Opinion ID: 2571660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Complaint of Gary Nelson and Bill Brier (DA8429)

Text: Nelson received a retainer fee to write a letter in a contract dispute. He never wrote the letter. He received the retainer fee in two separate checks. When he refunded one of them, the check bounced. The other check was placed in his operating account as opposed to his trust account. The hearing panel concluded that Nelson violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 323) (diligence); KRPC 1.4 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334) (communication); KRPC 1.16(d) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 387) (declining or terminating representation); KRPC 3.2 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398) (expediting litigation); KRPC 8.1 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (bar admission and disciplinary matters); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207 (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 246) (duties of the bar and judiciary); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 259) (formal hearings). Based upon clear and convincing evidence, a unanimous hearing panel made the following conclusions of law. 1. Based upon the above findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes, as a matter of law, that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b), as follows: 2. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3 as follows: a. By failing to transfer the title of the real property to Ms. Blount's name, the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. b. The Respondent failed to timely prepare and file the journal entries in Mr. Porsch's domestic relations case. c. In Mr. Hendrickson's case, the Respondent failed to finalize and file the bankruptcy pleadings. d. By failing to timely prepare and file the necessary estate pleadings, for which he was retained by Mr. Copes, the Respondent failed to diligently represent Mr. Copes. 3. KRPC 1.4 provides: `(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. `(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decision[s] regarding the representation.' In this case, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated both KRPC 1.4(a) and KRPC 1.4(b). a. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he repeatedly failed to return Ms. Blount's telephone calls. b. By failing to clearly communicate to Ms. Johnson the scope of his representation, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(b). c. By failing to return Mr. Copes' telephone calls and by failing to keep appointments with Mr. Copes, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 4. Lawyers must safeguard their clients' property. KRPC 1.15 details a lawyer's responsibility in this regard, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . `(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. . . . . `(d) Preserving identity of funds and property of a client. (1) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable accounts maintained in the State of Kansas with a federal or state chartered or licensed financial institution and insured by an agency of the federal or state government, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein except as follows: . . . .' By failing to promptly deliver to Mr. Hendrickson the unearned fees, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b). Additionally, by failing to deposit the $1,000.00 retainer, paid by Ms. Blount, into a trust account, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(d)(1). Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15. 5. KRPC 1.16(d) provides: `Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.' In March, 2001, Mr. Hendrickson fired the Respondent and hired C. Richard Comfort. Mr. Comfort requested that the Respondent refund Mr. Hendrickson's fee and forward Mr. Hendrickson's file. The Respondent failed to `surrender' the file and refund the unearned fee as required by KRPC 1.16(d). Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d). 6. Lawyers must expedite litigation, consistent with the interests of their clients. See KRPC 3.2. The Respondent failed to expedite the probate of Mr. Copes' father's estate. Because the Respondent failed to expedite the probate of Mr. Copes' father's estate, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.2. 7. KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) require lawyers to respond to requests for information in attorney disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) provides: `[A] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . (b).. . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] disciplinary authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.' Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provides: `It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information he or she may have affecting such matters.' In this case, the Respondent failed to provide written responses to the initial complaints filed by Mr. Porsch, Mr. Gawith, and Mr. Hendrickson, as requested by the Disciplinary Administrator and the Disciplinary Investigator. Additionally, the Respondent failed to timely provide written responses to the initial complaints filed by Mr. Summers and Mr. Human. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 8. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides as follows: `The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel.' In this case, three Formal Complaints were filed against the Respondent. Because the Respondent filed his Answer to Formal Complaint DA 7821 thirteen months after it was due, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b).