Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Attention Ethics Professors

I assume that most of us try to give our law students a sense of what professional discipline really involves from the point of view of an accused attorney.

Teaching that aspect of professional responsibility has been greatly enhanced (in my view) by videos of state supreme court oral arguments.

If you want a first-rate 26 minute exposure to the reality of bar discipline, watch (and show) this case decided today by the Kansas Supreme Court. 

The attorney was a public defender who lost her job and career in a series of criminal matters caused by her alcoholism. She has now been sober for 4 1/2 years and works in a grocery store.

Disciplinary Counsel and her attorney argued for a stayed suspension and immediate probation. 

The attorney takes the lecturn for the last ten minutes. If you want to teach about the dangers of addiction to a practicing attorney, there is no better source. It will move the viewer to tears.

The court adopted the proposed sanction. 

The misconduct involved a series of arrests, conviction and failures to report to the Bar

 the respondent failed to comply with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(c)(1) on four occasions. First, the respondent failed to inform the disciplinary administrator that she had been charged with a felony (possession of cocaine) in 2010 in Kansas City, Missouri, within 14 days. Next, the respondent failed to inform the disciplinary administrator of the disposition of the possession of cocaine charge within 14 days. Third, the respondent failed to inform the disciplinary administrator that she had been charged with a felony (driving under the influence of alcohol) in 2011 in Johnson County, Kansas. Finally, the respondent failed to inform the disciplinary administrator of the disposition of the felony driving under the influence of alcohol charge within 14 days. The respondent did not make any disclosures required by the rule until July 13, 2014. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 203(c)(1).

The arguments also introduce the role of state bar lawyer assistance programs (link to the Kansas program here)  in aiding distressed and addicted attorneys. Also note that Kansas, like many bars, offers help to law students.

 Having stood in the shoes of disciplinary counsel, I applaud the fine arguments of Deputy Disciplinary Administrator Michael R. Serra and Amy E. Elliott of Overland Park, Kansas. 

Also note how respectful the court is of counsel. The justices sit patiently while counsel fully argues and ask questions only when counsel is done. (Mike Frisch)