Censure For Neglect And Failure To Communicate

The Kansas Supreme Court censured an attorney who had failed to respond to a court email that led to the dismissal of the client’s personal injury claim.

Priors as recounted  by the hearing panel

The respondent has been disciplined on seven prior occasions. In 1999, the respondent received an admonition in Missouri for not paying his annual registration fee. In that same letter, the respondent was not found to have violated Missouri’s equivalent of KRPC 1.3 and 1.4, but was cautioned to review those rules to avoid violation in the future. In 2000, the respondent received an admonition in Missouri for violation of Missouri’s equivalent of KRPC 1.3. In 2001, the respondent was admonished in Missouri for violation of the equivalent of KRPC 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1. In 2003, the respondent was admonished in Missouri for violation of the equivalent of KRPC 1.4. In 2004 the respondent received two separate admonitions in Missouri for violations of the equivalent of KRPC 1.1, 1.4, and 8.1. In 2007, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law by the Kansas Supreme Court for one year for violation of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.4, as well as Supreme Court Rules 207(b) and 211(b). The respondent received a reciprocal one-year suspension in Missouri for his 2007 misconduct in Kansas, and after his reinstatement in Missouri was placed on probation for one year. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent has a substantial record of prior discipline for similar misconduct to the misconduct in this case.

Harm

The respondent asserts that the hearing panel should consider it a mitigating factor that K.W.’s cause of action was not lost and that K.W. could have refiled the petition. The hearing panel concludes that Mr. Daniels violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence) and KRCP 1.4 (communication). Mr. Daniels did notify his client of the ability to re-file her claim. However, it was only after Mr. Daniels was contacted repeatedly by his client for a rationale of why her case was dismissed. Mr. Daniels did not prosecute her case in a timely manner, resulting in a dismissal, and did not communicate the dismissal to his client in a timely manner. Therefore, the hearing panel concludes this is not a mitigating factor.

Proposed sanction

…based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be suspended for a period of 180 days. The hearing panel further recommends that after the respondent has served 30 days of the suspension, the remaining 150 days of the suspension be stayed, and the respondent be placed on probation for no less than one year, provided the respondent submits a proposed plan of probation that is approved by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator.”

The court

Here, we determine that respondent’s failure to act with regard to K.W.’s case was a product of his negligence. Therefore, we find the appropriate discipline is published censure. A minority of the court would impose a harsher penalty.

(Mike Frisch)