Opinion ID: 2595336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Count V, McClelland

Text: In this complaint, the evidence is clear and convincing that respondent undertook a representation where misdemeanor criminal charges of altering a prescription were filed. Diversion was sought and the application was filled out, but the client was not informed of a May 1 hearing and nobody appeared. The client had called respondent's office numerous times without response. Eventually, the client was required by bondsmen to turn herself in because a warrant for her arrest had been issued. The client ended up being in custody for 14 hours. Calls to respondent did not result in assistance. The client hired a new attorney, who promptly obtained diversion for her. Respondent testified she was out of the office on a sporadic basis during the time of this representation and could not explain the missed court date except to say that it was a mistake on part for her. There is clear and convincing evidence to support the panel's finding of violations of KRPC 1.1 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 284) (competence); 1.4 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303) (communication); 1.16 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352) (declining or terminating representation); and 8.4 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 399) (misconduct). Respondent has admitted to a violation of KRPC 1.3 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 294) (diligence) as to this count. We reject the respondent's arguments that it is fundamentally unfair for the panel to find that the same conduct results in the violation of more than one rule. Such is often the case and is not improper. The Disciplinary Administrator continues to request indefinite suspension. In doing so, it is pointed out that respondent has also been subject to a finding by the Missouri Supreme Court Committee for Overseeing Ethical Conduct that she has shown a pattern of behavior regarding representation of clients that falls below the level of professional conduct required. The pattern of conduct shown by respondent's actions is likewise troubling to this court. We recognize the personal and physical problems which existed in 1997 and 1998, which partly explain some of her violations. We are not prepared to adopt the Disciplinary Administrator's recommendations, and instead we adopt the recommended discipline of the hearing panel, with minor changes. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the findings of fact of the hearing panel with the exceptions set forth herein be approved and that clear and convincing evidence supports the numerous violations which have previously been enumerated in this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 2 years but that imposition of discipline be suspended and the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of this order on the terms and conditions recommended by the hearing panel as hereafter set forth: (a) Respondent shall continue to have a full-time lawyer associate or partner and shall maintain a competent non-lawyer staff to assure against failing to communicate with clients, failing to docket appearance dates, and other professional responsibilities of an attorney. (b) Respondent shall control client intake so as to not overtax her office capacity to responsibly serve all clients at all times. (c) Respondent shall identify her trust account by including the words `Trust Account' in the bank account title. (d) Respondent shall maintain professional liability insurance with proof thereof to be furnished to the Disciplinary Administrator on an annual basis. (e) Failure of respondent to comply with the above conditions or respondent's violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct within a two year period from the date of imposition of discipline shall immediately, and automatically, impose the discipline of two year suspension, to run from [the] date of such violation of condition of probation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall furnish reports as to her compliance with the terms and conditions of this order to the Disciplinary Administrator at such times and intervals as established by the Disciplinary Administrator. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondent has not previously done so that she reimburse Erica Barnett the sum of $19.50 that was incurred as court costs to recover the fee paid to the respondent. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs of the proceeding be assessed to the respondent.