No Hac Vice

An attorney who omitted material information about prior discipline in seeking pro hac vice admission has agreed to an appropriate sanction from the Kansas Supreme Court.

The sanction?

He is barred from future pro hac Kansas admission.

[He]  is hereby disciplined by indefinite prohibition from appearing pro hac vice before any Kansas court, administrative tribunal, or agency, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(5) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306).

The prior Texas discipline

The respondent has been previously disciplined on three occasions. In 1998, the Texas Supreme Court publicly reprimanded the respondent. In 2004, the Texas Supreme Court again publicly reprimanded the respondent. In 2006, the Texas Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, for failing to carry out the obligations owed to clients, for failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of a matter, for failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, for failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest, and failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from the disciplinary authority. Following a short suspension, the Texas Supreme Court placed the respondent on probation. The Texas Supreme Court referred to this discipline as partially probated suspension.

The pro hac statement

In the verified application for admission pro hac vice, the respondent stated that he had ‘been the subject of prior public discipline, but not suspension or disbarment, in any jurisdiction.’ Despite his statement in the application, the respondent had been the subject of a prior public discipline which included a suspension.

He is well thought of in Texas.

The respondent is an active and productive member of the bar of Houston, Texas. 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.

Both the attorney and the Disciplinary Administrator had sought the discipline imposed here.

The oral argument video is linked here.  Note the question of one of the justices (paraphrased)  as to why bother to proceed against a Texas attorney before the Kansas Supreme Court. (Mike Frisch)