Title: In Re Jenkins

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

255 Kan. 797 (1994)
877 P.2d 423
In the Matter of HOWARD L. JENKINS, II, Respondent.
No. 71,246

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 8, 1994.
Stanton A. Hazlett, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Bruce E. Miller, disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for petitioner.
Howard L. Jenkins, II, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Howard L. Jenkins, II, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. Seven separate complaints were filed, Cases Nos. B4902, B4984, B5120, B5131, B5145, B5293, and B5295, which were consolidated for hearing before the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys (Board) and this court. The facts, as determined by the hearing panel of the Board are not disputed by respondent. The exhibits in all cases were admitted by stipulation.
The following pertinent findings were made by the panel:
"B. General Findings of Fact
"1. Respondent is an attorney at law....
*798 "Case No. B4902
"Case No. B4984: Count I
....
"Case No. B4984: Count II
"Case No. B4984: Count III
"Case No. B5120
....
"Case No. B5131
"Case No. B5145
....
"Case No. B5293
....
"Case No. B5295
....
The panel set forth conclusions of law, noted aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and made recommendations as follows:
"C. Conclusions of Law
"Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207 Failure to Cooperate
"D. Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances
"Aggravating Circumstances
"Mitigating Circumstances
....
....
"E. Recommendation of Discipline
Jenkins did not file exceptions to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as embodied in the final hearing report of the panel. At oral argument, Jenkins indicated that he had no desire to retake the Kansas Bar Examination, but stated he was ready and willing to do so.
Standard of Review
Discussion
We find there is clear and convincing evidence establishing the violations determined by the panel as to each of the complaints. The misconduct in the instant case does not involve an isolated instance or an inadvertent error. The panel itself was concerned with the repeated evidence of incompetence set forth in the record. The panel stated that without consideration of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, "it is beyond any reasonable question" that respondent should be disbarred. Several of respondent's clients suffered emotional and financial hardship. Respondent repeatedly failed to follow through on his responsibilities as a lawyer. He either was unable or refused "to accept and perform the obligations of the legal profession." State v. Dixon, 233 Kan. 465, 472, 664 P.2d 286 (1983). Despite the hearing panel's recommendation of suspension from the practice of law for one year, we are of the opinion that respondent should be indefinitely suspended. Respondent shall make full and complete financial restitution to those injured by his professional misconduct as set forth in the panel's finding of facts for Cases Nos. B4984, B5120, and B5295. We shall consider additional requirements *806 if respondent seeks reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule 219 (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 192).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Howard L. Jenkins, II, be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 162) for his violations herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that although Howard L. Jenkins, II, has been on inactive status since November 8, 1991, he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 187).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs of the proceeding be assessed to respondent.