Title: In Re Meyer

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

251 Kan. 838 (1992)
840 P.2d 522
In the Matter of DARRELL D. MEYER, Respondent.
No. 68,301

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed October 30, 1992.
Stanton A. Hazlett, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Bruce E. Miller, disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Darrell D. Meyer, pro se, and W. Irving Shaw, of Emporia, argued the cause for the respondent.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Darrell D. Meyer, of Emporia, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. The complaints filed against respondent allege violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Supreme Court Rule 225 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 173), the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), Supreme Court Rule 226 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 222), and Supreme Court Rule 207 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 149).
A formal hearing before the panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys was held on May 2, 1991, at the Kansas Judicial Center, Topeka, Kansas, on Cases Nos. B4820, B4830, B4958, and B4982. Respondent appeared in person and by counsel. Questions arose as to additional matters, and the hearing was continued for further investigation. Thereafter, Case No. B5325 was filed against the respondent, which was heard on May 19, 1992. The facts as stipulated by the parties were accepted by the panel and set out in the panel's report.
Respondent stipulated in Cases Nos. B4820 and B4830 that he was retained to perform legal work for the estate of Sandra Sue Pees. Respondent filed a petition, an entry of appearance, waiver of notice, and letters of administration but filed nothing thereafter. Eventually, another attorney was retained to close the estate, and a legal malpractice action filed against the respondent resulted in a default judgment in the amount of $3,500. Respondent stipulated and agreed that his conduct constituted violations *839 of MRPC 1.3 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 232), 1.4 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 234), 3.2 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 275), and Supreme Court Rule 207.
In Case No. B4958, respondent stipulated that he had agreed to represent the complainants in their attempt to void the purchase of a house in which the seller concealed extensive termite damage. The complainants had difficulty obtaining information about the case from the respondent. After the complainants received a demand letter to make a house payment, the seller requested return of the deed. The complainants' numerous attempts to contact respondent were unsuccessful. Respondent failed to take any action on behalf of the complainants and failed to communicate with the complainants about their case. Respondent also failed to cooperate in the investigation of this matter. Respondent stipulated and agreed that his conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 199); MRPC 1.1 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 228), 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2; and Supreme Court Rule 207.
In Case No. B4982, respondent stipulated that he was retained to represent Julie A. Jackson in a divorce action. He was paid a $400 retainer and $55 for a filing fee. Respondent prepared the necessary documents to file for an emergency divorce, and he told complainant they would be filed as soon as her husband signed the waiver of summons. Complainant's husband executed the necessary documents in April 1990. Thereafter, complainant was never given a definite court date but was told the divorce would be filed "by Friday" or "next week." Thereafter, respondent would not return complainant's phone calls. In July 1990, complainant contacted an attorney who determined that respondent had not filed a divorce action for the complainant. Complainant requested a return of the retainer and the filing fee. Respondent failed to promptly return same. Respondent stipulated and agreed that his conduct violated MRPC 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15(b) (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 263).
In Case No. B5325, respondent stipulated that he was retained to represent Mark Grossenbacher in a slip-and-fall case. Although respondent initially kept the complainant informed about the status of the case, after complainant moved to Pennsylvania, he increasingly had difficulty in communicating with respondent. *840 Complainant was aware the statute of limitations would run on May 4, 1989, and prior to that date made numerous phone calls to respondent to make sure the case was filed before that date. Respondent filed the case on May 4, 1989, and he informed the complainant that he had obtained a hearing date in the summer of 1989. Thereafter, respondent informed the complainant that the hearing date had been continued until September 1989. Thereafter, complainant again was told the hearing had been continued. Subsequently, respondent told complainant that the case had been again continued, to September of 1990. Prior to that date, complainant made numerous phone calls, most of which were not returned. Respondent then called complainant and told him the case had again been continued to a date not yet determined. In May of 1991, the complainant called the Disciplinary Administrator's Office and was informed that the case filed by respondent on behalf of complainant had been dismissed. This was the first time complainant had been made aware that his case had been dismissed. In that case, respondent had failed to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, and the district court ordered respondent to comply by January 3, 1990. Subsequently, at a hearing to dismiss the case, respondent admitted that he had failed to comply with the court's order. The court awarded sanctions against respondent for costs but did not dismiss the case because respondent informed the court that he was withdrawing from the case. The court stayed further proceedings and ordered respondent to follow statutory procedure to withdraw from the case so that his client could retain new counsel. Respondent again failed to comply with the court's order and failed to inform complainant of these facts. On September 12, 1990, the court dismissed complainant's case without prejudice with costs assessed to the plaintiff (complainant herein). Respondent failed to inform complainant of the dismissal. Respondent stipulated and agreed that his conduct violated MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 267), and 3.4 (1991 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 279).
At the hearing before the panel, respondent offered evidence in mitigation. As to mitigation, the panel found, in part:
The panel made the following recommendation:
b. the efficacy of Mr. Meyer's docketing system;
c. management of discovery;
d. responses to client requests for information;
e. Mr. Meyer's trust account;
We adopt the panel's findings. We agree with the panel that suspension at this time would be unwarranted and too harsh. However, we conclude that, rather than publicly censuring respondent, discipline should be suspended and respondent should be placed on probation on the terms and conditions recommended by the panel.
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that imposition of discipline against respondent Darrell D. Meyer be and is hereby suspended, and he is placed on probation for the period of one year on the *843 terms and conditions recommended by the panel as hereinabove set out and numbered 1 through 7.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event respondent fails to abide by the conditions set forth herein, a show cause order will issue to the respondent, and this court shall take whatever disciplinary action it deems just and proper without further formal proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the Kansas Reports and that respondent pay the costs of these proceedings.