Title: State v. Blase

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

208 Kan. 969 (1972)
494 P.2d 1224
STATE OF KANSAS, Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT E. BLASE, Respondent.
No. 46,566

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 4, 1972.
Vern Miller, attorney general, and Edward G. Collister, assistant attorney general, for the petitioner.
Respondent Robert E. Blase appeared pro se and by Lester A. Holloway, of Wichita.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in which the respondent is charged with criminal, indirect contempt of this court.
After appropriate preliminary proceedings, conforming to K.S.A. 20-1204, the respondent attorney was charged in an amended accusation with two counts of contempt of this court's order of July 16, 1971, which suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six months. (In re Blase, 207 Kan. 843, 486 P.2d 839.) The two counts are:
Both courses of conduct were alleged to constitute the practice of law, in violation of this court's order of suspension.
*970 Respondent filed an answer to the amended accusation, denying that his conduct constituted the "practice of law," and denying any "willful" violation of this court's order.
The Honorable Leo A. McNalley, a retired district judge, was appointed by this court as its commissioner to hear evidence. On December 27, 1971, he filed his report in which, after reciting the appearances and the history of this participation, he reports:
"Findings of Fact
"Conclusions of Law
"Violation No. 1.
"Violation No. 2.
"RECOMMENDATION
"Your Commissioner recommends:
On January 18, 1972, respondent appeared in person before this court in response to our order. At that time he was afforded the opportunity to and did personally present his defense, essentially reasserting his good faith and his inability to ascertain just what constitutes the "practice of law."
*973 This court, having conducted its own independent examination of the record, concludes that the commissioner's findings of fact are abundantly supported by the record, and they are adopted by the court.
The commissioner's conclusions of law are also adopted; respondent's conduct was undoubtedly the practice of law. State, ex rel., v. Perkins, 138 Kan. 899, 28 P.2d 765; Depew v. Wichita Association of Credit Men, 142 Kan. 403, 49 P.2d 1041. We are unimpressed by respondent's argument that he believed in good faith that giving advice on the legal effect of a proposed transaction is not the "practice of law" merely because it does not involve an appearance in court.
This court, on the basis of its own individual examination of the evidence, concurs in the finding of its commissioner that the respondent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the contempts charged in the amended accusation. The recommended penalties are deemed appropriate, except that the fine in our opinion should be $1,000; with that exception they are also adopted.
The result is that the respondent Robert E. Blase is found guilty of contempt as charged in each count of the accusation. He is:
(1) Ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 to the clerk of this court, together with the costs of this action, including the fees of our commissioner and his reporter;
(2) Suspended from the practice of law for an additional period of six months, expiring at midnight July 15, 1972, and until such time as the foregoing fine and costs are paid.
It is so ordered.
OWSLEY, J., not participating.