In re Dennis
Decision Date | 18 July 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 99,646.,99,646. |
Citation | 188 P.3d 1 |
Parties | In the Matter of Stephen Jay DENNIS, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and was on the brief for petitioner.
Stephen J. Dennis, respondent, argued the cause and was on the brief pro se.
This is a contested proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Stephen J. Dennis, of Overland Park, Kansas, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. The formal complaint filed against Dennis alleged several violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) relating to the respondent's representation in two matters before the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. A unanimous hearing panel found that the respondent's conduct violated KRPC 1.1 (competence) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 384), 1.3 (diligence) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398), 1.16(a)(1) (declining or terminating representation) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 487), 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 500), 3.2 (expediting litigation) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 503), 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward tribunal) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 508), and 8.4(d) (misconduct) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 559). Having found these violations, the hearing panel recommended that Dennis be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
The respondent now takes exception to the panel's jurisdiction, conclusions of law, and recommended discipline.
Dennis was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Kansas on October 29, 1999. In re Dennis, 268 Kan. 48, 991 P.2d 394 (1999). This suspension was based on a hearing panel's findings that the respondent's representation of four clients violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 8.4 (misconduct), as well as Supreme Court Rule 207 (1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 222) (failure to cooperate and respond to inquiries in a disciplinary investigation). 268 Kan. 48, 991 P.2d 394. The respondent has not been reinstated to practice law in this state since he was indefinitely suspended.
In addition to his suspension in this state, the respondent was disbarred by the Tenth Circuit in 1999 for failure to submit a timely response to court orders and failure to perfect a docketing statement; suspended from the practice of law in Missouri as reciprocal discipline to the 1999 suspension in this state; suspended from practicing in the Western District of Missouri; and administratively suspended in Minnesota.
On March 13, 2002, Judge Wesley Brown signed an order permitting the respondent to practice under the supervision of another attorney, Dennis Egan, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On November 18, 2003, Judge Brown signed an order that permitted the respondent to practice without supervision before that court.
This disciplinary action was initiated as a result of Dennis' representation in two cases — Sunderman v. Westar Energy, Inc., case number 05-2347JWL (the Sunderman litigation), and Francis v. Sprint United Management Co., case number 05-CV02062 (the Francis litigation) — filed while the respondent was practicing independently in federal court. In his brief before this court, the respondent does not dispute the hearing panel's factual findings, but instead asserts that these findings do not constitute clear and convincing evidence of the violations found. We therefore adopt the panel's factual determinations, as set forth below.
In August 2005, the respondent filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of Derrick Sunderman against Sunderman's former employer, Westar Energy. Westar was represented by Stephanie Scheck, who eventually filed a disciplinary complaint against the respondent for his representation in that matter. The hearing panel summarized the respondent's conduct during the Sunderman litigation as follows:
`... and even if a motion of a dispositive and serious nature, such as the defendant's partial summary judgment motion in this case, can and technically should be granted as unopposed, a very practical problem that's created in this situation is that by virtue of Mr. Dennis' silence, it's at least possible that Judge Murgia's law clerk, or one of them, was drilling valuable time into a project that was unworthy of that time.
`And as I think I explained to Mr. Dennis during the telephone status conference that I had with him and his opposing counsel on June 30, 2006, common sense and simple courtesy would suggest in this situation that if there were no meritorious argument that could be raised on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant's motion, that the plaintiff would file some sort of pleading or at least communicate in some form with Judge Murgia's office to the effect that the motion was uncontested.'
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haagensen v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
...whose practice was solely in federal court could be disciplined for misconduct by the Supreme Court of California); In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1, 13-14 (2008) (Kansas Supreme Court could sanction attorney for conduct that occurred in Kansas federal court); Gillette v. Edison, 2009......
-
In re Hodge
..."the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable." ’ " In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008] ).Exceptions to the panel's reportHodge filed exceptions to portions of the panel's final hearing report. See Supreme Cou......
-
In re Crandall
..."the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable." ’ " In re Lober , 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis , 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008] ); see also Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). When testimony conflicts, we recognize the hearing pan......
-
State v. Miller
...being keyed to the record on appeal, we will presume those contentions are not supported by the record on appeal. See In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 723, 188 P.3d 1 (2008). Notwithstanding the erroneous citations, we will address Miller's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the second tri......
-
So Help Me God
...[42] In re Disbarment of H. F. Gorsuch, 113 Kan. 380, 383, 214 P. 794 (1923)(lawyer disbarred). [43] In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 733, 188 P.3d 1 (2008)(among other charges ― lawyer disbarred). [44] In re Boone, 269 Kan. 484, 7 P3d 270 (2000)(two years' probation). [45] State v. Martindale, ......
-
“so Help Me God” the Lawyer’s Oath of Admission and the Rules of Ethics
...[42] In re Disbarment of H. F. Gorsuch, 113 Kan. 380, 383, 214 P. 794 (1923)(lawyer disbarred). [43] In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 733, 188 P.3d 1 (2008)(among other charges – lawyer disbarred). [44] In re Boone, 269 Kan. 484, 7 P.3d 270 (2000)(two years’ probation). [45] State v. Martindale,......
-
Blessed Are the Peacemakers: the Case for Civility in the Practice of Law
...270 Kan. 620, 62917 P3d 929 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). [45] Id. at 622. [46] Id. at 632. [47] In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P3d 1, 20 (2008). [48] Id. at 23. [49] Scully v. Tauber, 138 Md. App. 423, 771 A.2d 550, 557-58 (2001). [50] Ralph Losey, "Litigation, e-Discovery, e-Moti......
-
"blessed Are the Peacemakers:" [1] the Case for Civility in the Practice of Law
...270 Kan. 620, 629 17 P.3d 929 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). [45] Id. at 622. [46] Id. at 632. [47] In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1, 20 (2008). [48] Id. at 23. [49] Scully v. Tauber, 138 Md.App. 423, 771 A.2d 550, 557-58 (2001). [50] Ralph Losey, “Litigation, e-Discovery, e-Mo......