Opinion ID: 2455688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: KRPC 8.4(d) Violation

Text: The first of the preserved exceptions relates to the hearing panel's determination that respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d), which provides that [i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. KRPC 8.4(d) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 603). The hearing panel found: In this case, the Respondent engaged in `conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' when he failed to timely forward Mr. Corkins' money to the court for restitution. The respondent acknowledges that because of his actions, his client's restitution payment was 12 days late, but he argues that a delay of 12 days was not prejudicial to the administration of justice and, therefore, should not be considered misconduct. In making this argument, the respondent focuses on the lack of any consequence to his client because the payment was late. This focus ignores the impact on his client, the theft victim, the probation officer, and the judge. More specifically, even though Corkins did not suffer punitive consequences, he was unnecessarily placed in noncompliance with the conditions of his probation and the payment plan established by the district courta plan to make the victim whole again. See State v. Hall, 45 Kan.App.2d 290, 247 P.3d 1050 (2011). Corkins had to defend himself just as he was beginning a probationary process, and the probation officer had to deal with the noncompliant probationer and then intercede and take the issue to the district judge. In turn, the judge had to deal with the report. Ultimately, the victim was deprived of the use of funds for a period of time because of the respondent's delay in paying the money into court. While the delay was not significant, it impacted everyone involved in the issue, and the delay would have been worse if not for the judge's initiative in inquiring about the missing funds. The respondent's actions obstructed Corkins' compliance with a court order and damaged others' confidence in the judicial system. In other situations where an attorney has obstructed another's compliance with a court order or engaged in conduct unbecoming a court officer, we have found a violation of KRPC 8.4(d). See In re Lober, 291 Kan. 394, 399, 241 P.3d 81 (2010) (respondent violated KRPC 8.4[d] when he failed to take action on behalf of client); In re Jensen, 286 Kan. 1160, 1167, 191 P.3d 1118 (2008) (respondent violated KRPC 8.4[d] when he instructed subpoenaed witness that he need not appear in court unless he heard from respondent); In re Pyle, 283 Kan. 807, 815, 156 P.3d 1231 (2007) (respondent's unrestrained statements violated KRPC 8.4[d] by `prejudic[ing] justice in a general sense by lessening the public confidence in our disciplinary system'); see also In re Dennis, 286 Kan. at 735-36, 188 P.3d 1 (respondent's repeated failure to comply with court orders and discovery deadlines in two actions violated KRPC 8.4[d]); In re Coder, 272 Kan. 758, 763, 35 P.3d 853 (2001) (respondent violated KRPC 8.4[d] when he failed to object or assert defense, failed to appear in court, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to provide discovery). Clear and convincing evidence establishes the charged misconduct of the respondent and supports the hearing panel's conclusion that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d).