In re Grillot
Decision Date | 25 January 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 119,909,119,909 |
Citation | 433 P.3d 671,309 Kan. 253 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Timothy J. GRILLOT, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Penny R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Timothy J. Grillot, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Timothy J. Grillot, of Independence, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1982.
On April 10, 2018, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint on April 24, 2018. Stipulations signed by respondent and the office of the Disciplinary Administrator were filed June 4, 2018. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on June 5, 2018, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 289) (competence); 1.3 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 292) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 293) (communication); 1.5 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 294) (fees); 1.15 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 328) (safekeeping property); 1.16(d) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 333) (termination of representation); 3.3(a)(1) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 344) (candor toward tribunal); 8.4(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 381) ( ); 8.4(c) ( ); and 8.4(d) ( ).
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Huffman
...evidence supported conclusion respondent violated 8.4[d] by filing a frivolous motion to alter or amend judgment); In re Grillot , 309 Kan. 253, 259, 263, 433 P.3d 671 (2019) (concluding the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he filed incomplete,......
-
In re Huffman
... ... fees and other expenses to clients); Blume , 309 Kan ... at 1323 (concluding clear and convincing evidence supported ... conclusion respondent violated 8.4[d] by filing a frivolous ... motion to alter or amend judgment); In re Grillot , ... 309 Kan. 253, 259, 263, 433 P.3d 671 (2019) (concluding the ... respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the ... administration of justice when he filed incomplete, ... inaccurate, and false accountings in a probate case) ... Here, ... ...