Appellate Decisions
| Citation | Vol. 84 No. 5 Pg. 34 |
| Pages | 34 |
| Publication year | 2015 |
Supreme Court
Attorney Discipline
THREE-YEAR PROBATION IN RE LOUIS M. CLOTHIER ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 112,658—MARCH 6, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Clothier, of Leavenworth, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1981. Clothier's ethical complaints involved his representation in domestic matters, his conduct toward opposing counsel, and also his threatening actions toward a district court judge following an adverse ruling.
PANEL HEARING: On July 10, 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 17, 2014. The parties entered into written stipulations of facts. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on August 18, 2014, where the respondent was personally present and was 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); 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) (communication with client); 3.5(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 626) (communication with a judge without delivering copy in writing to adverse counsel); 3.5(d) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal); 8.2(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 677) (statements about judges and legal officials); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law). The hearing panel unanimously recommended that Clothier be granted probation.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that Clothier be suspended for six months.
HELD: Court held the evidence before the hearing panel established by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct. Court found Clothier developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of probation. Court concluded that Clothier should receive three years' probation.
90-DAY SUSPENSION AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENT IN RE TIMOTHY H. HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATING TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT NO. 112,056 — FEBRUARY 27, 2015
FACTS: This is an original disciplinary proceeding against Henderson, district judge of the 18th Judicial District, sitting in Sedgwick County (respondent). The matter was investigated by Panel A of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications (Commission), following which that panel docketed a formal complaint against respondent and gave due notice. The complaint alleged three counts of judicial misconduct constituting various violations of Canons 1 and 2 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code) involving sexual harassment by the respondent of female attorneys and influencing others to obtain employment for his wife.
KANSAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS: After being served with the Notice of Formal Proceedings, respondent timely filed an Answer, in which he denied that his conduct violated the Code. The matter was then set for a public hearing before Panel B of the Commission (the hearing panel). At the hearing, the Commission's investigating attorney presented evidence and argument in support of the formal complaint and respondent's attorney presented evidence and argument on his behalf. Subsequently, the hearing panel found Code violations under all three counts and recommended that respondent be disciplined by public censure. Respondent did not file exceptions to the Panel's findings of facts and conclusions of law.
HELD: Court stated that a judge who sexually harasses female attorneys and staff members, who uses his judicial office to harm the law practice of an attorney with whom the judge disagrees on moral issues, and who uses his judicial office for personal gain by trying to influence whether his wife is offered a job has fallen well short of those highest standards. Such improprieties are precisely the type of misconduct that can undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary. Court held that respondent shall be suspended from his judicial duties for a period of 90 days without pay, commencing within 10 days of the filing of this opinion. Court also ordered that respondent shall, within one year of this opinion, satisfactorily complete a course in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation prevention training and one or more educational programs on the employment law applicable to such conduct and shall file a report with this court within that one-year period, detailing the training and program(s) completed. Last, Court ordered that respondent shall be prohibited from accepting any position in the 18th Judicial District that involves the supervision of any judicial branch employee, other than his chambers staff, for a period of two years following completion of the above-described educational requirement.
THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION, WHICH IS STAYED DURING PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE YEARS IN THE MATTER OF JAMES E. RUMSEY ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 112,923 —FEBRUARY 27, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Rumsey, of Lawrence, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1972. Rumsey's ethical problems involve his appointment in a felony DUI case and his treatment and offensive comments to the prosecutors, and also his representation of evidence during his complaint proceeding.
HEARING PANEL: On April 8, 2014, the office of the disciplinary administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). On June 17, 2014, the respondent filed a motion to answer out of time, which was granted, and he filed an answer on June 20, 2014. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 1-2, 2014, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 3.5(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 626) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal); 8.1(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) (false statement in connection with disciplinary matter); 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). The hearing panel recommended that the respondent should be disciplined by published censure.
DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR: The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of two years. The disciplinary administrator indicated that the respondent needed a "period of time to reflect upon his conduct." The disciplinary administrator also argued that the respondent engaged in deceitful conduct. The respondent recommended published censure.
HELD: Court held the hearing panel established by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct violations. Court stated that respondent's undignified and discourteous conduct degrading a tribunal is an echo of previous disciplinary complaint hearings, so Court felt that published censure was not appropriate discipline. Court felt that a simple suspension would not serve the respondent's best interests in rehabilitation, but decided sua sponte to impose a three-year suspension, and stayed imposition of that discipline and placed respondent on probation for a three-year period. Court ordered respondent to submit a plan of probation to the disciplinary administrator, including, at a minimum, mental health therapy, some level of practice supervision, and a requirement to immediately self report any violation of the KRPC.
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION IN THE MATTER OF LUCAS L. THOMPSON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE NO. 112,569— FEBRUARY 27, 2015
FACTS: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the disciplinary administrator against the respondent, Thompson, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2008. Thompson's ethical problems involve his licensure, his representation of a bank client tied to his estranged wife, and a bankruptcy client.
HEARING PANEL: On May 12, 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 June 9, 2014. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on July 1, 2014, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) (communication); 8.4(g) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law); 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2014 Kan...
To continue reading
Request your trial