Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2013 |
| Pages | 37 |
| Citation | Vol. 82 No. 2 Pg. 37 |
SUPREME COURT
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION IN RE CRAIG E. COLLINS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 108,097–NOVEMBER 30, 2012
FACTS: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Craig E. Collins, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1988. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on January 25, 2012, when the respondent was personally present. Collins' conduct involved overdrafts on his attorney trust account and the resulting investigation, and also his failure to properly prepare tax returns.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence), 1.15(a) and (d)(1) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (safekeeping property and preserving client funds), 8.1(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 609) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority), 8.4(g) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 314) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation). In the first complaint, the panel found violations of the KRPC due to overdrafts on the respondent's attorney trust account and his failure to cooperate during the investigation of the overdrafts. In the second complaint, the panel found that the respondent violated the KRPC by not diligently preparing tax returns. The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of one year.
HELD: Court held there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent kept personal funds in his client trust account. He admits that he used personal funds to pay his continuing legal education (CLE) commission fees, his Kansas attorney registration fees, and fees to the Kansas Bar Association for attending a CLE all out of his trust account. Court also held that the panel's finding that Collins failed to cooperate is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Last, Court held that over a period of nine years respondent failed to perform legal services which resulted in his clients suffering an unnecessary and expensive tax seizure. Court concluded that a one-year suspension was the appropriate discipline, given the nature of respondent's offenses, as well as the undisputed findings that respondent failed to perform services for his clients and misused his client trust account.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT IN RE PAUL W. DWIGHT NO. 67,819 – DECEMBER 12, 2012
FACTS: On July 10, 1992, Court suspended the respondent, Paul W. Dwight, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of one year. See In re Dwight, 251 Kan. 588, 834 P.2d 382 (1992). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action and comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379). On November 20, 2012, the respondent filed a renewed petition for reinstatement with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.
HELD: Court, after carefully considering the record, granted the respondent's petition for reinstatement.
40-MONTH SUSPENSION, STAYED AFTER 12 MONTHS, WITH 28 MONTHS' SUPERVISED PROBATION
IN RE CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 108,207 – DECEMBER 7, 2012
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Christopher Y. Meek, of Baxter Springs, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1979. Meek had pled guilty to unlawfully possessing hydrocodone and had obtained the prescription medication from clients. Meek received two years' probation.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that respondent be disbarred. As justifications for the sanction of disbarment, the disciplinary administrator noted that the criminal offense occurred in the context of an attorney client relationship; the respondent exploited the attorney-client relationship for his personal reasons; the client was vulnerable; and the conduct was serious and implicated the client in criminal conduct.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on April 18, 2012, when the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.7(a)(2) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (conflict of interest: current clients) and 8.4(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (misconduct). The hearing panel recommended that respondent's license be suspended for one year and then based on certain conditions, the hearing panel recommended that respondent be placed on probation.
HELD: Court held the evidence before the hearing panel established the charged misconduct of Meek by clear and convincing evidence and supported the panel's conclusions of law. In considering
Appellate Decisions the seriousness of the offense, Court commented that it was especially troubled that respondent created a conflict of interest for personal gain and in doing so placed his client at risk. Court was also concerned about the safety of the public when the respondent resumes practicing law given the respondent's long-term issues with alcohol and drugs. Court concluded that a period of probation is appropriate to allow monitoring. A minority of the court would impose a shorter period of suspension and probation than imposed by the majority.
CIVIL
DRIVER'S LICENSE REVOCATION
SHRADER V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DECATUR DISTRICT COURT – REVERSED COURT OF APPEALS – AFFIRMED
NO. 103,176 – DECEMBER 14, 2012
FACTS: Officers saw Shrader's vehicle make a left turn without signaling and they also knew Shrader was driving on a suspended license. Officers stopped Shrader as he pulled into his driveway. Shrader got out of his vehicle and walked toward his house. Officers detected a moderate smell of alcohol on his breath. Shrader produced an expired license and expired proof of insurance. When backup arrived, officers asked Shrader to perform field sobriety tests. Officers told him he was not under arrest, but that driving while suspended in an arrestable offense. Shrader said for officers to take him in but officers tried to persuade him to take a field sobriety test and a preliminary breath test instead. Shrader declined. Officers arrested Shrader and at the station Shrader refused a breath test. KDOR revoked Shrader's driver's license. The district court affirmed Shrader's suspension. The Court of Appeals reversed.
ISSUE: Driver's license revocation
HELD: Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that the plain language of K.S.A. 8-1001(b) requires an arrest for an alcohol-related driving offense rather than simply requiring an arrest for any offense involving operation of a motor vehicle. Court held that under...
To continue reading
Request your trial