Appellate Decisions
| Citation | Vol. 92 No. 1 Pg. 44 |
| Publication year | 2023 |
| Pages | 44 |
Appellate Decisions
January, 2023
KANSAS SUPREME COURT
All opinion digests are available on the KBA website at www.ksbar.org/digests. 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 communication services at info@ksbar.org or at (785) 234-5696. For the full text of opinions, access the courts' website at www.kscourts.org.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT IN RE JEFFERY A. MASON
NO. 119,012 —OCTOBER 24, 2022
FACTS: In December 2016, Mason's license to practice law in Kansas was suspended for six months, followed by three years' probation. Mason's license was indefinitely suspended in September 2018, with a reinstatement hearing required before the suspension could be lifted. Mason filed a petition for reinstatement in October 2021. The hearing was held in July 2022 and resulted in the hearing panel recommending that Mason's suspension be lifted.
HELD: After careful consideration, the court accepts and adopts the hearing panel's findings and recommendations. Mason's petition for reinstatement is granted, subject to a term of three years of supervised probation. Mason must also pay all outstanding fees and complete all continuing legal education requirements.
NINETY-DAY SUSPENSION IN RE FORREST A. LOWRY
NO. 125,160 —DECEMBER 2, 2022
FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Lowry violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 3.2 (expediting litigation); and 8.4 (professional misconduct). A complaint arose after Lowry was appointed to represent an indigent defendant in a K.S.A. 601507 proceeding but took no action to perfect the appeal and did not communicate with his client. Lowry was also found to have provided prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel to a client charged with serious felonies.
HEARING PANEL: Lowry stipulated to the violations and explained that he had taken on too much work during the time in question. The panel noted significant consequences for Lowry's clients and cited aggravating circumstances of prior disciplinary offenses and a pattern of misconduct. Mitigating circumstances included the absence of a selfish motive, Lowry's cooperation with the disciplinary process, and physical and mental illnesses. The hearing panel approved Lowry's proposed probation plan and unanimously recommended a 90-day suspension that is stayed while Lowry serves a three-year term of probation.
HELD: There were no exceptions to the hearing panel report, so it is deemed admitted. The court issued discipline of a 90-day suspension, stayed for a period of three years while Lowry is on probation. That term of probation began on January 15, 2021, when Lowry began voluntary compliance with his probation plan.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT IN RE CURTIS N. HOLMES
NO. 118,310 —DECEMBER 2, 2022
FACTS: In May 2018, Holmes was suspended from the practice of law for one year after he continued to practice even after being suspended for failing to pay his annual registration fee. Holmes petitioned for reinstatement in May 2019. A reinstatement hearing was held in May 2022.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found that Holmes purposely minimized the wrongful nature of his conduct, referring to it as "mistakes of omission." The panel also found that Holmes continued to engage in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended. Both the disciplinary administrator and the hearing panel asked that Holmes' petition for reinstatement be denied.
HELD: The court disagreed with the hearing panel's finding that Holmes engaged in the practice of law while suspended. Holmes' act of discussing the potential of future representation is not the practice of law. The hearing panel gave great weight to this factor when recommending denial of Holmes' petition. Because that finding was wrong, and in light of the evidence as a whole, the court grants Holmes' petition for reinstatement.
ORDER OF DISBARMENT IN RE SHAYLA C. JOHNSTON
NO. 124,718 —DECEMBER 2, 2022
FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Johnston violated KRPC 1.1 (competence); 1.2(d) (scope of representation); 1.7(a) (conflict of interest); 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 3.3(a)(1) (candor to the tribunal); 3.4(c) and (f) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 3.5(d) (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal); 3.6(a) (trial publicity); 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others); 4.2 (communication with a person represented by counsel); 4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons); 8.2(a) (judicial and legal officials); and 8.4(c), (d), and (g) (professional misconduct. These complaints arose over a long period of time and began with Johnston's high-conflict divorce and child custody arrangement. It escalated to involve family law matters in general and involved repeated...
To continue reading
Request your trial