Opinion ID: 2797998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 14(b). KRPC 1.14(b) provides:

Text: 'When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.' The respondent knew that R.S.'s capacity was diminished and R.S. was at risk of harm, as the respondent had reviewed the evaluations of the neurologists. Despite this knowledge and the knowledge that the court had appointed Mr. Wood to serve as guardian and conservator for R.S., the respondent engaged in conduct that circumvented the court's order appointing Mr. Wood as R.S.'s guardian and conservator. Specifically, the respondent formed Bossaw for the purpose of collecting rents on behalf of R.S., without the authorization of Mr. Wood. Further, the respondent filed suit in Wyandotte County District Court, on behalf of R.S., after Mr. Wood had been appointed as guardian and conservator for R.S. The respondent's conduct in this regard is an egregious violation of KRPC 8.4(d). 20 American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 67. In making this recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. 68. Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public and to the legal profession to maintain his personal integrity and his duty to the legal system to comply with court orders. 69. Mental State. The respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his duties. 70. Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused actual injury to the legal system. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 71. Aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following aggravating factor present: 72. Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously disciplined on four occasions. 73 First, on March 4, 1994, the Kansas Supreme Court censured the respondent for having violated rule 1.5(f)(1), for entering into a contingency fee agreement in a divorce case. 21 74. Next, on May 11, 1998, a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys informally admonished the respondent for two violations. The respondent violated rule 5.3(b) for allowing a disbarred attorney, working as a legal assistant in the respondent's office, to meet with clients. Additionally, the respondent violated rule 1.15(c) for failing to retain funds in his trust account, when his client disputed how the funds should be disbursed. 75. Third, in November, 2007, the disciplinary administrator informally admonished the respondent for having violated KRPC 1.8(j). 76. Finally, in 2011, the review committee of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the respondent's request to participate in the attorney diversion program for having violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, and KRPC 8.4(d). See ¶¶ 8-11 above. 77. A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 78. Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. The respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.7(a)(2), KRPC 1.8(e), KRPC 8.4(c), and KRPC 8.4(d). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses. 79. Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. The respondent has refused to acknowledge that his conduct violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. 80. Vulnerability of Victim. R.S. was vulnerable to the respondent's misconduct. 81. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1969. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 40 years. 22 82. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances present: 83. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. During the past 13 years, the respondent has suffered significant medical problems. It appears that the respondent's medical condition contributed to his misconduct. 84. Physical Disability. In 2001, the respondent suffered a stroke. In 2006, the respondent suffered deep vein thrombosis with bilateral pulmonary embolism. 85. In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards: '4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.' '4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. '6.22 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a 23 client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. '7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. '8.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.' Recommendation 86. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law. The respondent further recommended that he be permitted to return to the practice of law after he has been cleared by medical professionals to resume the practice of law. 87. The hearing panel has carefully considered the misconduct committed by the respondent, in this case, along with the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be indefinitely suspended. 88. Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. 24