Opinion ID: 2595336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count I, AuBuchon

Text: KRPC 1.1 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 284) (competence) requires that [a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Respondent failed to demonstrate the above attributes of competence by failing to properly achieve service. She told a secretary to obtain service without proper instructions and signed an erroneous request for service. There is substantial competent evidence of this violation. KRPC 1.4 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303) (communication) requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter so the client may make informed decisions regarding the representation. The record reflects respondent returned messages every now and then and, after the divorce was granted, AuBuchon testified she called at least 10 times to request a certified copy of the decree and never heard from respondent. The evidence clearly supports this violation. KRPC 1.16(a)(2) (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352) (terminating representation) requires an attorney to withdraw from representation when a mental or physical condition materially impairs the attorney's ability to represent the client. There was testimony of respondent's physical problems during mid-1997 and a back injury in early 1998, but these should not have affected the representation at the time it began and when service was erroneously attempted. This violation is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. KRPC 5.3 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 384) (responsibility for non-lawyer assistants) requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer assistant's conduct and training is compatible with the lawyer's obligation and may be violated by a lack of training. In re Apt, 263 Kan. 210, 214, 946 P.2d 1002 (1997). This may explain the first service failure or it may have resulted from allowing the secretary to fill out a blank service form after respondent had signed it. In either instance, the evidence showed KRPC 5.3 was violated. Finally, with regard to Rule 207 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 223) (cooperation with a disciplinary investigation), it is clear the month's delay in responding to a 10-day letter supports this finding of this violation.