Appellate Decisions
| Jurisdiction | Kansas,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 91 No. 4 Pg. 42 |
| Pages | 42 |
| Publication year | 2022 |
July 2022.
Kansas Supreme Court
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
PUBLISHED CENSURE
IN RE R. JACOB JOHNSON NO. 124,619—MAY 6, 2022
FACTS: Johnson is licensed in both Kansas and Colorado. In 2019, he informed the disciplinary administrator's office of stipulated misconduct from Colorado. Johnson and the disciplinary administrator also stipulated to violations of KRPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act); and Rule 221 (discipline imposed in another jurisdiction—duty to report). The misconduct involved a conviction of misdemeanor assault in Colorado after Johnson assaulted his wife.
HEARING PANEL: Johnson received probation in his criminal case. His Colorado discipline involved a one-year suspension of his Colorado license, with all but five months stayed if he complied with the terms of his probation. Johnson received a written admonition from Missouri, where he has an inactive license. Johnson and the disciplinary administrator submitted an agreement showing that Johnson has received both therapy and substance abuse treatment since his arrest.
HELD: Johnson agreed to a summary submission statement and waived a hearing. Given the summary submission, the court accepted the factual statements as true. Johnson and the disciplinary administrator jointly recommended discipline of published censure. The court agreed that was the appropriate discipline.
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN RE JACQUELINE J. SPRADLING NO. 124,083—MAY 20, 2022
FACTS: A hearing panel for the Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that Spradling violated KRPC 1.1 (competence); 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions); 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal); 3.4(c) and (e) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters); and 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct). Allegations of misconduct arose during Spradling's prosecutions of Dana Chandler and Jacob Ewing, Chandler's direct appeal, and this disciplinary proceeding. Spradling served as lead prosecutor during Chandler's trial for two counts of first-degree murder and obtained a conviction. Chandler appealed, and her convictions were reversed because of Spradling's prosecutorial misconduct. During trial and in the State's appellate brief, Spradling insisted that one of the victims had a protection from abuse order against Chandler. However, during oral argument she conceded that no order existed. There were several other instances where Spradling was untruthful both to the jury and in her appellate brief. Spradling also served as lead prosecutor in Ewing's trial in which he was charged with committing numerous sex crimes against several individuals. Ewing's convictions were overturned on appeal, again based on Spradling's prosecutorial error.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found that Spradling violated her duty to the public and to the legal profession. She committed misconduct not only at trial but also during appeals and the disciplinary investigation, and her actions during Chandler's appeal exceeded negligence. Given the nature of the crimes that were reversed, Spradling's actions have long-lasting effects on many people and on the legal profession itself. The misconduct was knowingly and intentionally committed through a deliberate pattern. Given the violations, the disciplinary administrator recommended that Spradling's license be indefinitely suspended. Spradling asked that she receive no discipline. The hearing panel recommended that Spradling be disbarred.
HELD: The hearing panel's findings that Spradling violated KRPC 1.1 in both trials and 3.4(e) in the Ewing trial are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court specifically noted that the disciplinary administrator did not present any evidence about Spradling's conduct during the Ewing trial, instead relying on the Court of Appeals' opinion. But the panel's other findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, including misconduct based on Spradling's actions during the disciplinary investigation. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that the pattern of misconduct warranted disbarment.
DISSENT: (Wilson, J.): Spradling is one of the most skilled prosecutors in the state. She certainly made costly mistakes in these trials and should face discipline, but a sanction less severe than disbarment.
SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION
IN RE MICHAEL P. JAHN NO. 124,587—MAY 20, 2022
FACTS: In July 2021, Jahn and the disciplinary administrator entered into a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223: Summary Submission. The parties stipulated that Jahn violated KRPC 1.2(a) and (e) (scope of representation); 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of interest, current clients); 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others); 4.2 (communication with person represented by counsel); 8.4(a) (c) and (c) (misconduct) and 8.5 (jurisdiction). Jahn was initially licensed in 1997 but was inactive from October 2005 through March 2020 as his license was administratively suspended. After his license was reinstated, Jahn agreed to represent his romantic partner in an employment discrimination lawsuit in Nebraska. As part of that representation, Jahn sent a letter that had an untrue statement about earned attorney fees. Jahn also improperly contacted the opposing party rather than going through opposing counsel.
HEARING PANEL: Jahn's actions were attributable to improperly treated attention deficit disorder, a recent divorce and a volatile personal relationship. After submitting the summary submission agreement, Jahn and the disciplinary administrator jointly recommended a six-month suspension with three months stayed. Jahn also agreed to one year of probation, which included a KALAP monitoring agreement.
HELD: A hearing was waived as part of the summary submission statement, and the factual findings are deemed admitted. The summary submission establishes the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence. A majority of the court agreed that the proposed discipline was appropriate. A minority would have imposed more severe discipline.
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION, POSSIBILITY OF PROBATION
IN RE DONNA L. HUFFMAN NO. 123,280—MAY 27, 2022
FACTS: A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys concluded that Huffman violated KRPC 1.1 (competence); 3.1 (meritorious claims); 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal); 8.2 (judicial and legal officials); and 8.4 (misconduct). The violations arose during Huffman's representation of various clients in mortgage disputes. Various federal courts found that Huffman submitted onerous discovery requests, attempted to relitigate settled issues and failed to inform her clients of good faith settlement offers. After the settlement was rejected, Huffman's clients ended up paying more in penalties and attorney fees than their house was worth.
HEARING PANEL: When issuing its decision, the hearing panel found that the disciplinary administrator failed to prove violations of KRPC 3.2 and 3.4. The panel was concerned by Huffman's inability to evaluate the relative strength of her case and her lack of competence as a litigator. The hearing panel noted that Huffman's actions were not motivated by attempted personal gain; she really thought she was defending people who were being taken advantage of by large mortgage companies. But her actions directly resulted in her clients being assessed almost $300,000 in attorney fees and expenses. Huffman has refused to acknowledge any misconduct. The panel found some mitigating factors including Huffman's history of traumatic brain injury and depression. The disciplinary administrator recommended discipline of indefinite suspension. Huffman recommended a private admonition. A majority of the hearing panel recommended discipline of public censure. The dissenter recommended a 90-day suspension.
HELD: The court denied Huffman's attempts to present a video explaining her strategy in the underlying litigation. Huffman filed exceptions to the final hearing panel report. After considering the evidence, the court found clear and convincing evidence Huffman violated KRPC 1.1, 3.1 and 8.4. The court found insufficiently clear and convincing evidence that Huffman violated KRPC 3.5. When considering discipline, the court noted that Huffman continued to deny wrongdoing. A majority of the court concluded that a two-year suspension is the appropriate discipline, with the possibility of staying suspension after 90 days so long as Huffman agreed to a practice supervision plan approved by the disciplinary administrator. Either way, Huffman must complete a reinstatement hearing before returning to active practice. A minority of the court would have imposed harsher discipline.
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN RE GARY W. LONG, II NO. 124,812—JUNE 17, 2022
FACTS: Long was disbarred in 1998 after he surrendered his license while disciplinary complaints were pending. Seventeen years later, Long petitioned for reinstatement after taking and passing the bar for a second time. The court reinstated his license. Just over two years later, Long deposited unearned fees into his operating account. Multiple complaints followed, resulting in Long's stipulation that he violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.15 (safekeeping property); 8.1 (cooperation); 8.4(d) (professional misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 210(b) (cooperation). The misconduct arose during representation of clients in both civil and criminal contexts.
HEARING PANEL: The panel noted Long's violations included depositing unearned funds into his operating account, not returning phone calls, and not cooperating with the disciplinary process. The hearing panel noted Long's prior disbarment as well as other, less severe discipline. Other aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct and substantial experience in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial