Late Fee $100
The Kansas Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for one year as a consequence of his practice after an administrative suspension.
His annual dues payment arrived late and a $100 late fee was assessed but unpaid.
He was suspended for his failure to pay the late fee as the Hearing Panel found
On October 14, 2015, prior to 10:48 a.m., the respondent called the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and spoke with Debbie Uhl. During the conversation, the respondent stated that he had mailed the registration form and fee in plenty of time to arrive before August 3, 2015, that he had received the notice regarding the late fee, and that he did not believe that he owed the late fee, so he did not send it.
At the hearing on this matter, the witnesses’ testimony varied regarding what Ms. Uhl stated during the telephone conversation. Based on all the evidence presented to the hearing panel, the hearing panel concludes that Ms. Uhl informed the respondent that the Supreme Court had suspended the respondent’s license to practice law. Ms. Uhl asked the respondent if he had received the order of suspension. The respondent indicated that he had not received the order of suspension. Thus, despite the fact that the respondent had not yet signed for the certified mail, he had actual knowledge that his license was suspended on October 14, 2015.
After the respondent’s license to practice law was suspended, the respondent continued to practice law in multiple cases…
He self-reported to the Bar but
In his written correspondence to the disciplinary administrator’s office during the investigation as well as throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent misrepresented facts stated and omitted facts necessary to prevent a misapprehension of the facts. During his closing argument, the respondent acknowledged that he has emotional difficulty handling the truth:
‘With respect to the conversation with Ms. Uhl, I didn’t call because I received notice, I called because I had sent out a late fee. Whether you choose to believe that or not, you’re going to believe what you believe, but that was the purpose of the conversation. I think it could be interpreted either way, but I was calling to say, you know, I sent in a late fee, I’m trying to avoid the late fee before suspension comes out, is there a way for me to deal with this? I haven’t gotten a suspension order, but I’d like to
be able to deal before I do.
‘. . . I—in hindsight, hindsight is 20/20, there’s a lot of things I could have done. But when you’re in the moment, you act, sometimes in desperation, sometimes out of panic. You don’t set out to do anything wrong. You don’t set out intentionally— this wasn’t like I was going in to rob a bank, any plan like that. This is something that came as a bit of a surprise, and I tried to protect my client. I was acting in their behalf. At least that was my intention. This was not something I was doing for myself.
‘I was dishonest with regards to acting on behalf of my client where I knew that the license had been suspended, but the prior week it was more negligent. This wasn’t something that I actually knew. It’s something that I should have known, perhaps should have made myself aware of, should have thought through. Again, hindsight is 20/20, and you kick yourself every time you think of what should have happened.
The court found the explanations were dishonest and noted a disciplinary matter from Idaho
“Well, we got to go back to the 1990s. In addition to my practice of law, I did have a side business, which I don’t have anymore, and I wouldn’t have anymore, ‘um, and it was basically, it was a portrait photographer. I had a very attractive client who had indicated to me that she was—she had—I think she had been a model, or mom had been a model, or something like that. Came out I was—I did the photography, and she approached me about taking pictures with her children and—that would be nude. ‘Um, I agreed to that. In fact, eagerly. ‘Um, and, you know, in hindsight, I think that this was probably something that was maybe in her head in a theoretical, but I pressed, you want to do this, you want to do this, you want to do this, and we did. It was a horrible incident. The kids were—she had twin boys that were infants and they were, ‘um, not wanting any of this to happen. And, ‘um, I was still interested in—in doing this, and I took pictures of her, as well as tried to get pictures with her and the boys.
“‘Um, at first this was not something that caused a problem with her, at least that’s what I understood. I continued to represent her for a number of months thereafter. And then her case went south, largely because of a recommendation of a child custody investigation that found that she would be—that the father, the husband, should be primarily—the primary caregiver for the children, and I think that that led her to blame me. It came out that this had happened. I had admitted it. I had understood—at least understood in hindsight, this is something that was consensual, but came to realize, no, I was probably pushing her to do this. ‘Um, and I admitted it and it resulted in a period of suspension.”
The Casper Star Tribune had the story of the prior discipline
An Idaho judge declared a mistrial in a child sex-abuse case after he discovered the lawyer representing the defendant had lost his license after having another client pose for nude photographs as partial payment of his fees.
Sixth District Judge Ron Bush discovered Pocatello attorney Curtis Holmes had lost his license right after he completed opening arguments Wednesday in the trial of Joseph Turner, charged with lewd conduct with a 7-year-old girl.
Bush declared a mistrial. Chief Deputy Prosecutor Dennis Wilkinson said the development upset the family of the victim, who was scheduled to testify Wednesday afternoon.
No new trial date has been set.
According to a Monday order from the Idaho State Bar Professional Conduct Board, Holmes’ license was suspended for 11 months for violations of professional ethics rules. Holmes also is required to undergo therapy for inappropriate sexual behavior before he is reinstated.
The order resolved a 2003 bar complaint against Holmes that said he sexually harassed a law clerk in 2000 and incompetently handled a wrongful death case in 2001.
The complaint also alleged conflict of interest and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in Holmes’ representation of a client in a 1999 divorce case. According to the bar complaint, Holmes told the woman he was an amateur photographer and would be willing to pay her or reduce the amount of her $2,000 legal bill if she allowed him to take pictures of her and her children for entry in a state fair photo contest.
The woman said when she arrived at his house, he instead wanted to take nude photographs of her while the children waited in another room, according to the complaint.
“Fearing that she would be unable to obtain new counsel if she angered (Holmes), (the woman) allowed him to take nearly an entire roll of nude photographs,” the complaint said.
He had the photos developed and showed them to her, the complaint says.
Later, when she needed his representation for a deposition in the divorce, the complaint says Holmes offered to take more pictures to cover his fees.
In his response to the complaint, Holmes said the woman asked him to photograph her nude with her twin toddler sons and that he never discussed reduced legal fees.
“The photographs were all tastefully and artfully done, and included a number of shots of (the woman) in traditional neoclassical poses,” Holmes wrote.
In court Wednesday, Holmes told the judge he did not realize he was practicing law without a license because he had not been aware the suspension order was issued.
Asked about his suspension as he left the courtroom, Holmes told the Idaho State Journal: “This was a personal matter. It had nothing to do with my practice.”
Sanction here
Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, and in deference to the panel that heard the evidence before it, we adopt the panel’s recommendation and impose a one-year suspension from the practice of law. A minority of the court would adopt the disciplinary administrator’s six-month suspension recommendation.
Oral argument video is linked here. (Mike Frisch)