In re Kline

Citation298 Kan. 96,311 P.3d 321
Decision Date18 October 2013
Docket NumberNo. 106,870.,106,870.
PartiesIn the Matter of Phillip Dean KLINE, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause and were on the brief for the petitioner.

Thomas W. Condit, of Cincinnati, Ohio, argued the cause, and Kyle E. Krull, of Overland Park, was with him on the briefs for respondent, and Phillip Dean Kline, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

PER CURIAM:

This is a contested original proceeding in discipline against respondent, Phillip D. Kline. The disciplinary hearing panel concluded Kline committed multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) while serving as Kansas Attorney General and later as Johnson County District Attorney. The panel recommends an indefinite suspension while the Disciplinary Administrator argues for disbarment.

As fully detailed below, after reviewing each instance of misconduct found by the panel, we find clear and convincing evidence that Kline committed 11 KRPC violations. In assessing discipline, we have considered the facts and circumstances of each violation; the ethical duties violated by Kline to the public, the legal system, and the legal profession; the knowing nature of his misconduct; the injury that resulted from the misconduct; the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors; and the applicable advisory American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for imposing discipline.

Ultimately, after applying that framework, we reject the Disciplinary Administrator's suggestion of disbarment and conclude Kline's misconduct warrants indefinite suspension, the discipline recommended by the panel.

Procedural Background

The formal proceedings began with the Disciplinary Administrator's complaint against Kline filed on January 14, 2010. This complaint alleged multiple KRPC violations for Kline's alleged misconduct related to his investigation of abortion clinics while he served as Kansas Attorney General and for his role with a citizen-requested grand jury while he served as Johnson County District Attorney. The formal disciplinary proceedings spanned a 21–month period. During that time, the three-attorney hearing panel ruled on numerous prehearing motions, including permitting the Disciplinary Administrator to file two amended complaints to which Kline responded.

The proceedings culminated in 12 days of evidentiary hearings—8 in February 2011 and March 2011 related to allegations concerning Kline's abortion clinic investigations and 4 more days in July 2011 concerning Kline's conduct regarding the citizens' grand jury. During the July hearing, the panel also heard evidence regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances that might affect the nature or degree of discipline imposed.

The panel released its 185–page Final Hearing Report on October 12, 2011, dividing the claims into 14 general areas of misconductand finding Kline violated the KRPC in 10 areas, with multiple violations in some. And based on its conclusion that Kline “ha[d] repeatedly violated many of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including the most serious of the rules, the rules that prohibit engaging in false or dishonest conduct,” the panel recommended an indefinite suspension of Kline's license to practice law. Kline filed a 175–page pleading captioned “Exceptions to the Hearing Panel Final Report” on December 22, 2011, thereby noting his objections to the hearing panel's report and triggering this review.

In an order effective May 18, 2012, five members of the Kansas Supreme Court recused from hearing this action. On June 4, 2012, Presiding Justice Dan Biles appointed two Kansas Court of Appeals judges and three district court judges to serve temporarily on the court to participate in the hearing and decision of this matter. After ruling on several pretrial motions, the court as presently constituted heard oral argument on November 15, 2012.

Kline's Investigation of Abortion Clinics

The Disciplinary Administrator alleged misconduct by Kline spanning a period of nearly 6 years with prosecutorial proceedings before six separate courts. Consequently, the factual history is detailed and voluminous. We have broadly summarized in this section the facts related to Kline's investigation of abortion clinics. A more particularized discussion is included in our subsequent analysis of each violation found by the hearing panel. Later in this opinion, we have set out facts regarding the panel's findings of misconduct related to the grand jury proceeding in Johnson County.

Background

Respondent was admitted to the Kansas bar in 1987. At the time of the disciplinary hearing, his license had been suspended for failure to pay the annual registration fee. Kline testified he chose not to pay the fee because “I don't believe I should be here and I didn't want to send you money.” Kline, who testified at the hearing that he is a law professor at Liberty University in Virginia, admitted he does not “intend to practice in Kansas anymore” and instead intends to practice in Virginia. Nevertheless, in August 2012, Kline paid his fees and was reinstated.

In November 2002, Kansas voters elected Kline as Attorney General. He took office in January 2003. In January 2007, Kline departed statewide office after losing his re-election bid to then Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison. After Kline lost re-election, the Johnson County Republican Central Committee appointed him to complete Morrison's term as District Attorney.

Attorney General Opinion No. 2003–17

Approximately 5 months after taking office as Attorney General, Kline issued Attorney General Opinion No. 2003–17, interpreting the reach of K.S.A. 38–1522. That statute required anyone identified as a “mandatory reporter” to notify the state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) if that reporter reasonably suspected a physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually abused child was “injured.” K.S.A. 38–1522 (revised and now codified at K.S.A.2012 Supp. 38–2223). Kline's opinion specifically addressed a legislator's question as to “under what circumstances a doctor who provides abortion procedures is required to report rape and/or sexual abuse of a minor.” Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2003–17.

In responding, Kline defined the statutory reporting requirements as to suspected sexual abuse of children 15 and under much more broadly than had his predecessors. Kline's opinion stated:

“Kansas law clearly provides that those who fall under the scope of the reporting requirement must report any reasonable suspicion that a child has been injured as a result of sexual abuse, which would be any time a child under the age of 16 has become pregnant. As a matter of law such child has been the victim of rape or one of the other sexual abuse crimes and such crimes are inherently injurious. (Emphasis added.) Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2003–17.

In this opinion, Kline recognized its potentially broad implications for health care providersin general, not just those providing abortions to minors:

We are aware that although this opinion is limited to the question posed, the consequences of the conclusion reach further. Other situations that might trigger a mandated reporter's obligation, because sexual activity of a minor becomes known, include a teenage girl or boy who seeks medical attention for a sexually transmitted disease, a teenage girl who seeks medical attention for a pregnancy, or a teenage girl seeking birth control who discloses she has already been sexually active.” Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2003–17.

Kline's predecessor, Attorney General Robert T. Stephan, had issued an opinion in 1992 interpreting K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38–1522 more narrowly. Instead of suggesting that any child under the age of 16 who becomes pregnant is the victim of a rape or other sexual abuse crime, Stephan's opinion reasoned:

“Whether a particular minor in a particular case has been injured as a result of sexual intercourse and a resulting pregnancy must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The fact of pregnancy certainly puts one on notice that sexual abuse (as statutorily defined) has probably occurred, and requires persons listed in K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38–1522(a) to investigate further whether the child has suffered injury, physical or emotional, as a result of such activity. If there is reason to suspect that the child has been injured, that person is then required to report such suspicions and the reasons therefore.” (Emphasis added.) Att'y Gen. Op. No. 1992–48.

In essence, pursuant to Kline's opinion, any child under the age of 16 engaged in sexual activity met the definition of “injured,” and a mandatory reporter with knowledge of such activity was required to report or risk conviction of a Class B misdemeanor. See K.S.A. 38–1522(g). In contrast, pursuant to Stephan's opinion, the same sexual activity indicated only potential injury requiring the health care provider to investigate further to determine whether a report was required. Compare Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2003–17 (providing: “Consequently, a doctor called upon to perform an abortion for a girl under the age of 16 years is put on notice that, as a matter of law, an injury as a result of sexual abuse has occurred) with Att'y Gen. Op. No. 1992–48 (stating: “However, we do not believe that pregnancy of an unmarried minor necessarily constitutes injury even when that term is understood in its broadest sense.”).

Thus, Kline's June 2003 opinion represented a sea change in reporting requirements for health care providers who were aware of the pregnancy of a patient under the age of 16 and potentially for any reporter with knowledge that an individual under the age of 16 was engaged in sexual activity. Kline's advisory opinion sparked a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his opinion, which ultimately resulted in an injunction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • In re Davis
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 8 Junio 2018
    ...come at different stages of a criminal investigation. The grand jury is summoned to investigate possible crimes. See In re Kline , 298 Kan. 96, 184, 311 P.3d 321 (2013) ("[T]he grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to investigate and, if warranted, issue a true bill.......
  • State v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 6 Abril 2018
    ...occurred. It goes without saying prosecutors, as officers of the court, are obligated to follow a court's directive. In re Kline , 298 Kan. 96, 137, 311 P.3d 321 (2013).Comment on post-arrest silenceChandler argues the prosecutor improperly commented on her post-arrest silence during closin......
  • In re Hodge
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 2017
    ...the court does not weigh conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 113-14, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). If a disputed finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence, it will not be disturbed. In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 902, ......
  • In re Hawver
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...the court does not weigh conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 113–14, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). If a disputed finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence, it will not be disturbed. In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 902, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT