Continuing Education

The single best feature of membership in the District of Columbia Bar is the absence of any continuing legal education (CLE) obligations.

Not so for most Bars such as Kansas per these hearing panel findings

On September 8, 2017, while attending the in-person video replay CLE program, the respondent also viewed online on-demand CLE programs offered by Lawline. The respondent completed five online on-demand CLE programs offered by Lawline at 12:35 p.m., 2:10 p.m., 4:06 p.m., 5:23 p.m., and 10:53 p.m. For the Missouri bar, the respondent certified that he ‘listened/viewed the program in a setting suitable to the course and a suitable writing surface was available.’ Just below the respondent’s signatures, the five certificates included statements that a ‘materially false statement shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.’

The respondent forwarded information to the Kansas CLE Commission claiming that he attended 400 minutes of CLE for eight hours of CLE credit, including zero hours of ethics credit, for attending the in-person video replay CLE program. The respondent also forwarded information to the Kansas CLE Commission claiming 360 minutes of CLE credit, including 120 minutes of ethics credit for viewing the online on demand CLE programs offered by Lawline. The Kansas CLE Commission received the information from the respondent on September 11, 2017.

No multitasking allowed. 

When the issue came to light

After learning that the respondent was claiming more than eight hours of CLE credit for one day, Shelley Sutton, Executive Director of the Kansas CLE Commission called the respondent. Ms. Sutton asked the respondent whether he viewed the online courses while in attendance at the in-person video replay CLE program. The respondent falsely denied doing so. The respondent claimed that during the in-person video replay CLE program, the respondent merely logged into the Lawline website to print out the certificates of attendance. Ms. Sutton asked the respondent to contact Lawline and request the ‘backlog’ which would show the respondent’s login and logoff times and polling verification.

About an hour later, the respondent called Ms. Sutton and admitted to her that he had watched the online programs while in attendance at the in-person video replay program. Ms. Sutton recommended that the respondent self-report his conduct to the disciplinary administrator’s office. Ms. Sutton informed the respondent that he would not receive credit for any of the programming he attended on September 8, 2017.

He self-reported the misconduct.

He had had prior admonitions for Rule 1.1 and 1.4 violations. 

Sanction

The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 8.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(g) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 257) (failure to file timely answer in disciplinary proceeding). We adopt the panel’s findings and conclusions.

The only remaining issue is determining the appropriate discipline for respondent’s violations. The hearing panel unanimously recommended respondent receive a censure and that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports.

The court imposed the proposed censure.

Oral argument video linked here. (Mike Frisch)