Case Title: State v. Moses

Citation: 231 Kan. 243, 642 P.2d 1004

Docket Number: 53,967

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1982-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
231 Kan. 243 (1982)
642 P.2d 1004
STATE OF KANSAS, Petitioner,
v.
EARL C. MOSES, JR., Respondent.
No. 53,967

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Order of Public Censure filed April 3, 1982.
Arthur E. Palmer, of Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds, Palmer & Wright, of Topeka, appeared on behalf of respondent.
Roger Walter, attorney for the Disciplinary Administrator, of Topeka, appeared on behalf of petitioner.
ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE
On December 15, 1981, a duly constituted panel of the Board for Discipline of Attorneys filed its report with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts in which they found the respondent, Earl C. Moses, Jr., a member of the bar of this State, guilty of a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-103. 228 Kan. cvi. The panel recommended that respondent receive public censure pursuant to Rule 203(a)(3). 228 Kan. xc. The respondent has filed no exceptions to the report of the disciplinary panel.
The report of the panel reads:
"REPORT OF HEARING PANEL
"THEREUPON, Complainant rested.
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"RECOMMENDATIONS
DATED this 18th day of November, 1981."
The letter, on respondent's professional stationery clearly identifying him as an attorney, which respondent mailed to various named individuals who were in the process of attempting to sell their homes, following the personal and individualized salutation, reads:
On February 26, 1982, respondent and his counsel appeared before this court to present argument as to the nature of the discipline, if any, to be imposed. Able counsel for the respondent pointed out that the law on the question of restricting advertising by attorneys or other professionals is in a state of flux and urged this court to absolve the respondent of any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or to restrict any discipline imposed to private censure.
We fully recognize that the First Amendment rights of an attorney may be violated if a too restrictive approach is taken toward an attorney's right to advertise. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810, 97 S. Ct. 2691 (1977). The most recent pronouncement on the question by the United States Supreme Court is found in In Re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 71 L. Ed. 2d 64, 102 S. Ct. 929 (1982). In that case the Supreme Court held that certain restrictions on advertising and direct mailing in the rules of the Missouri Supreme Court violated the attorney's First Amendment rights and reversed a decision of the Missouri court that the respondent should be disciplined by private reprimand. While it is true that personal solicitation by an attorney is a form of advertising, we do not believe all such solicitation is protected from reasonable regulation by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between protected forms of advertising and direct solicitation. In In Re R.M.J. the court noted:
Recent cases involving direct mailings include Bishop v. Committee on Professional Ethics, 521 F. Supp. 1219 (S.D. Iowa 1981); Koffler v. Joint Bar Ass'n, 51 N.Y.2d 140, 432 N.Y.S.2d 872, 412 N.E.2d 927 (1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 1026 (1981); Greene v. Grievance Committee, 54 N.Y.2d 118, 444 N.Y.S.2d 883, 429 N.E.2d 390 (1981); and The Florida Bar v. Schreiber, 407 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1981).
*246 It is argued that direct solicitation is nothing more than other forms of advertising protected by the First Amendment. The distinction between advertising, which may not be prohibited, and direct solicitation, which may, is a fine one but we are convinced such a distinction is justified. Traditionally, the prohibition against direct solicitation has been directed to the evils inherent in "ambulance chasing" and the detriment members of the public may suffer by such solicitation.
The solicitation in the instant case, while not being of the nature of ambulance chasing and hospital room solicitation, nevertheless is directed to a segment of the public which, under present economic conditions, is extremely vulnerable to a suggestion of employment that may or may not be advantageous to the individual homeowner. We are of the opinion that the concept of the regulation and restriction of personal solicitation is one which is not only viable but works to the benefit of the general public and to the fair administration of justice. Our Code of Professional Responsibility is patterned after that of the American Bar Association and DR 2-103 is comparable to the A.B.A. Code. We believe the prohibitions and restrictions set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility in DR 2-103 are reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public and the fair administration of justice and as applied in this case are not invalid under the provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We hold that direct solicitation of a stranger by an attorney for employment for a particular legal matter violates the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-103, and is subject to discipline as provided by the rules of this court. We also find that the report of the panel in this case is reasonable and should be approved and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the report of the panel of the Board for Discipline of Attorneys be accepted and approved.
IT IS FURTHER BY THE COURT ORDERED that the respondent be and he is hereby disciplined by Public Censure, the costs herein are assessed to the respondent and the Reporter of the Appellate Courts is directed to publish this order in the official Kansas Reports. April 3, 1982.
Effective this 3rd day of April, 1982.