Opinion ID: 4577870
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On December 19, 2017, a deputy disciplinary

Text: administrator informally admonished the respondent for violating KRPC 1.3 (diligence), KRPC 1.4 (communication), KRPC 5.1 (responsibilities of supervising lawyers), and KRPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance). 19 b. Dishonest or Selfish Motive. Throughout the extensive litigation on the matter and throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent falsely characterized his role as a mere scrivener. Characterizing his role in this fashion was dishonest. The respondent (improperly) agreed to represent both sides to an agreement. By agreeing to represent A.M., he agreed to provide A.M. with independent and candid advice. Likewise, characterizing his role as a mere scrivener was also selfish. In so doing, the respondent sought to minimize his culpability in this matter. The respondent's dishonest and selfish motivation in this case is a considerable aggravating factor. c. A Pattern of Misconduct. Over the course of years, the respondent repeatedly falsely asserted that his role in the matter was that of a mere scrivener. Because the respondent repeatedly falsely asserted that he was a mere scrivener, he engaged in a pattern of misconduct. d. Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. The respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.2(c) (scope of representation), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 2.1 (exercise independent judgment), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses. e. Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. The respondent has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. f. Vulnerability of Victim. A.M. was vulnerable to the respondent's misconduct. He is not an attorney; he relied on the respondent to provide him independent professional judgment and candid advice. g. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1987. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for 17 years. 20 81. 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: a. The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His or Her Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. While the respondent fully cooperated with the disciplinary process, the respondent did not acknowledge his transgressions. b. Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community Including Any Letters from Clients, Friends and Lawyers in Support of the Character and General Reputation of the Attorney. The respondent is an active and productive member of the bar. The respondent also enjoys the respect of his peers and generally possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by several letters received by the hearing panel. c. Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings. The respondent argued that there was a delay in the disciplinary proceedings. A.M. filed the complaint in 2016. While the litigation remaining pending, and at the request of the respondent, the case was put on hold until after the litigation was resolved. While the disciplinary complaint was not filed at the time of the misconduct, the disciplinary proceedings have not been delayed other than at the request of the respondent. This is not a mitigating factor. d. Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The respondent settled the dispute with the bankruptcy trustee by paying $250,000. Additionally, following a five day jury trial, the respondent was found to be 20% liable for A.M.'s $171,000 loss. e. Remorse. In his closing argument, counsel for the respondent referenced the respondent's remorse in this case. The hearing panel reviewed the transcript and found the following: 'A. . . . In hindsight, I wish I would have ran. My crazy. I'm so sorry to everybody that I didn't. What I was trying to do, though, was 21 help two people who really wanted to do a deal together, if they came to terms, do a deal under the—under the boundaries of what I was doing. I was just doing what I was asked. Is that a good excuse? No, it's not. Should I have made calls, no I shouldn't have. I've kicked myself for the last 15 years I guess for that. So, no, I should have done things, but I didn't.' 82. In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards: '4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. '5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: .... '(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. '5.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. '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 22 serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding. '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. '7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.' Recommendation 83. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be disbarred. Counsel for the respondent recommended that the respondent be reprimanded for the misconduct. 84. Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, the Standards listed above, and In re Callahan, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent's license to practice law in Kansas be suspended for a period of one year. 85. Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator.