In re Holste
Decision Date | 09 October 2015 |
Docket Number | 113,970. |
Citation | 302 Kan. 880,358 P.3d 850 |
Parties | In the Matter of Jared Warren HOLSTE, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Deborah L. Hughes, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Jared Warren Holste, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Jared Warren Holste, of Atwood, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2005.
On January 14, 2015, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). Respondent filed an answer on February 4, 2015. The parties entered into written stipulations on March 11, 2015.
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on April 2, 2015, at which the respondent appeared personally and through counsel. The hearing panel determined respondent violated KRPC 1.7(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 531) (conflict of interest); 1.11(c)(1) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 558) ( ); 3.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (meritorious claims and contentions); 3.3(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 612) (candor toward tribunal); 4.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 641) ( ); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) ( ); and 8.4(e) ( ).
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and disciplinary recommendation.
Respondent took no exceptions to the hearing panel's report. We quote the report's pertinent parts below.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Garcia
...contemplated in the federal IRCA statutory scheme and the discretion our state affords to its prosecutors. See In re Holste , 302 Kan. 880, 889–90, 358 P.3d 850 (2015) ("We have long acknowledged that prosecuting attorneys have broad discretion in deciding whether to charge someone with a c......
- Cresto v. Cresto
-
In re Biscanin
... ... The respondent requested published censure. The recommendations of the hearing panel and office of the Disciplinary Administrator are advisory only and do not prevent us from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Kansas Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 255); see In re Holste" , 302 Kan. 880, 888, 358 P.3d 850 (2015). A majority of this court rejects the hearing panel's recommended discipline of 2 years' suspension, with a truncated period of 3–months' suspension and supervised probation for a period of 2 years. While we unanimously agree on the appropriateness of a 2\xE2" ... ...
-
State v. Silverson
...Silverson's own counsel. A county or district attorney has the discretion to determine what crimes shall be charged. In re Holste , 302 Kan. 880, 889-90, 358 P.3d 850 (2015). A defendant, or defendant's counsel, cannot decide which crime the State should charge. Insofar as Silverson argues ......
-
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in a Post-January 6 World
...against the opposing party of a client the prosecutor was representing in a civil matter in order to coerce a settlement. In re Holste, 358 P.3d 850, 853 (N.M. 2015). This seems like the factual scenario for which Standard 5.21 was designed. But instead, the disciplinary hearing panel cited......