Title: State v. Thompson

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

206 Kan. 326 (1970)
478 P.2d 208
STATE OF KANSAS, Petitioner,
v.
J. NELSON THOMPSON, Respondent.
No. 45,980

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 12, 1970.
Ernest C. Ballweg, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Attorney General, was with him on the brief for the petitioner.
Charles S. Scott, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the respondent.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in discipline.
This matter came to the attention of the State Board of Law Examiners by reason of findings made by the District Judge of division No. 4 of the Johnson County District Court. The findings referred to were entered in connection with a separate maintenance action entitled Madeline Slaughter v. John Slaughter in the District Court of Johnson County.
The district court found that the conduct of the respondent, J. Nelson Thompson, while he was an attorney for the defendant in the above entitled case, indicated unethical conduct by reason of respondent going to the home of plaintiff and conversing with her concerning the subject matter of the action. A transcript of the testimony of respondent in the divorce action was forwarded to the State Board of Law Examiners. An investigation was made by a member of the Board and a report was filed to the effect that the investigation disclosed facts which warranted further proceedings. (Supreme Court Rule No. 204, 203 Kan. LV.)
Pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule No. 205 the Board determined that a hearing should be held by a panel consisting of three members of the Board. An amended complaint was filed in form and substance as follows:
"I
*327 The charge contained in the amended complaint rests upon an alleged violation of No. 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association (198 Kan. XVIII, [now Rule No. 501, DR 7-104(A) Code of Professional Responsibility]), which reads:
On September 3, 1969, a hearing was had on the amended complaint by the duly constituted three member panel of the Board of Law Examiners. The background of events and material facts pertaining to the accusation are related in the findings of the panel as follows:
The panel concluded that respondent's admitted conduct in communicating with Madeline Slaughter, without the consent of her attorney, was a clear violation of Canon No. 9. The panel recommended that respondent be disciplined by "Public Censure" in accordance with provisions of Supreme Court Rule No. 205 (m) and (n) (203 Kan. LV-LVII).
The findings of the panel were submitted to and adopted by the Board of Law Examiners as a whole. Thereafter, the Board filed its report, findings and recommendations with this court and mailed a copy thereof to the respondent and his attorney as provided for under Rule No. 205.
*329 Respondent elected to file exceptions to the report of the Board of Law Examiners and the matter was docketed in this court.
In short, respondent claims that the district court advised him that he could not be recognized as counsel in the case because of his failure to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 7-104 and that, thereafter, respondent considered himself as no longer participating in the case as an attorney for John H. Slaughter.
Respondent admits he visited Madeline Slaughter on or about July 25, 1968, but with respect to the Board's finding in this connection he alleges:
Mrs. Slaughter's testimony refutes respondent's claim that she voluntarily brought up the subject of the children and her husband during the conversation on July 25, 1968. When questioned whether it was true she had volunteered information about the children she answered "No, it's not."
There is evidence that on July 29, 1968, four days following the conversation with Mrs. Slaughter, respondent, as attorney for John Slaughter, filed a divorce action in Jackson County, Missouri, in an attempt to revive a previous action which had been filed in St. Charles County, Missouri.
In September 1968, at a hearing in the separate maintenance action in the district court of Johnson County, Kansas, respondent once again attempted to sit at John Slaughter's counsel table with Mr. Charles Scott.
Despite the fact that respondent was not permitted to sit at the counsel table, the record shows that respondent continued to be deeply involved in representing John Slaughter in his domestic difficulties with his wife, Madeline. Respondent's actions and his *330 attempt to sit at the counsel table in September 1968 is persuasive evidence that he continued the representation of his client. We are forced to conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge.
Respondent's evidence that he had been retained by John Slaughter's parents to recover furniture from Madeline might serve as an explanation of his visit to Madeline's residence, but it is no justification for his conversation with Madeline concerning custody of the children or other issues involved in the pending litigation.
The purposes of Canon No. 9 are to shield the adverse party from improper approaches and to preserve the proper functioning of the legal profession. While there is nothing about respondent's conduct that amounts to fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude, nevertheless it was in violation of the purposes of Canon No. 9.
It is, therefore, by the court considered, ordered and adjudged that J. Nelson Thompson be and he is hereby censured by this court.