Case Title: In re of Luttrell.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 105,339 
 
In the Matter of GILLIAN LUTTRELL, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Indefinite suspension.   
 
Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
No appearance by respondent. 
 
Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Gillian Luttrell, of Overland Park, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2006. On October 18, 2010, the 
respondent's license to practice law was administratively suspended by the Supreme 
Court for failure to pay the attorney registration fee for 2010; failure to fulfill the 
minimum continuing legal education requirements; and failure to pay the continuing legal 
education annual fee, late filing fee, and noncompliance fee. 
 
 
On September 21, 2010, 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 failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. A 
hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys on October 28, 2010. The respondent failed to appear at this hearing. The 
hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
422) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 441) (communication); 1.15(b) (2010 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 505) (safekeeping property); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) 
2 
 
(2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 308) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); and 
Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327) (failure to file answer 
in disciplinary proceeding). Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the 
following findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to 
this court: 
 
"FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
. . . . 
 
"2. 
On October 18, 2010, the Kansas Supreme Court entered an order 
suspending the Respondent's license to practice law in the State of Kansas for failing to 
pay the annual registration fee, for failing to fulfill the minimum continuing legal 
education requirements, and for failing to pay the continuing legal education annual fee, 
late filing fee, and noncompliance fee. 
 
"DA10788 
 
 
"3. Dennis Moore retained the Respondent to defend him in a civil matter filed in 
the Douglas County District Court, T&J Holdings v. Jeff S. Ayers, Jason L. Ayers, Crystal 
L. Reischmen, Leah Chaffin, Dennis Moore, case number 08LM799, before the 
Honorable Paula B. Martin. 
 
 
"4. Plaintiff's counsel served the Respondent's client with requests for discovery. 
The Respondent failed to respond to the requests for discovery. Plaintiff's counsel filed a 
motion to compel and a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's counsel provided 
notice of the hearing, scheduled for November 21, 2008, to the Respondent. While the 
Respondent responded to the motion to compel, she failed to appear at the hearing. The 
court contacted the Respondent and learned that the Respondent had neglected to record 
the hearing on her calendar. As a result, the court rescheduled the hearing to December 
19, 2008. 
 
 
"5. On December 19, 2008, the Respondent appeared and informed the court and 
counsel that her client had been in an accident and was currently in a coma. The 
Respondent believed that her client would be sufficiently recovered to assist with 
3 
 
discovery by February. The Respondent agreed to respond to discovery within 15 days of 
her client's release from the hospital unless a doctor confirmed that he was not yet able to 
do so. 
 
 
"6. Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly attempted to communicate with the Respondent 
regarding Mr. Moore's condition to no avail. The Respondent failed to keep plaintiff's 
counsel apprised of Mr. Moore's condition or request for additional time to respond to 
discovery. 
 
 
"7. Eventually, on April 6, 2009, plaintiff's counsel set the motion for summary 
judgment for hearing on April 17, 2009, and provided the Respondent with notice of the 
hearing. The Respondent, again, failed to appear in court. 
 
 
"8. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered 
judgment for the plaintiff against the Respondent's client in the amount of $3,317, plus 
interest and costs. 
 
 
"9. On May 4, 2009, Judge Martin filed a complaint against the Respondent. 
The Respondent filed a response to the complaint, admitting her lack of diligence.  
 
"DA11013 
 
 
"10. On April 17, 2008, one day after returning from his deployment to Iraq, 
Brian Buttram received a copy of divorce papers which had been mailed to his 
grandparents' house. Mr. Buttram's wife filed an action in divorce on April 11, 2008. 
 
 
"11. Also on April 17, 2008, Mr. Buttram traveled to Dennis Hawver's office to 
retain Mr. Hawver to represent him in the divorce case. When Mr. Buttram arrived at Mr. 
Hawver's office, he was told that Mr. Hawver was preparing to retire from the practice of 
law and that the Respondent was taking over Mr. Hawver's law practice. Mr. Buttram 
paid Mr. Hawver $750. 
 
 
"12. The Court entered a temporary order directing Mr. Buttram to pay monthly 
spousal maintenance in the amount of $600.  
4 
 
 
 
"13. At the time Mr. Buttram retained the Respondent, Mr. Buttram explained to 
the Respondent that one of his objectives in hiring her was to seek the modification of 
spousal maintenance order. The Respondent filed a motion to modify the spousal 
maintenance order. However, the Respondent did not diligently prosecute the motion. 
Approximately one year later, Mr. Buttram and his estranged wife negotiated a reduction 
in the spousal maintenance order. 
 
 
"14. Mr. Buttram also made it clear to the Respondent that he wished to have the 
divorce action completed prior to his redeployment to Iraq in August, 2009. The 
Respondent failed to complete the divorce in the time frame requested by Mr. Buttram. 
 
 
"15. Throughout the representation, Mr. Buttram called the Respondent by 
telephone on approximately 30 occasions. The Respondent returned only one of Mr. 
Buttram's telephone calls. 
 
 
"16. Weston Brown represented Mr. Buttram's estranged wife. Throughout the 
representation, Mr. Brown had difficulty in maintaining communication with the 
Respondent. In April, 2010, Mr. Brown contacted the Respondent[;] he indicated that the 
parties had resolved the last remaining issue, and requested that she take appropriate 
action to complete the case. To date, the Respondent has not taken any action to finalize 
Mr. Buttram's divorce. 
 
 
"17. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Buttram filed a complaint with the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office. Carol R. Bonebrake, a member of the Topeka Ethics and 
Grievance Committee, was assigned to investigate Mr. Buttram's complaint. The 
Disciplinary Administrator and Ms. Bonebrake directed the Respondent to provide a 
written response to the initial complaint. The Respondent never provided a written 
response to the initial complaint. 
 
 
"18. Following the filing of the disciplinary complaint, Mr. Buttram did not 
terminate the representation. Likewise, the Respondent took no action to terminate her 
representation of Mr. Buttram. 
 
5 
 
 
"19. On June 29, 2010, Mr. Buttram spoke by telephone with the Respondent. 
During that conversation, the Respondent told Mr. Buttram that she had not returned his 
telephone calls because she [had] nothing new to tell him. The Respondent falsely 
indicated that Mr. Brown failed to proceed and that she was waiting on him to move 
forward with the divorce action. 
 
 
"20. Following her suspension in October, 2010, the Respondent failed to inform 
Mr. Buttram that the Kansas Supreme Court suspended her license to practice law. 
 
 
"21. Mr. Buttram's divorce remains pending. At the time of the hearing on the 
instant Formal Complaint, Mr. Buttram's divorce case was set to be heard by the court on 
November 12, 2010. 
 
"DA11014 
 
 
"22. In July, 2008, David Lowe retained the Respondent to probate Mr. Lowe's 
father's estate. At that time, Mr. Lowe paid the Respondent $1,000 for the representation. 
Mr. Lowe's estate included real property. A realtor found a buyer for the property, 
however, the Respondent failed to take appropriate action to complete the sale. 
Eventually, Mr. Lowe retained Kirk Nystrom for the specific purpose of getting the sale 
of the real estate authorized and confirmed, so that the sale would not be lost. Mr. Lowe 
paid Mr. Nystrom $1,250 for that purpose. Mr. Nystrom effected the sale of the property. 
The Respondent failed to take any action to further the representation of Mr. Lowe's 
father's estate. 
 
 
"23. On January 12, 2010, Mr. Lowe filed a complaint with the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office. Ms. Bonebrake was also assigned to investigate Mr. Lowe's 
complaint. The Disciplinary Administrator and Ms. Bonebrake directed the Respondent 
to provide a written response to the initial complaint. The Respondent never provided a 
written response to the complaint filed by Mr. Lowe. 
 
 
"24. To date, the estate remains pending. Mr. Lowe cannot afford to retain Mr. 
Nystrom to close the estate. 
 
6 
 
"DA11103 
 
 
"25. On Thursday, April 15, 2010, Robert Cooper, II, retained the Respondent to 
represent him in an action for divorce. Mr. Cooper paid the Respondent $500 for attorney 
fees and $160 for filing fees. The Respondent deposited the attorney fees check on April 
20, 2010. 
 
 
"26. The Respondent assured Mr. Cooper that she would prepare the necessary 
paperwork and have it ready to sign the evening of April 15, 2010. The Respondent failed 
to contact Mr. Cooper that evening. 
 
 
"27. The next day, Friday, April 16, 2010, Mr. Cooper contacted the Respondent 
regarding the preparation of the pleadings. Mr. Cooper did not receive the documents 
from the Respondent that day. 
 
 
"28. On Saturday, April 17, 2010, Mr. Cooper again contacted the Respondent 
about the pleadings. The Respondent assured Mr. Cooper that she would complete the 
pleadings that weekend and would be in touch with him to get them signed. 
 
 
"29. Mr. Cooper did not hear from the Respondent that weekend. Mr. Cooper 
made several attempts to contact her and was unable to reach her until the following 
Thursday. At that time, Mr. Cooper told the Respondent that it was not going to work out 
for her to represent him in the divorce and terminated the representation. 
 
 
"30. Mr. Cooper demanded a return of the attorney fees and the filing fees. The 
Respondent returned Mr. Cooper's check for the filing fees and informed Mr. Cooper that 
she would have to prepare a fee statement of the work she completed on the case before 
she could refund the unearned fees. The Respondent, however, never provided Mr. 
Cooper with a fee statement or with a refund of unearned fees. 
 
 
"31. On May 14, 2010, Mr. Cooper filed a complaint with the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office. The Disciplinary Administrator directed the Respondent to 
provide a written response to Mr. Cooper's complaint. The Respondent never provided a 
written response to the complaint filed by Mr. Cooper. 
7 
 
 
 
"32. Mr. Cooper filed suit against the Respondent in a small claims court. Mr. 
Cooper obtained a judgment against the Respondent for the unearned fees. The 
Respondent has not satisfied the judgment. 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
 
"1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter of 
law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.15, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 
207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, as detailed below. [Footnote: During the hearing on the 
Formal Complaint, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator argued that the Hearing Panel 
should also find a violation of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208. It is appropriate to consider 
violations not specifically included in the Formal Complaint under certain 
circumstances. Only when the Formal Complaint alleges facts that would support a 
conclusion that the Respondent violated additional rules will considering additional 
violations be allowed. State v. Caenen, 235 Kan. 451, 458‐59, 681 P.2d 639 (1984). In 
this case, the Formal Complaint did not include any facts regarding the Respondent's 
registration information which would support a conclusion that the Respondent violated 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208. Thus, it appears that it is not appropriate to consider whether the 
Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208.] 
 
 
"2. The Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the Formal Complaint. It is 
appropriate to proceed to hearing when a Respondent fails to appear only if proper 
service was obtained. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary 
proceedings. That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows 
 
 
'(a) Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in any 
disciplinary proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary Administrator, 
either by personal service or by certified mail to the address shown on 
the attorney's most recent registration, or at his or her last known office 
address. 
 
. . . . 
8 
 
 
'(c) Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be 
deemed complete upon mailing whether or not the same is actually 
received.' 
 
In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by 
sending a copy of the Formal Complaint and the Notice of Hearing, via certified United 
States mail, postage prepaid, and regular United States mail, postage prepaid, to the 
address shown on the Respondent's most recent registration. Additionally, the 
Disciplinary Administrator sent a copy of the Formal Complaint and the Notice of 
Hearing, via certified United States mail, postage prepaid, and regular United States 
mail, postage prepaid, to the Respondent's current address in Overland Park. The 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent was afforded the notice that the Kansas 
Supreme Court Rules require.  
 
 
"3. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and promptly represent 
her clients in this case. The Respondent failed to provide diligent representation to Mr. 
Moore, Mr. Buttram, and Mr. Lowe. Because the Respondent failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
 
"4. KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 
about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when she failed to 
return telephone calls and otherwise communicate with Mr. Buttram and Mr. Lowe. 
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
 
"5. Lawyers must deal properly with the property of their clients. Specifically, 
KRPC 1.15(b) provides: 
 
 
'(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or 
third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 
third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law 
or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
9 
 
client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third 
person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.' 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b) when she failed to refund the unearned fees 
paid by Mr. Cooper. 
 
 
"6. Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 
207(b) provides the requirement in this regard. 
 
'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid the 
Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary 
Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, 
and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information 
he or she may have affecting such matters.' 
 
The Respondent knew that she was required to forward a written response to the initial 
complaint—she had been instructed to do so in writing by the Disciplinary 
Administrator and by the attorney investigator. Because the Respondent knowingly 
failed to provide a written response to the initial complaint filed by Mr. Buttram and Mr. 
Lowe as requested by the Disciplinary Administrator and the attorney investigator, the 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 
 
 
"7. The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file Answers to Formal 
Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the requirement: 
 
'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary 
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint 
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel.' 
 
In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to file a written 
Answer to the Formal Complaint and by failing to file a written Answer to the 
10 
 
Supplement to the Formal Complaint. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
 
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
 
"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the 
factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered 
are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by 
the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. 
 
 
"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated her duty to her clients to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. Additionally, the Respondent 
violated her duty to her client to adequately safeguard his property. Finally, the 
Respondent violated her duty to the profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. 
 
 
"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated her duties.  
 
 
"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused 
actual injury to her clients and to the legal profession. As of the date of the hearing on the 
Formal Complaint, Mr. Buttram's divorce case and Mr. Lowe's probate case remained 
pending. 
 
 
"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any 
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, 
found the following aggravating factors present: 
 
 
"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
She repeatedly failed to return Mr. Buttram's telephone calls. Additionally, four 
complaints were filed against the Respondent. Three of the four complaints involve 
similar misconduct. 
 
11 
 
 
"Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.15, 
Kan. Sup. Ct. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211. According[ly], the Hearing Panel concludes 
that the Respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally Failing 
to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The Respondent knew she 
was required to file a written response to the initial complaints filed by [Mr. Cooper,] Mr. 
Buttram and Mr. Lowe. She had been instructed to do so in writing by the Disciplinary 
Administrator and by the investigators. Further, she filed a written response to the 
complaint filed by Judge Martin. Because the Respondent failed to provide written 
responses to three complaints and because the Respondent failed to file an Answer to the 
Formal Complaint, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in a bad 
faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding. 
 
 
"Vulnerability of Victim. Mr. Buttram and Mr. Lowe were vulnerable to the 
Respondent's misconduct. As an active member of the military, who was deployed twice 
during the period of representation, Mr. Buttram was particularly vulnerable to the 
Respondent's misconduct. 
 
 
"Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has taken no action 
to make restitution to Mr. Cooper. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent is indifferent to making restitution. 
 
 
"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a 
reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for 
discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances 
present: 
 
 
"Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not previously 
been disciplined. 
 
 
"Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. It does not appear that the 
Respondent's misconduct was motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
12 
 
 
"Inexperience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the 
Respondent to the practice of law in October, 2006. The Respondent's misconduct began 
approximately 18 months following her admission to the practice of law. 
 
"In addition to the above‐cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should 
know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury 
or potential injury to a client. 
 
'4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:  
 
(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a 
client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or  
 
(b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, 
and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal 
system.' 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
"The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be 
suspended for a period of three years. The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator also 
recommended that the Respondent undergo a reinstatement hearing, pursuant to Kan. 
Sup. Ct. R. 219, prior to reinstatement. The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator's 
recommendation is tantamount to a recommendation of indefinite suspension. 
 
 
"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed 
above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law." 
13 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 
204 P.3d 610 (2009); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327). 
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the 
truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" 288 Kan. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 
286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). The evidence before the hearing panel establishes 
the charged misconduct of the respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supports 
the panel's conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions.  
Moreover, we agree with the panel's recommended discipline. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gillian Luttrell, be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on filing of this opinion, in accordance 
with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 276). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 370) and that, in the event the respondent would seek 
reinstatement, she shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
370). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.