Opinion ID: 2634207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: hearing panel recommendations

Text: In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter `Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.  Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to the public and to the legal profession to maintain his personal integrity.  Mental State. The Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his duties.  Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused actual harm to the Morton Community Bank and to the legal profession.  Aggravating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following aggravating factors present:  Prior Disciplinary Offenses. On January 30, 2004, the Kansas Supreme Court censured the Respondent for having violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.16, and KRPC 8.4(g). Further, on March 19, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended the Respondent's license to practice law in Illinois for a period of one year for misconduct included in this case. The Illinois Supreme Court further ordered that the Respondent's license to practice law in that state will not be reinstated until he pays restitution to the Morton Community Bank. Finally, on May 29, 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court suspended the Respondent's license to practice law in Missouri for one year for misconduct included in the instant case. The Missouri Supreme Court also ordered the Respondent to make restitution to the Morton Community Bank before his license will be reinstated. The Missouri and Illinois disciplinary cases, however, arise from the same offenses that are the basis of the instant disciplinary case. As a result, the Hearing Panel has not considered these two disciplinary cases as an aggravating factor.  Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent['s] misconduct was motivated by dishonesty and selfishness.  Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. Throughout the Illinois disciplinary proceeding and continuing through the hearing held in the instant action, the Respondent has refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.  Vulnerability of Victim. The Morton Community Bank was vulnerable to the Respondent's misconduct. The bank made the loan without the routine formalities including a loan application because the Respondent is an attorney. The bank relied to its detriment on the Respondent's integrity in making the loan.  Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Illinois Supreme Court admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 1985. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the Respondent to practice law in 1990. At the time the Respondent engaged in misconduct, the Respondent had been practicing law for more than fifteen years. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent had substantial experience in the practice of law at the time he engaged in the misconduct.  Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has made no effort to make restitution to the Morton Community Bank.  Mitigating Factors. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances present:  Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes have Contributed to a Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2001, the Respondent went through a bitter divorce. As a result of the divorce, the Respondent suffered financial difficulties. The Illinois Supreme Court stated: ` . . . We believe Respondent lied to the bank and misused the loan proceeds because of these financial problems and he fabricated the story about the car being in a wreck in an attempt to justify his misconduct.' Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent's personal financial difficulties led to the Respondent's misconduct.  Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The Respondent's license to practice in Illinois and Missouri has been suspended. In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards: Standard 6.11. Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding. Standard 6.12. Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes [an] adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding. The panel recommended the following discipline: The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Hearing Panel impose the same discipline as imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Missouri Supreme Court. The Respondent stated that he did not have an objection to the Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation. The Report and Recommendation adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court contains strong, descriptive language regarding the Respondent's misconduct. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the Respondent's conduct was dishonest and deceitful. Also, it concluded that he obtained the loan `based on false statements.' Further, the Illinois Court stated its belief that the Respondent's conduct `amounted to bank fraud.' Finally, the Court concluded that the Respondent's testimony was not credible, that `he fabricated a set of facts,' and that he `intentionally lied during the bankruptcy proceedings.' Findings such as these warrant a severe sanction. Lawyers must be trustworthy. If an attorney provides false testimony and engages in fraudulent conduct, the attorney forfeits the privilege of practicing law. The Hearing Panel believes that it should give due deference to the decisions of our sister states in such matters; however, the Illinois discipline is apparently based upon the consideration of the discipline given for similar infractions to other lawyers in that state. Our Court has admonished us to consider each case separately while being mindful of the standards. This Hearing Panel believes the standards, the Respondent's conduct, and his current opinion that he is not blameworthy for the infractions, warrant a different discipline than that given in Illinois and Missouri and recommended by the Disciplinary Administrator. Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas. We are not certain that the effect of the recommended discipline will actually have a different result than the suspensions of our sister states with the added restitution requirement they have made, but we believe that the Respondent should be required to go through the reinstatement process before again practicing law in Kansas.