Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2012 |
| Pages | 38 |
| Citation | Vol. 81 No. 7 Pg. 38 |
July, 2012
All opinion digests are available on the KBA members-only website 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 email 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' website at www.kscourts.org for the full opinions.
Supreme Court
Attorney Discipline
ORDER OF DISBARMENT IN RE WILLAM BRUCE DAY NO. 13,556 — JUNE 8, 2012
FACTS: In a letter signed on June 7, 2012, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent William Bruce Day, of Kansas City, Mo., an attorney licensed in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371). At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a complaint had been docketed by the disciplinary administrator's office alleging the respondent violated Supreme Court Rule 207 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 314); and Rules 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); 3.2 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 552) (expediting litigation); 8.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 609) (bar admission and disciplinary matters) and 8.4(g) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (misconduct) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.
HELD: Court, having examined the files of the office of the disciplinary administrator, found that the surrender of the respondent's license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred effective June 8, 2012.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION IN RE KIMBERLY J. IRELAND ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 105,322 — MAY 25, 2012
FACTS: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against Kimberly J. Ireland an attorney admitted to the practice law in Kansas in 2005. On October 22, 2009, the office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against Ireland, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) related to her allegations and complaint against Judge Kevin Moriarty and his actions during Ireland's divorce from her husband Kevin Ireland.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that Ireland be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 615) (false statements concerning qualifications or integrity of judicial and legal officials). The hearing panel recommended that Ireland be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time.
HELD: Court stated the stipulated facts demonstrated a knowing violation of the respondent's professional duties. Granting that she was in great emotional distress during her divorce and the related physical suffering, writing letters and filing federal lawsuits surely are intentional, not negligent, acts. Court stated Ireland suggested that her behavior was "reckless" but that she did not intend to cause harm to Judge Moriarty or the legal system. It is not credible, however, to maintain that an attorney could file a disciplinary complaint and a civil law suit against an individual without understanding that those actions would cause harm to the individual. Court noted that Ireland's professional misconduct was not limited to a single instance but consisted of repeatedly making false accusations against a judge. Those allegations became a matter of public concern when they were set out in a lawsuit and were discussed in the media. Ireland subsequently acknowledged that most of her accusations were false, yet she continued to suggest that the real problem was her failure to document her accusations adequately. Court suspended Ireland from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for two years.
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION IN RE BRIAN R. JOHNSON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 106,792 — MAY 18, 2012
FACTS: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against Brian R. Johnson of Lawrence, an attorney admitted to the practice law in Kansas in 1988. On August 25, 2010, the office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against respondent, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) related to his representation of an arson suspect and her husband and his handling of a workers compensation matter while administratively suspended.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that Johnson be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of one year.
HEARING PANEL: The panel determined Johnson violated KRPC 1.7(a)(2) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (concurrent conflict of interest), KRPC 5.5(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) (unauthorized practice of law), Supreme Court Rule 208(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327) (failure to notify Clerk of change of address), and KRPC 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The panel recommended that Johnson be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of six months.
HELD: On the conflict of interest claim, Court held the KRPC does not permit an attorney to suffer a unilateral information embargo by one client to compromise his advice to or strategies on behalf of another concurrent client. This particular evidence demonstrates that there was not merely a substantial risk that Johnson's representation of one spouse would be materially limited by his representation of the other; the risk was fully realized. Court held there was clear and convincing evidence that Johnson practiced law while his license was administratively suspended. Court accepted the evidence of Johnson's fraudulent billing. Court stated it was especially alarmed by Johnson's inability to appreciate or unwillingness to accept the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest between his clients. His misrepresentations in his exceptions, brief, and oral argument were troubling. Court ordered a one-year suspension.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT IN RE JAMES M. ROSWOLD NO. 105,257 — MAY 10, 2012
FACTS: On April 22, 2011, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended James M. Roswold from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of one year. See In re Roswold, 292 Kan. 136, 249 P.3d 1199 (2011). Before reinstatement, Roswold was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action, comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379), and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 380). On March 23, 2012, Roswold filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the disciplinary administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.
HELD: The Kansas Supreme Court, after carefully considering the record, accepted the findings and recommendations that Ros-wold be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas. Roswold was reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When Roswold has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the clerk is directed to enter respondent's name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.
SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION IN RE DAVID G. SHRIVER ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 107,697 — JUNE 22, 2012
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, David G. Shriver, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1975. Shriver's ethical violations involved the funding of loans and collateral to finance his law practice and his personal living expenses and the probate of his father and mother's wills.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time.
HEARING PANEL: On September 2, 2011, the office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 3.3(a)(1) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 559) (candor toward tribunal); and 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation).
HELD: Court held the evidence before the hearing panel established the charged misconduct of the respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supported the panel's conclusions of law. Respondent filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. Court adopted the panel's conclusions.
Civil
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AND ADOPTION IN RE T.S.W. SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT — REVERSED NO. 104,424 — MAY 4, 2012
FACTS: D.R.W. identified two possible fathers for her pregnancy, one was J.A.L. Two months before the birth, D.R.W. decided to place her child for adoption. She contacted Adoption Centre of Kansas (Agency). J.A.L.'s mother gave notice that J.A.L. was a member of the Cherokee Nation (the Tribe)...
To continue reading
Request your trial