In re Kline
Citation | 298 Kan. 96,311 P.3d 321 |
Decision Date | 18 October 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 106,870.,106,870. |
Parties | In the Matter of Phillip Dean KLINE, Respondent. |
Court | United 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ( ). 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:
(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:
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:
(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 ( ) with Att'y Gen. Op. No. 1992–48 ( ).
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-
In re Davis
...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
...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
...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
...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, ......