Appellate Decisions
| Jurisdiction | Kansas,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 81 No. 8 Pg. 38 |
| Pages | 38 |
| Publication year | 2012 |
Supreme Court
Attorney Discipline
SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION IN RE STEPHEN W. FREED ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 107, 314 — JUNE 29, 2012
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Stephen W. Freed, of Manhattan, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1985. Freed's unethical conduct involved his appointment as executor of a will and subsequent conduct.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On June 23, 2011, the office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The disciplinary administrator recommended that respondent be suspended for three months.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 6, 2011, at which the respondent was personally present and not represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (competence); 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); and 1.15 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (safekeeping property). The hearing panel recommended public censure.
HELD: Court found hearing panel's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Court held that after thoroughly reviewing the hearing panel proceedings, a six-month suspension was more appropriate and based further on respondent's continued procrastination in his dealings with this court and the disciplinary administrator following the hearing panel's report. The court noted respondent failed to provide the disciplinary administrator with the results of his psychological evaluation until just shortly before the oral argument, even though the report had been prepared months earlier. In addition, respondent submitted a proposed revised probation plan just minutes before the court convened to consider his case. These acts underscore the misconduct that led to the disciplinary complaint and weigh against the published censure with conditions recommended by the hearing panel majority. Court was encouraged by respondent's continued efforts toward rehabilitation and improved practice management. The Court believed respondent should have an opportunity to be reinstated after the first three months of suspension.
EIGHTEEN-MONTHS' SUPERVISED PROBATION IN RE DAVID K. LINK ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 107,751 — JULY 6, 2012
FACTS: This an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against David K. Link, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1999. Three separate disciplinary complaints were docketed between March and November 2009 against the respondent. Each of the complaints was filed by, or on behalf of, a client of the respondent who had been seeking immigration benefits or involved in immigration removal proceedings.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); and 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation and reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law). Despite the conclusion that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c) (misconduct), the hearing panel was struck by the respondent's integrity as observed by the hearing panel during the hearing on the formal complaint. As a result, the hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. The hearing panel further recommended that the imposition of the suspension be suspended and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of18 months, subject to various terms and conditions.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On January 3, 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 respondent filed an answer on January 25, 2011. On February 24, 2011, the respondent filed a proposed plan of probation. A hearing based on stipulated facts was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on December 6, 2011, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The deputy disciplinary administrator recommended that the hearing panel recommend that the respondent be suspended for a period of six months. Additionally, the deputy disciplinary administrator recommended that the imposition of the suspension be suspended and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 18 months.
HELD: Court concluded the hearing panel's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the hearing panel's conclusions of law regarding aggravating and mitigating factors were supported by the facts. Court stated the hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, that the imposition of the suspension be suspended, and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 18 months, subject to specified terms and conditions. Court accepted the hearing panel's recommendation of probation with the modification to the probation plan requested by the office of the disciplinary administrator.
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION IN RE UZO L. OHAEBOSIM ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 107,680 — JUNE 29, 2012
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Uzo L. Ohaebosim, of Kansas City, Mo., an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2003. Ohaebosim's unethical conduct involved client funds in unauthorized accounts, communication with clients, and compliance with attorney diversion program.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent on August 8, 2011, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended for no more than a year and that the respondent undergo a reinstatement hearing so that the respondent can have a plan of probation in place that would address his difficulties.
HEARING PANEL: A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing on the complaint on October 13, 2011, at which the respondent appeared in person and by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (competence); 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); 1.15(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (safekeeping property); 1.16(d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (termination of representation); 8.1(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 609) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority); Kansas Supreme Court Rules 207(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 314) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); and 211(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). The hearing panel was concerned by the respondent's misconduct as well as his approach to the attorney disciplinary case. First, the respondent practiced law in violation of the Kansas Supreme Court's order suspending the respondent's license. Second, the hearing panel had the opportunity [to] observe the respondent during the hearing. The respondent appeared to the hearing panel unconcerned about the pending attorney disciplinary case. Finally, the disciplinary administrator worked out a diversion agreement for the respondent regarding the first three disciplinary complaints. The respondent failed to take advantage of this opportunity by complying with the diversion agreement. Conversely, the respondent's total disregard to his obligations under the diversion agreement clearly establish the respondent's lack of interest in doing what it takes to be an attorney in good standing in Kansas. The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.
HELD: Court found the hearing panel's findings of fact were not objected to and were deemed admitted. Court held the respondent's failure to take advantage of the diversion agreement and his substantial disregard of his obligations under that agreement, as well as the seriousness of respondent's misconduct during the pendency of the diversion agreement, convince this court that the panel's recommended six-month suspension is an insufficient sanction in this case. Court held the appropriate sanction is a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
DISBARMENT IN RE STEPHEN R. ROBINSON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 107,311 — JUNE 29, 2012
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Stephen R. Robinson, of Lawrence, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1986. Respondent filed a motion to continue a formal hearing to allow him time to transfer his license to disabled inactive status but did not follow through with that transfer and failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. Respondent's unethical conduct involves the commingling of funds and spending clients' funds for personal use.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that respondent be disbarred.
HEARING PANEL: On December 13, 2011, a hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. Respondent was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial