Opinion ID: 2377898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearing panel finding 15

Text: The hearing panel made the following factual finding: 15. In return for the Respondent's agreement not to file an appeal, the Johnson County District Attorney requested that the Court set aside the Respondent's convictions for reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. The Johnson County District Court granted the request, and the Respondent's convictions for reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident were set aside. The Disciplinary Administrator suggests that the hearing panel's factual findings should be adopted when the evidence supports the findings. The evidence does not support one detail of the finding. Respondent points out that the convictions were set aside not only as a quid pro quo for agreeing not to appeal, but also in the interest of justice. This is consistent with the transcript of the sentencing hearing. The respondent concedes that this issue is a minor point, not at all dispositive, and only partially incorrect. He argues, however, that the hearing panel's finding may tend to cast [him] in somewhat of a bad light. He argues that he might have succeeded in winning an appeal of those two convictions and agreeing not to appeal was not merely a gift but had some legal support. While this may be the case, it is the conduct that warrants discipline, not the technicality of the conviction. In Robertson, 256 Kan. 505, 886 P.2d 806, the attorney was tried for several felonies relating to purchasing cocaine from an undercover police agent. A jury found him not guilty, apparently on the basis of entrapment. The attorney was nevertheless made subject to discipline. In a disciplinary proceeding, a criminal conviction is conclusive evidence of the commission of that crime. Supreme Court Rule 202 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 272); In re Angst, 278 Kan. at 504, 102 P.3d 388. The record in the present case is silent regarding what the interest of justice was that led to setting aside the charges. There is no dispute that the respondent drove recklessly and left the scene of the accident. Although the convictions were set aside both for the interest of justice and in exchange for waiving an appeal, the conduct nonetheless remained the same and warrants disciplinary action.