Opinion ID: 2377898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: KRPC 8.4(b) Violation

Text: KRPC 8.4 provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: .... (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. The hearing panel found: In this case, the Respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and two counts of aggravated battery. The commission of driving under the influence of alcohol and aggravated battery adversely reflect on the Respondent's fitness as a lawyer in other respects. The respondent challenges this conclusion. He argues that his conduct was not intentional, had no nexus with the practice of law, and did not display a pattern of criminal behavior. He maintains that if his crimes reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in other respects, then every crime falls under KRPC 8.4(b), rendering the qualifying language that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects meaningless excess verbage. In the first place, the respondent's criminal conduct was neither trivial nor technical. He committed multiple transgressions, he was driving while highly intoxicated, he caused both personal injury and property damage, and he left the scene of the accident with the police in pursuit. Finding that his criminal act reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer does not require a conclusion that all criminal acts reflect adversely on professional fitness. Nevertheless, a Kansas attorney who commits a felony is likely to face disciplinary measures. In In re Trester, 285 Kan. 404, 414, 172 P.3d 31 (2007), this court noted: [W]hen an attorney has been convicted of a felony offense, this court, with very few exceptions, imposes either suspension or disbarment as a sanction. In re Howlett, 266 Kan. 401, 403, 969 P.2d 890 (1998); see also In re Nelson, 255 Kan. 555, 563, 874 P.2d 1201 (1994) (citing several cases of attorney sanctions following felony convictions); see also Supreme Court [Rule] 203(c) (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 243) (requiring temporary suspension pending final disciplinary action if respondent has been convicted of a felony). Respondent argues there was no nexus between his criminal conduct and his professional fitness because the crimes had minor consequences and because they did not relate directly to the practice of law. This court has held, however, that the legal profession by its nature demands compliance with the laws governing the behavior of citizens: Any violation of the law creates some question about the trust and confidence that the public may reasonably be expected to place in a lawyer. No matter what the violation, some discipline may be required to deter the attorney involved and other members of the bar. In re Robertson, 256 Kan. 505, 507, 886 P.2d 806 (1994). In In re Laskowski, 282 Kan. 710, 147 P.3d 135 (2006), this court noted that the respondent was convicted of felony DUI. Although not a breach of a professional duty to a client, it violated his primary duty to the court and the bar, and it erodes the public confidence in the judicial system. In re Laskowski, 282 Kan. at 713-14, 147 P.3d 135. In In re Hoare, 155 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 1998), the court considered discipline of an attorney who drove while intoxicated on the wrong side of a highway and caused a fatal accident. The court concluded: Such conduct, when committed by an officer of the court, constitutes a failure to maintain personal integrity, reflects upon one's fitness to practice law, and brings the bench and the bar into disrepute. [Citations omitted.] Offending conduct need not involve direct questions of honesty or trustworthiness, nor have an immediate relation to the daily business conducted by an attorney, in order to warrant substantial discipline. [Citations omitted.] In re Hoare, 155 F.3d at 940. Attorneys are officers of the court. Society may reasonably expect that the trust and confidence placed on those that practice law also requires compliance with the law. We need not reach the question of whether a felony conviction is a per se violation of KRPC 8.4(b) because under these facts, respondent's conduct clearly constitutes a KRPC 8.4(b) violation.