Harris, Matter of
Decision Date | 14 March 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 76658,76658 |
Citation | 934 P.2d 965,261 Kan. 1063 |
Parties | In the Matter of Kevin C. HARRIS, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Frank D. Diehl, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and was on the brief, for petitioner.
James C. Trickey, Overland Park, argued the cause, and was on the brief, for respondent.
This is an original disciplinary proceeding filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Kevin C. Harris, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. The subject matter of this proceeding, a fee dispute with Debbie Gerhardt (the complainant), also precipitated a civil suit, see Gerhardt v. Harris, 261 Kan. 1007, 934 P.2d 976 (1997). The hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that Harris violated MRPC 1.15 (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 302) ( ), MRPC 1.4 (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 270) ( ), MRPC 1.16(a)(3) and (d) (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 310) (delaying notification to the insurance company of his termination and by continuing to work towards a settlement after his client terminated him), and MRPC 1.5(a) (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 276) ( ) and recommended that Harris be disciplined by published censure and ordered to make restitution by paying $3,094 of the insurance settlement proceeds to Gerhardt. Harris filed exceptions to the panel's report. Our jurisdiction is under Rule 212 (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 217 [attorney discipline] ).
The question for resolution is whether we should adopt the findings and recommendation of the panel. We find that the panel's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and adopt the findings and conclusions. We modify the recommendation by imposing a harsher degree of discipline.
The facts are well stated in the panel's findings, paragraphs 2 through 9, provided below:
court date. As the court date neared, Respondent did not return Complainant's telephone calls and failed to appear in court on the date set, purportedly because of car trouble. After the case was continued, Complainant made several calls to the Respondent which were not returned.
Harris' exceptions to the panel's findings are conclusory. Each of the panel's findings is amply supported by the Disciplinary Administrator's exhibits and testimony of witnesses at the hearing.
The Disciplinary Administrator emphasized some additional facts presented at the hearing but not included in the report. Gerhardt initially complained to Deputy Disciplinary Administrator Stan Hazlett when she could not get Harris to send a letter to American Family Insurance Company (American Family) stating that he no longer represented her in her personal injury claim, which complaint was docketed for investigation as Case No. B5419. Attorney J. Nick Badgerow, at the request of the Disciplinary Administrator, investigated the complaint. A probable cause finding was made that MRPC 1.16 had been violated and Harris should be informally admonished. Hazlett communicated the result of Badgerow's investigation to Harris. Harris requested a By March 1993, Gerhardt had negotiated a policy limits settlement of $25,000 with American Family, but American Family was uncertain how to distribute the proceeds, in view of Harris' attorney lien. Hazlett then negotiated what he thought was an agreement between Gerhardt and Harris that Gerhardt would receive the settlement proceeds directly from the insurance company, less $4,000 to be deposited in Harris' trust account, and the parties would be bound by the Fee Dispute Committee's determination on entitlement to the $4,000. After Harris deposited the $4,000 in his trust account, Hazlett contacted Gerhardt in April 1993 and asked her if, in view of the agreement on resolving the fee dispute, she would be satisfied if B5419 was dismissed. She agreed to that, and the complaint was dismissed.
formal hearing. Hazlett had many conversations with Harris after that. Hazlett explained to Harris the reasons for the informal admonishment recommendation in his letter dated January 29, 1993, i.e., Harris' delay until May 27, 1992, in providing the letter to the insurance company that he no longer represented Gerhardt, and then only after Badgerow's request.
In February 1994, Hazlett learned that Harris had refused to abide by the Fee Dispute Committee decision and had taken no steps to resolve the matter with Gerhardt. Hazlett contacted Harris by letter and informed him that he intended to have the matter re-docketed. Harris replied that he had taken no action because he was waiting 2 years, "upon research and seeking counsel." Gerhardt refiled her complaint.
Rule 212(f) provides:
"The recommendations of the Panel or the Disciplinary Administrator as to sanctions to be imposed shall be advisory only and shall not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions greater or lesser than those recommended by the Panel or the Disciplinary Administrator." 1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 219.
See In re Carson, 252 Kan. 399, 406, 845 P.2d 47 (1993), summarizing our responsibility in an attorney discipline case.
To warrant a finding of misconduct, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Rule 211(f) (1996 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 215).
Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513, Syl. p 2, 874 P.2d 1188 (1994).
We turn now to the panel's code violation findings.
Harris' February 24, 1993, letter to Carrie Huffman of American Family said that Harris would deposit the $4,000 received from the insurance company in his trust account "pending a decision as to my appropriate fee by the Johnson County Bar Fee Dispute Committee or waiver by Ms. Gerhardt." (Emphasis added.) After the committee's decision, Harris refused to pay Gerhardt any of the money. During cross-examination at his disciplinary hearing, Harris admitted that he had already spent the $4,000, relying on "advice of counsel," after the district court granted his motion for summary judgment against Gerhardt in the civil case.
The reason the district court granted summary judgment was that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grievance Adm'r v. Lopatin
...Counsel v. Breiner, 89 Hawai'i 167, 175, 969 P.2d 1285 (1999); In re Burchett, 630 N.E.2d 205, 206 (Ind., 1994); In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 1076, 934 P.2d 965 (1997); In re Luongo, 416 Mass. 308, 311, 621 N.E.2d 681 (1993); In re Giberson, 581 N.W.2d 351, 355 (Minn., 1998); In re Weier, 9......
-
Venters v. Sellers
...the lawyer is a material witness on a contested issue.” (Emphasis added.) Dimaplas, 267 Kan. at 71, 978 P.2d 891 (citing In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 934 P.2d 965 [1997] ). Comment 1 to KRPC 3.7 states that the concern underlying this rule is that “[c]ombining the roles of advocate and witn......
-
Berg, Matter of
...findings were not based on clear and convincing evidence. In considering this argument, we look to our statement in In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 1066, 934 P.2d 965 (1997) (quoting Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513, Syl. p 2, 874 P.2d 1188 [1994] ), that evidence is convincing " 'if it is re......
-
Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates
...Ill.2d 32, 161 Ill.Dec. 339, 578 N.E.2d 985, 989 (1991); Galanis v. Lyons & Truitt, 715 N.E.2d 858, 861 (Ind.1999); In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 934 P.2d 965, 972 (1997); Somuah v. Flachs, 352 Md. 241, 721 A.2d 680, 688 (1998); Opert v. Mellios, 415 Mass. 634, 614 N.E.2d 996, 997 (1993); As......
-
A Second Chance for Kansas Attorneys: Supervision as an Alternative to Suspension or Disbarment
...Ct. R. Annot. 211(d). 21. See 2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 211(f); See also In re Seck, 263 Kan. 482, 489, 949 P.2d 1122 (1997); In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 934 P.2d 965 (1997); In re Wilkinson, 251 Kan. 546, 554, 834 P.2d 1356 (1992). 22. See 2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. E.1. at p. 291. 23. See 200......
-
Attorney Fees: Where Are We in Kansas?
...Angst, 275 Kan 388, 389, 64 P.3d 350 (2003). 31. In re Scimeca, 265 Kan. at 759-760. 32. In re Angst, 275 Kan. at 389. 33. In re Harris, 261 Kan. 1063, 934 P.2d 965 (1997). 34. Id., 231 Kan. at 1073. ...