Opinion ID: 1418537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint of Mary Burke

Text: The findings of the State Board on the complaint of Mary Burke disclose that respondent was named executor of the will of Paul Bell, who died on April 11, 1973. At Bell's death respondent prepared a petition to probate the will and secured waivers of notice from all heirs. The will was admitted to probate and respondent was appointed executor. Notice to creditors was published in a local newspaper. Claims for expenses of last illness and for funeral expenses were filed and paid. The respondent as executor secured an order from the court authorizing transfer of title to an automobile previously sold under contract. Many small accounts owing to the estate were collected by letter. The foregoing work was accomplished within 10 months after notice to creditors. The complaint of Mary Burke was largely directed toward the respondent's failure to discuss the affairs of the estate with her and his failure to promptly close the estate. During the hearing before the panel, which occurred one year and ten months after respondent's appointment as executor, certain additional irregularities in the manner in which the estate had been handled came to light. These were in the nature of nonfeasance as distinguished from malfeasance. The respondent failed to file an inventory of the property belonging to the estate. No appraisal had been obtained and respondent had failed to file estate and inheritance tax returns. These returns were past due and subsequent filing will require the payment of both penalty and interest, and result in a loss to the estate. Respondent advised the hearing panel that he will pay the unnecessary expense incurred by reason of penalty and interest due on these death tax returns. This is a mitigating circumstance which we have considered in arriving at our ultimate decision. The assets of the estate, according to respondent's own testimony, consist primarily of investments in mutual funds, certificates of deposits, savings accounts and a balance due on a contract for the sale of decedent's business entered into prior to his death. The future payments due on the contract would normally require that special arrangements be made with the probate court and the heirs to effect a closing of the estate. The hearing panel noted other matters of nonfeasance by the respondent such as failure to give proper attention to the collection of accounts, writing his own bond as executor while acting in the capacity of an agent for a bonding company without securing prior approval from the heirs and a failure to institute ancillary proceedings in Florida to clear title to several unimproved lots of unknown value. There is an insufficient factual foundation in the record for this court to determine the extent of misfeasance, if any, in connection with the collection of accounts and the need for ancillary proceedings in Florida. We express no position with regard thereto. The conclusion adopted by the State Board on this complaint was that there had been a violation by the respondent of two separate disciplinary rules which are as follows: (A) A lawyer shall not: .............. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. (DR 1-102 [A] [6].) (A) A lawyer shall not: .............. (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. (DR 6-101 [A] [3]. Rules of the Supreme Court, 214 Kan. pp. lxxv, lxxxvii.) After reviewing the record on the complaint of Mary Burke this court finds the respondent did neglect a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file an inventory and appraisal in the estate of Paul Bell within the time required by law (see K.S.A. 59-1201 and 59-1202), and by failing to file necessary and timely reports on federal estate tax and state inheritance tax thus incurring added expense (see 26 U.S.C.A., § 6075 [ a ], and K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 79-1502). Such neglect constitutes conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law in violation of the disciplinary rules. Respondent has accepted the findings of fact entered by the State Board of Law Examiners. We find a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, so there remains the determination of the discipline to be administered. It has been observed by this court: ... [N]o punishment is provided in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 207 ( n ) provides that recommendations of the board as to punishment may be (1) private censure, (2) public censure, (3) suspension for a definite or indefinite period, or (4) disbarment; but the nature of the punishment is not limited to these designations. The rule provides no guidelines for categorizing acts of misconduct in any one of the suggested forms of punishment. The only limitation on punishment is the collective conscience of this court. We recognize that a pattern has developed to some extent in our disciplinary cases, and that we should strive for consistency in the exercise of our judicial judgment.... ( State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460, 466, 524 P.2d 747.) Discipline by public censure has been approved in other cases where attorneys have neglected legal matters entrusted to them and have failed to communicate with their clients. (See State v. Martindale, 215 Kan. 667, 527 P.2d 703; State v. Alvey, supra; and In re Carson, 205 Kan. 456, 469 P.2d 349.) On the complaint of Mary Burke it is considered, ordered and adjudged that Leo N. Johnson be and he is hereby publicly censured by this court. Costs of this proceeding are taxed to respondent.