Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2014 |
| Pages | 47 |
| Citation | Vol. 83 No. 10 Pg. 47 |
November, 2014
All opinion digests are available on the KBA members-only website at www.ksbar.org. We also send out a weekly newsletter 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 and market 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
DISBARMENT IN RE RICHARD DEAN DINKEL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 111,568 — SEPTEMBER 3, 2014
FACTS: In a letter dated August 26, 2014, addressed to the clerk of the appellate courts, respondent Dinkel, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 396). At the time the respondent surrendered his license, review was pending before the Kansas Supreme Court on the final hearing report in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 212 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375). The hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct when he failed to respond to information from a disciplinary authority; Rule 8.4(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) when he was convicted of two felonies and two misdemeanors involving dishonesty, trustworthiness, or fitness; Rule 8.4(c) when he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty; and Rule 211(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356) by failing to file an answer to the formal complaint.
HELD: Court, having examined the files of the office of the disciplinary administrator, found the surrender of the respondent's license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred. Court ordered Dinkel is disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law were revoked.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION
IN RE PAUL P. HASTY JR. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 111,365 — OCTOBER 10, 2014
FACTS: This is an uncontested original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Hasty, of Overland Park, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1976. Hasty's ethical complaint involved his representation of a defendant in a vehicle accident and the investigation, discovery he did or failed to do in the case, and his failure to communicate with his client.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on December 19, 2013, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) (diligence); 1.4(a) and (b) (2013 Kan. 2 Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 3.4(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 601) (failure to comply with discovery request); and 8.4(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of two years.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On October 28, 2013, 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 November 13, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation on some of the charged violations. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended.
HELD: The evidence before the hearing panel established by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct that respondent violated KRPC 1.3, (diligence); 1.4(a) and (b) (communication); 3.4(d) (frivolous discovery request); and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Court held its decision among potentially appropriate disciplinary sanctions in this case was driven by several considerations particular to respondent's behavior and situation. First, misconduct similar to that in which respondent engaged here was at the heart of two previous disciplinary incidents, one subject to diversion and another that led to public censure. These lesser responses were obviously inadequate to enforce respondent's promises to address the causes of the incidents. Second, the consequences of respondent's misconduct for his client in this case were extraordinarily severe. Finally, respondent's remarks at his hearing before the court were less than convincing on his acceptance of responsibility; he appeared to be more interested in taking issue with the panel's findings of violations than in acknowledging his fault and expressing his remorse. Court indefinitely suspended the respondent.
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN RE BRIAN R. JOHNSON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 111,423 — OCTOBER 10, 2014
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Johnson, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1988. Johnson's ethical complaints involved his failure to inform clients of his suspended license and false statements on Johnson's application for an insurance license.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 1, 2013, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.2(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 459) (scope of representation); 1.4(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 1.16(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 569) (termination of representation); 8.4(c) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 406) (notification of clients upon suspension). The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On August 15, 2013, 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 untimely filed an answer on September 25, 2013. On September 25, 2013, and September 29, 2013, the parties signed a written stipulation of facts. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time.
HELD: Court determined that the evidence before the hearing panel supported the panel's conclusions of law and clear and convincing evidence established that the respondent's misconduct violated KRPC 1.2(a); 1.4(a); 1.16(d); 8.4(c); 8.4(d), and Kansas Supreme Court Rules 211, 218(a). Court stated both the hearing panel and the disciplinary administrator's office ultimately recommended a sanction of indefinite suspension. Before making its final recommendation, the panel considered the sanction of disbarment. That consideration was appropriate, given that respondent has violated our rules of professional conduct multiple times over a period of many years, while also accumulating a number of suspensions for failing to comply with the administrative responsibilities required of every attorney. Accordingly, a minority of this court would disbar the respondent. But a majority of the court defers to the assessments of the panel and the disciplinary administrator's office that respondent's change in attitude warrants an indefinite suspension, in lieu of disbarment.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION IN RE MARK R. SINGER ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 111,047 — OCTOBER 10, 2014
FACTS: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Singer of Overland Park, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1975. Singer's ethical complaint involved his representation of a buyer in a multi-million dollar real estate transaction, its costs, subsequent default by buyer, and judgment against Singer.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on November 20, 2013, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 4.1(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 617) (truthfulness in statements to others) and 8.4(c) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation). The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On August 16, 2013, 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 September 9, 2013. On November 20, 2013, the parties entered into a written joint stipulation of facts. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of one year and following the period of suspension, the deputy disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent's practice be supervised for a period of two years.
HELD: Court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing panel, unamended by respondent's suggested additions in his exceptions and amended exceptions. Clear and convincing evidence—including, the parties' written joint stipulation and the Connecticut...
To continue reading
Request your trial