Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2015 |
| Pages | 34 |
| Citation | Vol. 84 No. 7 Pg. 34 |
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IN RE JAMES T. BARKER II ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 112,967-JUNE 12, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Barker, of Blue Springs, Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1995. Barker's ethical problems involved his practice of law at a time when his license was suspended for failure to pay annual registration fees and that the location of his office on his letterhead was actually a UPS store.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On July 24, 2014, 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 did not file an answer. The disciplinary administrator recommended indefinite suspension.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 28, 2014, where the respondent did not appear. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 650) (unauthorized practice of law); 7.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 662) (communications concerning a lawyer's services); 7.5(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 669) (firm names and letterhead); 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 342) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 208(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356) (failure to notify Clerk of the Appellate Courts of change of address); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414) (notification of clients upon suspension). The hearing panel recommended indefinite suspension.
HELD: Court found that Barker failed to answer the complaint or appear at his disciplinary hearing. Court stated that when a respondent fails to appear before the Court when facing recommendations of indefinite suspension, a sanction greater than that recommended by the disciplinary administrator or panel, even up to disbarment, may be warranted. Certainly, the lack of an appearance at a hearing before this court qualifies as an additional aggravator of these circumstances under consideration. Court also noted that had the respondent been candid with the district court in December 2013 and followed through with the opportunity to clarify his licensing status at that time, this matter would not likely be before the Court at all today. Court held indefinite suspension to be appropriate in this case.
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN RE JAMES A. CLINE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 113,191 - JUNE 12, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Cline, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1990. Cline had been reinstated to the practice of law in 2011 and his current ethical issues involve his representation of a workers compensation/personal injury client.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On July 2, 2014, 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 July 30, 2014. Respondent also entered into a stipulation regarding rule violations. Disciplinary administrator recommended indefinite suspension.
HEARING PANEL: A consolidated hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on September 17, 2014, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) (communication); and 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent entered into stipulations regarding the rule violations. Hearing panel recommended suspension for two years.
HELD: Court found the evidence and stipulation established by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct. Court reiterated the sanctions imposed on Cline in 2009. Court acknowledged the compliance effort the respondent made at that time, which included an affidavit in which he swore: "I believe I am fully capable of practicing law without repeating the mistakes of my past." Court acknowledged, however, that respondent currently appeared on a complaint very similar to the ones leading to his 2009 suspension. Court adopted the disciplinary administrator's recommended sanction of indefinite suspension.
PUBLISHED CENSURE IN RE LARRY D. EHRLICH ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
NO. 113,200 - JUNE 12, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Ehrlich, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1974. Ehrlich's ethical issues involved his representation of a client in a workers compensation/personal injury case and his involvement with James Cline during a time when Cline was suspended from the practice of law.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On July 2, 2014, 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 July 18, 2014. Respondent also entered into a stipulation regarding rule violations. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Ehrlich's punishment be published censured.
HEARING PANEL: A consolidated hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on September 17, 2014, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) (communication); and 5.3 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance). The hearing panel recommended that Ehrlich's punishment be published censure.
HELD: Court found the evidence before the hearing panel established by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct. Court found published censure was appropriate. However, a minority of the Court would impose a more severe discipline.
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IN RE LAURENCE M. JARVIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 112,511 - MAY 1, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Jarvis, of Leawood, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1969. The ethical complaints against Jarvis involve his representation of clients in the area of contracts, probate, filing foreign judgment, and power of attorney. Jarvis was on a diversion agreement from prior complaints.
HEARING PANEL: A hearing was held on Jarvis' complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on June 25-26, 2014, where the respondent was personally present; he was not represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 456) (competence); 1.3 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 475) (diligence); 1.7(a)(2) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 531) (conflict of interest); 1.8(e) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 542) (providing financial assistance to client); 8.4(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Hearing panel unanimously recommended that Jarvis be indefinitely suspended.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: On March 24, 2014, 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 April 7, 2014. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Jarvis be disbarred.
HELD: Court stated that the respondent filed exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. At oral arguments, the respondent conceded that his only objection to the final hearing report was that his due process rights were violated when the Review Committee summarily terminated his diversion and reinstituted formal disciplinary proceedings on the other complaints. Court expressed no opinion as to the merits of Jarvis' due process argument. For the purposes of this proceeding, Court assumed, without deciding, that due process does not permit discipline to be imposed for the KRPC violations arising from the conduct that was subject to those complaints. Court was more concerned with the KRPC violations that the panel found the respondent committed in his representation of a certain client and a power of attorney. The conduct from which these violations arose was not subject to the diversion agreement. And the evidence before the hearing panel established by clear and convincing evidence that the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.7; 1.8; 8.4(c); and 8.4(d). Court adopted the panel's findings and conclusions.
A majority of the Court agreed with the hearing panel's recommendation that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. In particular, Court agreed with the hearing panel that the respondent's knowing, intentional disregard for the authority of the district court and of the client's temporary guardian and conservator was egregious. The respondent asked the court to consider that his actions were rooted in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial