Opinion ID: 2797998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Jarvis knew of the conflict of interest by

Text: preparing an informed consent document which was presented to [R.T.] by [T.C.] as required by Rule 1.9. If the party refused to execute the written informed consent, as in this case, the attorney is disqualified pursuant to Rule 1.9; B. That Mr. Jarvis continued to represent [T.C.] after [R.T.]'s refusal to sign the informed consent document thereby causing unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of litigation pursuant to K.S.A. 60-211(b)(1); C. That the Court in its June 25, 2012 Memoranda [sic] Decision stated, As for the hardship now faced by [T.C.], [] Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 make it clear that [R.T.] and his counsel tried to resolve the conflict of interest issue before litigation on the issue. Jarvis stayed in the case with the permission of [T.C.]. Therefore the Court finds that [T.C.] proceeded fully aware of the hardship that might occur. D. That the hearing on [R.T.]'s Motion to Strike the pleadings [sic] herein was continued to this date, September 2012. The Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Jarvis continues to represent [T.C.] in [the civil case]. The time for appeal of this Court's order of June 25, 2012, has lapsed. Neither Mr. Jarvis nor [T.C.] have provided any evidence why the pleadings should not be 7 stricken and it would cause undue hardship to [R.T.], and the Estate, to be disadvantaged further by not striking the pleadings that were filed with a known conflict of interest.' 20. On November 30, 2012, the court entered a memorandum opinion, disqualifying the respondent from representing T.C. in the civil suit. In the opinion, the court stated: 'To say that attorney Jarvis was disqualified in the Probate case but not in a proceeding involving the circumstances, parties and subject matter of the Probate case would be an absurd result. Defendant's motion to disqualify attorney Jarvis from further participation in this case is granted.' 21. At the time the respondent filed the civil suit against R.T., seeking a restraining order and damages, the respondent was subject to the terms and conditions of the diversion agreement entered regarding the first two attorney disciplinary complaints described in this report. Paragraph 10(a) of the diversion agreement provided, 'In any legal action filed by the respondent he shall associate himself with Kansas Counsel.' The respondent failed to associate himself with Kansas counsel when he filed suit against R.T. 22. Filing suit against R.T. without associating with an attorney amounted to a violation of the respondent's diversion agreement. DA11796 23. L. David Stubbs, an Oklahoma attorney, retained the respondent to register a foreign judgment in Kansas. On August 26, 2011, the respondent registered the foreign judgment in the Johnson County District Court of Kansas. 8 24. At the time the respondent registered the foreign judgment, the respondent was subject to the terms and conditions of the diversion agreement entered regarding the first two attorney disciplinary complaints described in this report. Paragraph 10(a) of the diversion agreement provided, 'In any legal action filed by the respondent he shall associate himself with Kansas Counsel.' The respondent failed to associate himself with Kansas counsel when he registered the foreign judgment. [Footnote: During the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent testified that his understanding of 'associate' with counsel was different than the disciplinary administrator's understanding of that same term. The hearing panel finds that the respondent's argument in this regard is specious.] 25. Registering the foreign judgment without associating with an attorney amounted to a violation of the respondent's diversion agreement. DA11892 26. R.S. married I.S. They had three children, including C.S. Later, R.S. and I.S. divorced. After the divorce, I.S. continued to have a durable power of attorney for R.S. 27. R.S. owned and operated a successful insurance agency. For a period of more than 40 years, the respondent represented R.S. and his insurance agency. In 2008, C.S. purchased the insurance agency from his father. 28. Over time, R.S.'s mental health had deteriorated. He was evaluated by medical and mental health professionals multiple times. 29. On July 6, 2012, and August 2, 2012, R.S. was evaluated by two neurologists who provided reports of their findings. The neurologists diagnosed R.S. with frontotemporal dementia and found R.S. had significant atrophy of the cortex of both frontal lobes which was out of proportion to his age or other issues. Additionally, the neurologists found R.S. had very poor judgment and insight. As a result of the dementia, the neurologists concluded R.S. was no longer able to make medical, financial, or critical 9 life decisions of any kind, it was no longer safe for R.S. to drive a motor vehicle, and his condition was complicated due to grandiose and delusional thinking. 30. In their reports, the neurologists explained that there is no treatment for frontotemporal dementia, however, the neurologists proposed R.S. take certain medication to treat some of the symptoms. 31. On December 18, 2012, R.S.'s primary care physician provided a letter to I.S. regarding R.S.'s condition, which provided: '[R.S.] is an 80 year-old with progressive cognitive decline over the past 2-3 years. His condition is consistent with progressive dementia. Earlier this year, he underwent neurological assessment by Dr. Vernon Rowe and subsequently by Dr. Dana Winegarner, both neurologists at the MidAmerican Neuroscience Institute. 'Dr. Winegarner's conclusion is that [R.S.] suffers from frontotemporal dementia. His Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score is 15 indicative of significant cognitive impairment. She concluded that [R.S.] suffered total inability to make appropriate financial, medical, or critical life decisions due to poor insight and judgment. 'Additionally, she felt he was unable to safely drive. His poor memory and insight are further complicated by delusional and grandiose thinking. Based on my experience with [R.S.], I concur with her findings and recommendations. Her findings are outlined in detail in her 8-8-12 note which is part of [R.S.]'s medical record. '[R.S.]'s condition is chronic and progressive. His cognitive function will likely continue to decline. I would recommend ongoing follow up by a psychiatrist given the degree of his deficit.' 10 32. The respondent formed Aida Oil, Inc. and served as its vice president, secretary, and treasurer. The company was named for the respondent's wife, Aida Jarvis. The respondent's brother, Mark C. Jarvis owned Aida Oil, Inc. 33. On March 28, 2013, the respondent prepared and R.S. executed a Promissory Demand Note to Aida Oil, Inc. in the amount of $25,000. The note was secured by property owned by R.S. in Paola, Kansas. Also on March 28, 2013, R.S. executed a Quit Claim Deed transferring the property which purported to secure the promissory note, to Aida Oil, Inc. 34. On March 29, 2013, Aida Oil, Inc. issued a check to R.S. in the amount of $25,000. 35. On April15, 2013, on behalf of Aida Oil, Inc. and R.S., the respondent filed suit against C.S. and his wife, S.S., seeking partition of real estate, in Miami County District Court, case number 13CV80. The subject property in the suit brought by the respondent was the same property transferred by R.S. to Aida Oil, Inc. as security for the promissory note entered by R.S. 36. On May 12, 2013, Texas Life Insurance Company issued an endorsement to R.S.'s life insurance policy, changing the primary beneficiary to the respondent. 37. On May 17, 2013, I.S. and C.S. filed a petition to have a guardian and conservator appointed for R.S. Eldon Shields represented I.S. and C.S. in the guardianship and conservatorship case. That same day, the court issued temporary orders, including an order temporarily appointing Ron Wood as R.S.'s guardian and conservator. 38. On May 31, 2013, the respondent entered his appearance on behalf of R.S. in the guardianship and conservatorship case. 39. On June 7, 2013, the respondent filed a motion to terminate the appointment of Mr. Wood as the temporary guardian and conservator. Additionally, the respondent sought to have a voluntary conservator appointed. Later, the respondent filed a demand for a jury trial. 11 40. On June 18, 2013, the court conducted a hearing on the respondent's motion to terminate the appointment of Mr. Wood. The court denied the respondent's motion and Mr. Wood remained as R.S.'s temporary guardian and conservator. 41. On July 12, 2013, counsel for I.S. and C.S. filed a motion to disqualify the respondent from his representation of R.S. in the guardianship and conservatorship case. 42. On July 18, 2013, without authorization from Mr. Wood, R.S. signed a Kansas Quit-Claim Deed which purported to transfer title from R.S.'s company to 'The Boss/Saw Land Holding & Mgmt. Co., LLC.' 43. On July 26, 2013, more than a month after the court ordered that Mr. Wood would continue to serve as guardian and conservator for R.S., the respondent, without authorization of Mr. Wood, acting as counsel for R.S. and Bossaw Land Holding Mgmt. Co., LLC, filed a petition against I.S., C.S., and others seeking damages and eviction in the Wyandotte County District Court, case number 13LM4585. 44. On July 28, 2013, without authorization from Mr. Wood, S.W., R.S.'s sister, wrote to a tenant of a building owned by R.S.'s company. The letter was on Bossaw letterhead. S.W. notified the tenant that Bossaw was the new owner of the building and all rents would be collected by Bossaw. 45. On August 6, 2013, the court conducted a hearing on the motion to disqualify the respondent from the representation of R.S. At the conclusion of the hearing on August 6, 2013, the court allowed the parties to August 13, 2013, to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was not required. The court ordered the parties to return on August 20, 2013, at 8:30a.m. for a ruling on the motion for disqualification. 12 46. On August 13, 2013, the petitioners filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The respondent did not file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 47. On August 20, 2013, at 8:30a.m., the court commenced the hearing to rule on the motion to disqualify the respondent from his representation of R.S. At 8:30a.m., the respondent and R.S. were not present in the courtroom for the hearing. 48. During the hearing, the court disqualified the respondent from his representation of R.S. because the respondent had a pecuniary interest [in] the matter. Specifically, the court found the respondent had a pecuniary interest in R.S.'s conservatorship because the respondent had previously stated he had to find someone to loan R.S. money to pay the attorney fees owed to respondent. Further, the court found that the respondent circumvented the court's order appointing a temporary guardian and conservator when he filed suit on behalf of R.S. in Wyandotte County, Kansas, and when he organized Bossaw, Inc, for the purpose of collecting rents for R.S. 49. As the judge was completing the hearing, the respondent and R.S. appeared in the courtroom. The respondent informed the court that he and R.S. had arrived on time but had been in a different part of the courthouse. 50. After disqualifying the respondent as counsel for R.S. in the guardianship and conservatorship case, on August 21, 2013, Mike Jilka entered his appearance on behalf of R.S. 51. On August 27, 2013, counsel for I.S. and C.S. filed a motion to have the respondent, R.S., and others cited for contempt. Mr. Wood provided an affidavit in support of the petitioners' motion. The affidavit provided, in pertinent part, as follows: '1. I am the temporary conservator and guardian for [R.S.] in this matter. 13 '2. I am serving in said capacity pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Orders. '3. On June 18, 2013, the Court continued the Preliminary Orders and gave me the powers stated in K.S.A. 59-3075 and 59-3078 except for the power to place [R.S.] in any type of assisted living facility. '4. I have received telephone calls from tenants of rental properties owned by [R.S.] and/or [R.S.'s company] stating that [the respondent, [R.S.], [S.W.], and [G.S.] are attempting to collect rent on behalf of Bossaw Land Holding & Mgmt. Co. LLC. '5. I have reviewed the Petition in Wyandotte County Case No. 13LM4585 which attempts to evict tenants for not paying rent to Bossaw and purports to own property subject to my authority as guardian and conservator for [R.S.] '6. I have been collecting rent from [R.S.]'s and [R.S.'s company]'s rental properties since I was appointed temporary guardian and conservator, and it is not in the best interest of [R.S.] to be selling real estate to Bossaw or to be evicting tenants. '7. I did not authorize the sale of any real estate owned or effectively controlled by [R.S.]. '8. I did not authorize the filing of any lawsuit by [R.S.] or an entity owned or controlled by [R.S.]. '9. I did not authorize [R.S.]'s involvement in the creation of Bossaw Land Holding & Mgmt. Co. LLC. 14 '10. I have informed [the respondent], who has been acting as counsel for [R.S.], that [R.S.] is not authorized to be conducting business for himself or [R.S.'s company]. '11. The purpose of this affidavit is to support a finding that [the respondent], [R.S.], [S.W.], [G.S.], and Bossaw Land Holding Mgmt. Co. LLC are committing actions contrary to the Court's authority and contrary to my authority as guardian and conservator.' 52. The respondent prepared a 'motion of the accused contemners,' for Mr. Jilka's signature. After receiving a copy of the motion from the respondent, on September 9, 2013, Mr. Jilka wrote to the respondent. Mr. Jilka stated: 'I just read the motion draft that you faxed me this afternoon. First, I note that you inserted my name on the pleading. Please be advised that our firm does not represent you. I have grave uncertainty and doubts regarding your position. If you decide to challenge the contempt citation at the hearing on September 13, I will not support your legal position. I have advised my client to cooperate with Mr. Wood. 'Second, I again urge you to dismiss Wyandotte County Case No. 13LM4585 and disband Bossaw Land Holding & Mgmt. Co., LLC in order to purge yourself from the contempt. In my opinion, the temporary conservator is authorized to act on behalf of [R.S.]. He has directed you to discontinue your actions that contravene his authority. 'Third, Mr. Boden contacted me earlier today to inquire if there was any interest in settling the contempt issues. I urge you to contact him and offer to follow the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph. 'I see no purpose in spending my client's money discussing the contempt motion with you any further because I do not represent you. I hope that you will heed my caution and contact Mr. Boden.' 15 53. Mr. Jilka arranged to have R.S. evaluated again. On October 1, 2013, a psychiatrist issued a report of his evaluation. The psychiatrist's report confirmed the earlier findings. The report contained the following statements: '[R.S.] clearly experiences irreversible mental disease in the form of frontotemporal dementia . . . . So far, a trial of acetylcholinesterase medications was not helpful. This is a progressive disease. .... 'With a functional intellectual level at the DSM-5 Severe Intellectual Disability level (DSM-IV-TR Moderate Mental Retardation) and a composite IQ'' at the 0.1 percentile (999 of 1000) persons function better than he, due to progressive frontotemporal dementia, [R.S.] cannot function independently in any financial dealing or in any independent decision-making about his person or medical care. 'Though he has very little insight into the progressive nature of his frontotemporal dementia, [R.S.] can define guardianship, can define conservatorship, and gives a reasonable indication that he would like assistance to manage his estate of millions or the liquidation of his estate. One on hand, he believes that he has no need for advice from anyone about anything, but actually relies very heavily on advice and guidance from his sisters, trust attorney Cheryl Bruska, his brother-inlaw, and long-term legal advisor Mike Jarvis.' 54. During the time the respondent provided R.S. with legal counsel, he filed multiple suits on behalf of R.S., and formed Bossaw for R.S. All the while, the respondent was subject to the terms and conditions of the diversion agreement entered regarding the first two attorney disciplinary complaints described in this report. Paragraph 10(a) of the diversion agreement provided, 'In any legal action filed by the respondent he shall associate himself with Kansas Counsel.' The respondent failed to 16 associate himself with Kansas counsel when he provided R.S. with legal counsel, filed multiple suits on behalf of R.S., and formed Bossaw for R.S. 55. Providing R.S. with legal counsel, by filing multiple suits on behalf of R.S. and, additionally, forming Bossaw for R.S. without associating with an attorney amounted to additional violations of the respondent's diversion agreement. Conclusions of Law 56. Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.7(a)(2), KRPC 1.8(e), KRPC 1.14(b), KRPC 8.4(c), and KRPC 8.4(d), as detailed below. [Footnote: Regarding DA11685, the disciplinary administrator did not provide clear and convincing evidence to establish a violation of KRPC 1.7 or KRPC 1.9. First, the hearing panel is not bound by decisions of the district court. Second, the respondent testified, and denied, having contact with R.T., as described in the formal complaint. No other testimony was presented to controvert the respondent on that subject. Accordingly, the hearing panel dismisses the allegations that the respondent violated KRPC 1.7 and KRPC 1.9 in DA11685. However, the hearing panel concludes, as detailed above, that the respondent violated his diversion agreement by filing suit against R.T. without first associating with counsel.] KRPC 1.1 57. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC 1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' 58. In the diversion agreement, the respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.1. Accordingly, because the respondent failed to provide competent representation to B.A., the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 in his representation of