Opinion ID: 2573333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Did the panel apply the wrong American Bar Association (ABA) Standards?

Text: Respondent next argues the hearing panel employed the wrong ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Standards) when determining what sanction to impose. He contends the panel should have considered Standard 4.43, which states reprimand is appropriate when the attorney's misconduct involves lack of due diligence, but that the hearing panel cited to Standard 4.42 instead. This argument fails because the panel is not required to cite or follow any ABA Standards. The ABA Standards are guidelines that may be used to assist a panel when deciding what discipline to impose. A hearing panel is not required to cite, discuss, or employ these standards. In re Ware, 279 Kan. 884, 892, 112 P.3d 155 (2005). As this court previously stated: Neither this Court nor the hearing panel are required to cite and discuss every potentially applicable standard. Moreover, discussion of any standard is not required. The Standards are guidelines to assist courts in selecting appropriate and uniform discipline, depending upon the facts and the aggravating and mitigating factors of each case. In re Keithley, 252 Kan. 1053, 1057, 850 P.2d 227 (1993). Both Standards 4.42 and 4.43 were discussed at the hearing. The panel chose to cite Standard 4.42 pertaining to suspension, which was consistent with their recommendation. Standard 4.43 discusses when probation is appropriate, and it states: Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Here, it is obvious the hearing panel found Respondent's misconduct was more than mere negligence. Its reference to Standard 4.42 was appropriate based on the clear and convincing evidence found by the panel.