Opinion ID: 3194599
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawkins' Representation of B.S.

Text: The panel found that in B.S.'s case, the respondent caused delay by failing to timely respond to requests from Julia Butler, her opposing counsel, to negotiate a settlement or schedule a hearing, and by informing Michelle Olberding, the deputy court clerk, that neither she nor her client would be appearing at the May 9, 2012, hearing, which in turn caused the court to review unnecessary motions and hold unnecessary hearings and caused an unnecessary delay in resolving the pending issues between B.S. and A.S. With regard to the finding that Hawkins failed to timely respond to Butler, Hawkins simply states that the Panel's Report does not support such a finding. She then proceeds to give a recitation of the evidence without any explanation of why it does not establish her tardiness in responding to opposing counsel's emails. Despite reciting this evidence, Hawkins also states that the complaint filed in DA11619, alone, does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence, apparently suggesting that the complaint Butler filed with the Disciplinary Administrator was the only evidence presented at the hearing to show that Hawkins was tardy with her responses. The problem with Hawkins' argument is that Butler testified before the hearing panel regarding the trouble she had communicating with Hawkins. Copies of the emails at issue were also introduced into evidence at trial verifying the panel's findings. Hawkins, curiously, argues that because there was conflicting evidence (i.e., her testimony versus the testimony of Olberding, the deputy clerk of the Jefferson County District Court), the panel could not have found by clear and convincing evidence that she informed Olberding on the morning of May 9, 2012, that neither she nor her client would be attending the hearing scheduled later that day. Simply stated, the panel made a 40 credibility determination, finding the deputy clerk more credible than Hawkins. On appeal, this court does not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. In re Comfort, 284 Kan. at 190. The panel had sufficient evidence before it to find that it was highly probable that Hawkins told the deputy clerk that neither she nor her client would be appearing for the May 9 hearing.