requested probation, but the panel rejected his plan and recommended one-year definite suspension and proof of restitution prior to reinstatement. Respondent filed exceptions to some of the findings.
HELD: The Court reviewed the facts and found clear and convincing evidence to support the panel's findings of fact. The conclusions of rules violations were not in dispute. Respondent requested published censure, but the Court found the misconduct to be intentional rather than negligent and ordered indefinite suspension plus proof of restitution prior to reinstatement.
IN RE CHERIE N. CROW
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,202 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Prairie Village and was admitted in 1998. She was administratively suspended in October 2004 for failure to pay the attorney registration fee, complete the required hours of CLE, and pay the CLE fee. She has not been reinstated from that suspension.
In June 2004, a disciplinary complaint was filed against respondent. However, for the next three years she failed to respond to letters from the deputy disciplinary administrator, the Johnson County ethics and grievance committee investigator, and the disciplinary administrator's office's special investigator. A formal complaint was filed, but respondent failed to respond and failed to attend the disciplinary hearing. The panel concluded that she violated KRPC 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and SCR 207 (cooperating with disciplinary process) and recommended indefinite suspension.
HELD: Respondent failed to appear for oral argument. The Court adopted the panel's undisputed findings of fact and conclusions of law and imposed indefinite suspension.
IN RE TROY L. DAUGHERTY
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
NO. 99,467 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Olathe and was admitted in 1990; he is also admitted in Illinois and Missouri. In a case of reciprocal discipline, a formal complaint was filed in Kansas based on disciplinary proceedings in Illinois and Missouri. At the Kansas hearing, respondent disputed the findings of the Illinois disciplinary hearing panel. The Illinois complaint was based on a $15,000 car loan respondent obtained from a bank. However, he failed to purchase the intended car, purchased a different car for $10,000, spent the extra $5,000 and defaulted on most of the loan. He later lied about the transaction in bankruptcy proceedings, in which the bank claimed the $15,000 was obtained fraudulently and inexplicably claimed an additional $18,000 in attorneys fees for attempting to collect the $9,000 balance on the loan.
The Illinois panel considered the facts and found violations of seven rules and considered mitigating and aggravating factors, including a prior published censure in Kansas. The panel recommended a suspension of one year with reinstatement conditioned on proof of payment of restitution to the bank. Subsequently, the Missouri Supreme Court adopted the Illinois findings and suspended respondent's license for one year with no reinstatement until restitution is made. The Kansas panel noted that SCR 202 provides that a final adjudication in another jurisdiction conclusively establishes the misconduct for Kansas proceedings. The panel proceeded to compare the Illinois rules to their Kansas counterparts and found violations of KRPCs 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (misconduct). Based on the severity of the misconduct that amounted to bank fraud, the panel departed from recommending the reciprocal discipline requested by respondent and the disciplinary administrator and recommended indefinite suspension.
HELD: The Court observed that normally in cases of reciprocal discipline the sanction in Kansas is also the same. However, a majority concurred with the hearing panel's recommendation due to respondent's misconduct. A minority of the Court would impose an even harsher sanction and disbar respondent.
IN RE STEPHEN D. HARRIS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE DEFINITE
SUSPENSION OF THREE MONTHS
NO. 99,294 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent is a private practitioner in Topeka who was admitted in 1993. He faced a disciplinary hearing on two counts. One involved his failure to file a bankruptcy petition after falsely telling his client he had the special login and password required for electronic bankruptcy case filing, and the other involved his failure to file responses to discovery requests and to respond to a dispositive motion in his representation of two defendants in a civil case. Judgment was entered against his clients for nearly a $250,000, but he failed to inform them. When they learned of the judgment, they fired respondent and retained other counsel. The judgment was eventually set aside.
At the disciplinary hearing, respondent stipulated to the facts and the rules violations as alleged in the formal complaint. The panel found clear and convincing evidence that he violated KPRCs 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.4 (discovery), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (misconduct) and SCR 207 (cooperation with the disciplinary process). The hearing panel considered six aggravating and six mitigating factors and recommended definite suspension of three months.
HELD: The Court adopted the uncontested factual and legal findings, and a majority agreed with the panel's recommended discipline, although a minority would impose a longer suspension.
IN RE CLYDE E. LEE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
DISBARMENT
NO. 99,348 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was admitted in Kansas in 1978 but never engaged in the practice of law in Kansas. In 1987 he was administratively suspended for failure to comply with the annual licensing requirements, and his license remains suspended. Respondent was admitted to practice in Texas in 1979 and continued to practice there until 2006. During respondent's years of practice in Texas, he was disciplined for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct on five occasions but failed to report this information to Kansas disciplinary authorities.
Respondent failed to cooperate in the Kansas investigation, failed to answer the formal complaint, and failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing. Pursuant to SCR 202, the panel found the final adjudications in Texas to be conclusive evidence for purposes of the Kansas disciplinary proceedings. In reviewing the Texas records, the panel found violations of KRPCs 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (returning unearned fees paid), 1.16 (terminating representation), 5.5 (nonlawyer assistants), and 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and 207 (failure to cooperate) and SCR 211 (failure to answer formal complaint). The panel found seven aggravating factors and no circumstances in mitigation. The Disciplinary Administrator's Office requested indefinite suspension, but the panel noted respondent's noncompliance with the Kansas rules and recommended disbarment.
HELD: No exceptions were filed and respondent failed to appear for oral argument, so the Court adopted the panel's undisputed findings of fact and conclusions of rules violations. The Court further adopted the panel's recommended disciplinary sanction.
IN RE JEFFREY T. PITTMAN
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
DISBARMENT
NO. 99,409 — MARCH 28, 2008
FACTS: Respondent was a private practitioner in Galena and was admitted in 2001. However, his license was suspended in October 2006 for failure to renew his annual registration. That administrative suspension remains in effect.
Respondent failed to appear for a disciplinary hearing held in June 2007. The formal complaint alleged he violated several rules of professional conduct in his representation of a client in a post-divorce child custody matter and in two matters involving his own criminal misconduct. The panel found violations of KRPCs 1.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial