Opinion ID: 2629251
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Panel's Recommended Discipline

Text: At the hearing, the Disciplinary Administrator argued that respondent should receive a 6-12-month suspension. The respondent argued that if any sanction would be appropriate, it would be an admonition. In its final hearing report, the hearing panel unanimously recommended unpublished censure as the appropriate discipline. The panel found six aggravating factors present: (1) Prior disciplinary offenseson April 4, 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court Region IV disciplinary committee informally admonished respondent for his misconduct in representing three clients, including Mann and Manning; (2) Pattern of misconduct; (3) Multiple offenses; (4) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (5) Vulnerability of the victims; and (6) Substantial experience in the practice of law based on the 15 years respondent had been practicing at the time the offenses occurred (initially admitted to practice of law in Illinois in 1985). The panel also found one mitigating factor present: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. The recommendation of the panel as to sanctions to be imposed shall be advisory only and shall not prevent the court from imposing discipline greater or lesser than that recommended by the panel or Disciplinary Administrator. Rule 212(f). The respondent wasted a great deal of the time of his clients, the courts, and opposing counsel. Clients in contested divorce proceedings, especially involving child custody disputes, need expeditious resolution of the issues in order that they may get on with their lives. Respondent's wholly unjustified delays in completing relatively simple tasks and in not responding to his clients' inquiries made already difficult situations worse and more stressful. As noted by the panel, respondent, at the hearing, refused to acknowledge most of his wrongdoing. A minority of the court would accept the panel's recommended discipline of unpublished censure. The majority of the court concludes that published censure is the appropriate discipline. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent, Troy L. Daugherty, be censured in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3) (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 226) for the violations found herein. 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.