Misconduct After Reinstatement Draws Indefinite Suspension

An attorney’s alcohol issues that led to findings of misconduct in defending a criminal case drew an indefinite suspension from the Kansas Supreme Court.

The violation involved withholding a plea offer to secure payment of his fee

The hearing panel concludes that the respondent’s misconduct was motivated by selfishness. While T.W. ultimately was able to secure the benefit of the negotiated plea agreement, the respondent withheld the plea agreement from T.W. for several months to compel payment from T.W. The respondent’s selfish motive is an aggravating factor.

He had previously been reinstated froman 18-month suspension

while the misconduct involved in this case is serious, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent’s conduct in his 2019 disciplinary matter was much more serious, warranting the resulting 18-month suspension. In the prior matter, the respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol on four occasions, the last conviction being a felony. The respondent’s crimes had resulting effects on his ability to perform his duties as a lawyer, as he was too intoxicated to appear in court at all as municipal prosecutor on one occasion and missed court due to his incarceration on another occasion.

Sanction

After considering the evidence presented, all recommendations, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we conclude appropriate discipline is respondent’s indefinite suspension from the practice of law. A minority of the court would impose a lesser penalty.

Should respondent wish to have his license to practice law reinstated at some point, he must apply for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 232. Though we acknowledge the hearing panel urged us to set conditions before reinstatement would be considered, we decline to do so.

(Mike Frisch)