Case Title: In Re Pomeroy

Citation: 252 Kan. 1044, 850 P.2d 222

Docket Number: 68,480

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1993-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
252 Kan. 1044 (1993)
850 P.2d 222
In the Matter of CHARLES K. POMEROY, Respondent.
No. 68,480

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 16, 1993.
Paula B. Martin, special deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Bruce E. Miller, disciplinary administrator, was with her on the formal complaint and brief for petitioner.
Frank S. Eschmann, of Ascough, Eschmann, Oyler, P.A., of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for respondent. Charles K. Pomeroy, 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 K. Pomeroy, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas.
This action arises out of the conduct of Charles K. Pomeroy in his handling of the estate of Dale L. Pence. The formal complaint alleged violations of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (Communication) (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 251); 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others) (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 308); 8.4(b) (Committing a Criminal Act that Reflects Adversely on the Lawyer's Honesty, Trustworthiness, or Fitness as a Lawyer in Other Respects); 8.4(c) (Engaging in Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (Engaging in Conduct that is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice); and 8.4(g) (Engaging in Conduct that Adversely Reflects on the Lawyer's Fitness to Practice Law) (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 328).
The matter was heard before a panel appointed by the Chairman of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. The parties stipulated to the following facts:
Before the hearing panel, respondent generally admitted to a lack of communication with his client, Ms. Gillenwater, but specifically denied that Ms. Gillenwater left two messages on his answering machine during the week of December 9, 1991.
Based upon all evidence presented, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated MRPC 1.4, 4.1, and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (g). The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, and, if respondent is permitted to return to the practice of law after suspension, that his law practice be supervised by another attorney for three years.
Respondent filed his exceptions to the final hearing report of the panel, contending that the panel's conclusion of law with respect to violation of MRPC 1.4 (Communication) was not supported by the evidence. He contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case. Additionally, respondent took exception to the recommended discipline.
After hearing arguments of counsel and the statement of respondent, and after considering the briefs filed and the entire record, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence based on the stipulated facts and additional facts presented at the hearing to support the panel's determination that respondent violated MRPC 1.4, 4.1, and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (g).
Respondent takes issue with the recommended discipline, suggesting that a more appropriate discipline would be to place him on probation under the supervision of another Kansas attorney instead of suspending his license for a period of two years. Respondent argues that his actions of forging a district judge's signature and withdrawing estate funds from Capitol Federal were a direct result of his state of depression. According to respondent, because of his depression, he felt compelled to get something done on the estate that day. According to his statement and testimony, when he found the courthouse closed on December 24, 1991, he returned to his office in frustration and proceeded, *1047 in an exercise of extremely poor judgment, to "dummy-up" a set of Letters Testamentary so that he could withdraw funds and begin the administration of the decedent's estate.
We note respondent's sincerity. His statement to this court, as well as his counsel's statement, suggests that respondent's actions in the forgery were acts of desperation resulting from a state of extreme depression. Nevertheless, respondent mishandled client funds by creating a false court order to effectuate a transfer of money. This conduct was criminal and arose directly out of his practice of law.
Before the hearing panel, the respondent sought a recommendation of discipline short of disbarment. Respondent's counsel argued for "a period of definite suspension of six months," recommending that respondent "complete a treatment program for depression." No plan of probation was presented to the panel nor was one considered by the panel.
Contrary to the position he asserted before the hearing panel on July 8, 1992, respondent now contends that any suspension imposed by this court would be too harsh and that over the past seven months, by continuation of his treatment for depression, respondent is now well enough to practice law under the supervision of another Kansas attorney.
Respondent contends that his wrongful act did not harm society, that he has good qualities, and that both he and society will be better off by allowing him to practice law. His attorney argues that the key consideration should be that respondent has resolved his problems.
No doubt respondent would be well served were this court to place him on probation under the supervision of a Kansas attorney. Our responsibility, however, involves not only what would be in the best interests of respondent but also what serves the best interests of the legal profession and the citizens of this state.
Respondent argues that we have granted probation or public censure in similar cases. In re Linn, 245 Kan. 570, 781 P.2d 738 (1989); In re Black, 247 Kan. 664, 801 P.2d 1319 (1990); In re Evans, 248 Kan. 176, 804 P.2d 344 (1991); In re Stephens, 248 Kan. 186, 804 P.2d 1005 (1991); In re Keil, 248 Kan. 629, 809 P.2d 531 (1991); In re McKenna, 249 Kan. 215, 813 P.2d 929 (1991); In re Heaven, 249 Kan. 224, 813 P.2d 928 (1991); In re *1048 Copeland, 250 Kan. 283, 823 P.2d 802 (1992); In re Kershner, 250 Kan. 383, 827 P.2d 1189 (1992). According to his argument, we have granted probation or public censure because of a desire to salvage lawyers where they "lacked dishonest or selfish motives," where their conduct did not harm their clients and "most importantly, [where] each of the attorneys involved tended to have mitigating circumstances such as an alcohol or drug problem, or a psychological or emotional problem impairing them at the time of the ethical violations."
It would serve no useful purpose to outline the facts in each of the above cases. Our review of the disciplinary proceedings cited by respondent reveals that none of the above cases involved a finding that the criminal conduct arose from the attorney's practice of law or that the criminal conduct affected the attorney's ability to practice law. In re Kershner involves the only cited case where a Kansas attorney was convicted of a felony and not suspended or disbarred. We note respondent Gary Kershner was not engaged in the practice of law at the time of his felonious act and his conduct did not arise out of the attorney-client relationship. One final factor distinguishes this case from all others cited by respondent. This case involves a violation of MRPC 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others).
Perhaps a more analogous case is In re Schmidt, 246 Kan. 178, 787 P.2d 1201 (1990). In 1983, Nancy J. Schmidt voluntarily surrendered her certificate to practice law in Kansas as a result of (1) forging a deceased's signature to his will, (2) forging the signatures of witnesses to the will, (3) notarizing the forged signatures, (4) offering the forged will for probate, (5) transporting witnesses to testify on deposition in support of the will, and (6) attempting to settle the matter in order to avoid detection. We accepted her surrender of license and her certificate to practice law was voided. In re Schmidt, 233 Kan. 724, 665 P.2d 1108 (1983).
Schmidt was charged with the crime of making a false writing in violation of K.S.A. 21-3711; she entered into a diversion agreement. Upon successful completion of her diversion agreement, Schmidt applied for reinstatement. Upon hearing and recommendation of a panel of the Board for Discipline of Attorneys, her petition for reinstatement was denied.
*1049 While there are differences between Schmidt and respondent's case, both involve criminal acts directly involved with the practice of law. Schmidt's actions, not unlike respondent's actions, were directed toward the wishes of her deceased client. Both involved felonious conduct interfering with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, and acts adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.
The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.0 (1986) addresses recommended sanctions for violations of duties owed to the public. ABA Standard 5.1 provides that "the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." Disbarment generally is appropriate when
The Introduction to ABA Standard 5.0 states:
Respondent was charged with violations of K.S.A. 21-3710 (forgery) and K.S.A. 21-3711 (making a false writing). He entered a plea of no contest to forgery and the State dismissed the count of making a false writing.
K.S.A. 21-3710 provides:
(2) Forgery is a class E felony."
Respondent engaged in serious criminal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, false swearing, and misrepresentation. His actions in forging a district judge's signature in order to withdraw funds from decedent's account, although not for his own gain, involved the intentional interference with the administration of justice.
The public expects a lawyer to be honest. Respondent was dishonest. The public expects a lawyer to abide by the law. Respondent committed a felony  forgery in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the court. Public confidence in the integrity of officers of the court is undermined when lawyers engage in illegal conduct. The conduct of respondent is conduct for which disbarment generally is appropriate.
The hearing panel does not recommend disbarment. Before making its recommendation to this court, the panel found the following factors in mitigation:
"8. The Respondent's remorse."
The panel noted that Judge Yeoman did not appear and testify in support of the respondent and that Denise Gillenwater, who *1051 was present, did not express her satisfaction with restitution, but specifically requested the panel to impose discipline on the respondent. The court has considered all of the above, as well as the additional matters in mitigation in the form of a diagnostic interview report and letter concerning respondent from Dr. William S. Logan, Director, Department of Law and Psychiatry, Menninger Clinic.
We, like the panel, also have before us matters in aggravation involving four separate informal admonitions of respondent imposed by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. The first complaint was received October 21, 1988, based on a violation of diligence, communication, and failure to cooperate which arose out of respondent's handling of a small estate. An informal admonition was imposed on February 15, 1989.
A second letter of complaint, dated October 27, 1988, involved a violation of competence, diligence, communication, and lack of cooperation. This case arose from respondent's handling of two codicils to a last will and testament. An informal admonition was imposed on February 15, 1989.
A third letter of complaint was dated January 18, 1990. Investigation revealed that respondent violated MRPC 1.15(b) (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 281), which requires prompt notification of receipt of funds and delivery of those funds to the client. At the time, respondent was acting as an escrow agent on a contract to purchase property. Informal admonition was imposed October 19, 1990.
Finally, a fourth letter of complaint was dated July 12, 1990. Respondent received an informal admonition, imposed on November 28, 1990, for a lack of communication arising from a landlord/tenant action he was handling.
The panel recommended a definite period of suspension. We have no hesitation in rejecting respondent's request for probation and believe, based upon the hearing and record, that indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate discipline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent, Charles K. Pomeroy, be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas.
*1052 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 218 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 176).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any time after the expiration of three years' suspension, respondent may apply for reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule 219 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 180).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs of this action be assessed to the respondent.