Appellate Decisions
| Jurisdiction | Kansas,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 82 No. 3 Pg. 38 |
| Pages | 38 |
| Publication year | 2013 |
SUPREME COURT
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
DISBARMENT
IN RE ROGER BATT
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 108,524 — JANUARY 11, 2013
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Roger Batt, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1991. Respondent's disciplinary proceeding involved his representation of an inmate in a probate case, two termination of parental rights cases, a guardianship, a post-divorce child custody matter, a child in need of care matter, and a bankruptcy. Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a diversion agreement and complaints were filed with the disciplinary administrator.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on May 15, 2012, at which the respondent appeared pro se. 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); 1.16(a)(3) and (d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. An-not. 535) (termination of representation); 3.2 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 552) (expediting litigation); 8.4(d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. An-not. 618) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 314) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation). Hearing panel stated that respondent knew that he was not performing the services requested by his clients and required for adequate representation. The respondent did nothing to remedy the situation. Hearing panel unanimously recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The recommendation changed after respondent failed to appear.
HELD: Court adopted the hearing panel's conclusions. Court found that respondent received adequate notice of all hearings in this case and did not appear before the Court. Due to that failure, Court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IN RE MICHAEL E. FOSTER
NO. 105,458 — JANUARY 18, 2013
FACTS: On August 19, 2011, Court suspended the respondent, Michael E. Foster, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of six months. See In re Michael E. Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 258 P.3d 375 (2011). On June 15, 2012, Foster filed a petition with Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas.
HELD: Court, after carefully considering the record and the disciplinary administrator's finding that the respondent met all requirements set forth by Court, granted the respondent's petition for reinstatement 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.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION
IN RE MARK A. GALLOWAY
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 108,648 — JANUARY 11, 2013
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Mark A. Galloway, of Hayesville, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2003. The respondent's disciplinary matter involved his estate practice and arrangement with life insurance companies and the creation of trusts using the life insurance with short term financing secured for the premium of the first year of the policies.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on May 2, 2012, at which the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.2(d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 428) (scope of representation); 1.7(a)(2) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (conflict of interest); 4.1(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 581) (truthfulness in statements to others); and 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation). Hearing panel stated that the seriousness of respondent's misconduct — active participation in a fraud — calls for serious consequences. Hearing panel unanimously recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of one year.
HELD: Court found the hearing panels' findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Court held that it was in the best interest of the public and the respondent to have a two-year suspension followed by a full reinstatement hearing at which respondent would present the following: (1) a psychological evaluation that addresses whether respondent suffers from any condition that would impede his ability to practice law effectively; (2) such other documentation as shall be requested by the disciplinary administrator's office; and (3) a plan of probation under which respondent's law practice will be supervised by an attorney acceptable to the disciplinary administrator.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION
IN RE MEGAN LEIGH HARRINGTON
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 107,752 — JANUARY 11, 2013
FACTS: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed against the respondent Megan Leigh Harrington, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2004. The respondent's disciplinary matter involved her entering a guilty plea to battery (misdemeanor), driving under the influence of alcohol (misdemeanor), and obstruction of official duty (misdemeanor) after she struck another vehicle on the highway while under the influence of alcohol and cocaine.
HEARING PANEL: The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing on February 22, 2012, at which the respondent was present and represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined respondent violated KRPC 8.4(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (commission of a "criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's ... fitness as a lawyer"). The hearing panel recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against respondent on January 6, 2012, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC), and respondent answered the complaint on January 30, 2012. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.
HELD: Court agreed with the panel's conclusion that respondent failed to fully acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct. Court found respondent's failure to submit and implement a workable probation plan prevented the panel from recommending her for probation. Court agreed with the disciplinary administrator that given the gravity of and potential harm from respondent's actions, a period of two-year suspension was appropriate. After three months, Court said it would suspend the remaining 21 months if respondent met a list of drug treatment requirements.
DISBARMENT
IN RE STEVEN D. ROSEL
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 14,325 — DECEMBER 19, 2012
FACTS: In a letter signed on December 17, 2012, addressed to the clerk of the appellate courts, respondent Steven D. Rosel, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas. At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a complaint had been docketed by the disciplinary administrator's office alleging that respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (competence); 1.5 (2011 Kan Ct. R. Annot. 470) (fees); 1.7 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (conflict of interest: current clients); 1.8 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 494) (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules); 1.9 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 502) (conflict of interest: duties to former client); 1.16 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (declining or terminating representation); and 8.4(a), (d), and (e) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (misconduct).
HELD: Court examined the files of the office of the disciplinary administrator and found that the surrender of the respondent's license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred as of December 19, 2012.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IN RE DAVID G. SHRIVER
NO. 107,697 — JANUARY 18, 2013
FACTS: On June 22, 2012, Court suspended the respondent, David G. Shriver, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of six months. See In re David G. Shriver, 294 Kan. 617, 278 P.3d 964 (2012). On January 8, 2013, Shriver filed a petition with Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas.
HELD: Court, after carefully considering the record and the disciplinary administrator's finding that the respondent met all requirements set forth by Court, granted the respondent's petition for reinstatement 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.
DISBARMENT
IN RE ROBERT M. TELTHORST
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 12,823 — DECEMBER 19, 2012
FACTS: In a letter received by the clerk of the appellate courts on December 11, 2012, respondent Robert M. Telthorst, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas. On October 21, 2011...
To continue reading
Request your trial