Title: In Re Veith
Citation: 252 Kan. 266, 843 P.2d 729
Docket Number: 68,154
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 1992

252 Kan. 266 (1992)
843 P.2d 729
IN THE MATTER OF DOUGLAS VEITH, Respondent.
No. 68,154

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 14, 1992.
Curtis E. Watkins, of Geisert &amp; Watkins, P.A., of Kingman, argued the cause and was on the brief for respondent.
Bruce E. Miller, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause and was on the brief for petitioner.
Per Curiam:
This is an original action in discipline filed by the Disciplinary Administrator against Douglas Veith, presently residing in the Kansas City area, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas and formerly a member of the bar of the State of Nebraska.
The formal complaint filed by the Disciplinary Administrator is based upon disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court of Nebraska, which resulted in the disbarment of Mr. Veith in that state. State ex rel. NSBA vs. Veith, 238 Neb. 239, 470 N.W.2d 549 (1991). A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys (Board), which heard this matter, received voluminous evidence, including a complete transcript of the Nebraska proceedings, numerous exhibits from those proceedings, and the testimony of Mr. Veith and a supporting witness. In addition, the Board received numerous letters attesting to Mr. Veith's good character.
The proceedings before the Board were presented by the Disciplinary Administrator pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 202 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 152), which provides in part:
Following the hearing, the Board filed its report in which it recommended that Mr. Veith be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Kansas. Respondent's presentation and evidence before the Board and his exceptions filed to its report do not controvert or question the factual findings of the Nebraska court *267 but are directed solely to issues asserted in mitigation of the discipline to be imposed here. In essence, respondent admits the facts found by the Nebraska court are correct and that he has violated the disciplinary rules as determined by the Nebraska court. In the proceedings before the Board and this court he seeks leniency in the imposition of discipline.
The Nebraska Supreme Court, in a comprehensive opinion, set forth the factual background as follows:
DR 1-102 Misconduct.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
....
(B) A lawyer shall:
....
In finding Mr. Veith guilty of the charges against him, the Nebraska court stated:
In an equally comprehensive discussion of the discipline warranted by the facts in this case, the court said:
The Nebraska court then considered various factors in mitigation asserted by respondent before concluding that the only appropriate sanction was disbarment. Before this court respondent asserts many of the same mitigating factors considered by the Nebraska Supreme Court and, in addition, asks us to consider his conduct and efforts toward rehabilitaiton since being disbarred in Nebraska.
To his credit, respondent has sought professional help for what has apparently been a long-term period of depression. He continues to undergo regular therapy in Overland Park and evidently has made excellent progress in overcoming his mental and psychological problems. Respondent has moved to the Kansas City area where he now resides with his wife and four children. Respondent's record indicates that he is active in his church and has dedicated considerable time and effort to worthwhile civic and charitable causes, as well as providing pro bono legal services.
Respondent argues at some length here, as he did in Nebraska, that no client suffered any loss as a result of the improper use of his clients' trust funds. While these assertions may be technically correct, respondent does not recognize, or chooses to ignore, the fact that he borrowed $45,600 to replace the funds misappropriated from the trust account. Subsequent to borrowing *272 such funds from a bank, a friend, and a relative, respondent discharged those loans in a bankruptcy proceeding. While respondent asserts that he intends to repay those loans, apparently no progress has been made toward doing so and no concrete plans for repayment have been suggested. It appears that the loss and damage which would have been suffered by respondent's clients and law partners has merely been shifted to other parties, including a family member and a close friend.
Respondent asks that he be allowed to continue the practice of law in Kansas and has submitted a proposed comprehensive plan of probation, including supervision of his law practice, psychological and psychiatric counseling, financial counseling, and other conditions.
The violations found by the Nebraska court also constitute violations of the disciplinary rules applicable to attorneys in Kansas. As noted earlier, the Board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Kansas. Under our rules, the recommendations of the Board are advisory only, and this court may impose sanctions greater or lesser than those recommended. Rule 212(f) (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot 169); State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371, 378-79, 598 P.2d 180 (1979); State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 160, 162, 546 P.2d 1320 (1976). Kansas disciplinary cases have consistently recognized that misappropriation of clients' funds is one of the most serious offenses an attorney can commit and the sanction generally imposed has been disbarment. We also note that Sec. 4.11 of the A.B.A. Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986), provides that the appropriate sanction for failure to preserve a client's property is disbarment.
After a careful review of the entire record, we concur with the findings, conclusions, and sanctions of the Nebraska Supreme Court. The admitted disciplinary violations in Nebraska are equally serious when considered under the Kansas disciplinary rules, and we find that the appropriate sanction is disbarment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent, Douglas Veith, be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and the Clerk of the Appellate Courts is directed to strike the name of Douglas Veith from the roll of attorneys in Kansas.
*273 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Douglas Veith shall forthwith comply with the provisions of Rule 218 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot 176).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs of this action be assessed to respondent.
Justice Herd would impose discipline of indefinite suspension and therefore dissents from the sanctions imposed.