Case Title: In Re Tuley

Citation: 258 Kan. 762

Docket Number: 74,183

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
258 Kan. 762 (1995)
In the Matter of CHARLES M. TULEY, Respondent.
No. 74,183

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 8, 1995.
Stanton A. Hazlett, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Marty M. Snyder, deputy disciplinary administrator, and Mark F. Anderson, disciplinary administrator, were with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
John J. Ambrosio, of John J. Ambrosio, Chartered, of Topeka, argued the cause for the respondent, and Charles M. Tuley, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Charles M. Tuley, of Atchison, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. A hearing was held before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. The respondent appeared in person and was represented by his attorney, John J. Ambrosio. The parties stipulated to the admission of all exhibits, stipulated that the respondent was in violation of the allegations as contained in the formal complaint, and further stipulated that the respondent was in violation of MRPC 1.5 (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306) in that his fee charged to a client was unreasonable. The panel entered the following findings and conclusions.
Findings:
Conclusions:
The panel report included the following concerning aggravation, mitigation, and recommendations.
Aggravation:
Mitigation:
*764 Recommendations:
Panel member Philip Ridenour submitted a dissenting report. Ridenour concluded, based upon the stipulated facts, that the respondent's fees were not only excessive but also amounted to theft. Based upon this conclusion, Ridenhour recommended that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. Ridenour also noted that the work performed by the respondent had no value to the estate. He noted that the respondent had incorrectly listed the legal descriptions of parcels of real estate in the inventory and valuation, thereby assuring future title problems. Moreover, the *765 respondent had incorrectly handled the state death tax credit in preparing the Kansas inheritance tax return and had elected a special use value treatment when it should have been obvious that the estate could not possibly qualify. Finally, Ridenour concluded that the respondent was more concerned with his fee than with representation of his client and that his expressed remorse was for himself rather than his client.
We have reviewed the record, the majority and minority panel reports, the stipulations of the parties, and the arguments and statements made during oral argument. We conclude that the panel's factual findings and conclusions of law are supported by clear and convincing evidence. The respondent's fee in the Mauzey estate was in violation of MRPC 1.5. We, like the majority of the panel, are mystified why the respondent charged such an excessive and unreasonable fee in the estate of Helen I. Mauzey. The court agrees with the majority panel report that the respondent charged his client an excessive and unreasonable fee in violation of MRPC 1.5. The court also recognizes that the respondent has entered into an agreement to repay the Mauzey estate the sum of $53,788 over a period of time. However, the court remains divided on an appropriate sanction. A majority of this court, recognizing the agreement to repay, agrees with the recommendation that censure be imposed and that the court direct publication of this censure. A minority would impose a more severe sanction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent, Charles M. Tuley, be censured for violating MRPC 1.5 and that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent abide by the terms of his agreement to refund that portion of the fee agreed upon to the client. The costs of the proceeding are assessed to the respondent.