Court Opinion

ID: 9538803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:42:01.434134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:10.403012
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.:
This original proceeding in discipline was filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Steven A. Kraushaar, respondent, a Marysville attorney who is the Marshall County Attorney, alleging multiple violations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).
The respondent stipulated to the controlling facts and specific violations as set forth in Counts II, III, and IV of the formal complaint. Count I was dismissed by the Disciplinary Administrator.
COUNT II
In early 1990, while county attorney of Marshall County and having a statutory duty to prosecute child in need of care cases, respondent contacted a Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) employee who was conducting an investigation of a mother for possible neglect of her two children. Respondent informed the SRS employee he represented the mother and appeared with the mother as her attorney at a meeting with the SRS employee representing the mother’s interests in the child in need of care investigation.
Respondent stipulated that a conflict existed because he was county attorney and had a statutory duty to prosecute child in need of care cases and represented a client who was being investigated for possible neglect- of her children by SRS, all in violation of *773MRPC 1.7(a) (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 313) (the conflict of interest rule).
COUNT III
Respondent also stipulated he violated MRPC 3.5(d) (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 354), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.
Respondent stipulated that he had engaged in the following conduct:
A. Appearing in court in blue jeans, a tom shirt, and filthy.
B. Announcing to participants in litigation outside of the courtroom that he hoped the matter before the court would be concluded soon because he wanted to get drunk.
C. Discussing his sexual needs during a conference in chambers with Judge Elizabeth Carleen and defense counsel present.
D. During a hearing, jumping over the railing that separates the courtroom from the area for the seating of spectators and witnesses.
E. Making the statement during a sentencing that he did not care what the court did in response to a question from the court about the respondent’s recommendation for sentencing.
COUNT IV
The respondent, while county attorney, refused to file a child in need of care action at the request of the stepfather of a client who was terminally ill unless he was paid $1,000. The district court judge appointed a local attorney as special prosecutor (after the client’s death), who handled the child in need of care action.
Respondent stipulated that his demand he be paid $1,000 before he would file a child in need of care case violated MRPC 8.4(g) (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law, and further violated K.S.A. 19-705, which reads:
“No county attorney shall receive any fee or reward from or on behalf of any prosecutor or other individuals, except such as are allowed by law for services in any prosecution or business to which it shall be his official duty to attend, nor be concerned as attorney or counsel for either party, other than the state or county, *774in any civil action depending upon tiie same state of facts upon which any criminal prosecution, commenced but undetermined, shall depend; nor shall any county attorney while in office be eligible to or hold any judicial or other county office whatsoever.”
MITIGATION
The hearing panel found the following matters in mitigation:
a. Absence of prior disciplinary record.
b. Absence of dishonest or selfish motives.
c. Inexperience in the practice of law.
d. Remorse.
e. Acceptance of responsibility for his acts.
The hearing panel recommended that respondent be disciplined by public censure and that he appear in open court and personally apologize to Judge Elizabeth Carleen for his conduct. The office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommends that this court accept the recommendation.
All members of the court view respondent’s conduct as being more egregious than conduct where published censure is imposed. A majority of the court concludes that respondent’s violations are a severe breach of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but the violations are not of the kind and character that would warrant suspension from practice or disbarment.
It Is The Order Of The Court that the imposition of discipline against Steven A. Kraushaar be and hereby is suspended, and he is placed on probation for 2 years from the date of this opinion.
It Is Further Ordered that respondent not violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and that in addition to meeting his CLE requirements, he shall attend the 2-hour ethics program designed for county and district attorneys at both the 1996 spring meeting (to be held in Lawrence, Kansas) and 1996 fall meeting (to be held in Wichita, Kansas) of the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association. Respondent shall furnish the Disciplinary Administrator with proof of attendance.
*775It Is Further Ordered that respondent appear in open court and personally apologize to Judge Elizabeth Carleen for the conduct respondent stipulated to in Count III and furnish to the Disciplinary Administrator, at respondent’s expense, a transcript of the apology.
It Is Further Ordered that in the event respondent fails to abide by the conditions set forth herein, a show cause order will issue to respondent and this court will take whatever disciplinary action it deems just and proper without further formal proceedings.
It Is Further Ordered that this order be published in the official Kansas reports and that respondent pay the costs of these proceedings.