In re Kupka
Decision Date | 28 February 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 122,053,122,053 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Laurel R. KUPKA, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Danielle M. Hall, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
N. Trey Pettlon, of Law Offices of Pettlon & Ginie, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Laurel R. Kupka, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Laurel R. Kupka, of Shawnee, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2011.
On May 16, 2019, 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 May 30, 2019. The parties entered into a written stipulation on August 12, 2019. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on August 13, 2019, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 295) (competence); 1.3 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 298) (diligence); 1.4(a) and (b) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 299) (communication); 4.1(a) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 361) ( ); 8.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) ( ); 8.4(d) ( ); and 8.4(g) ( ).
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 Spradling
...613 [2017] ). However, we are not bound by the Disciplinary Administrator's or the hearing panel's recommendations. In re Kupka , 311 Kan. 193, 204, 458 P.3d 242 (2020).A. The panel misapplied KRPC 1.1 because an isolated incident of mere negligence, standing alone, is insufficient to suppo......
-
In re Spradling
... ... Kan. 441, 464, 485 P.3d 1155 (2021) (quoting In re ... Hodge , 307 Kan. 170, 209-10, 407 P.3d 613 [2017]) ... However, we are not bound by the Disciplinary ... Administrator's or the hearing panel's ... recommendations. In re Kupka , 311 Kan. 193, 204, 458 ... P.3d 242 (2020) ... A ... The panel misapplied KRPC 1.1 because an isolated ... incident of mere negligence, standing alone, is ... insufficient to support a KRPC 1.1 violation ... KRPC ... ...
-
In re Murphy
...(2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262) ("Any part of the hearing report not specifically excepted to shall be deemed admitted."); In re Kupka , 311 Kan. 193, 203, 458 P.3d 242 (2020) (issues deemed admitted when respondent "did not file exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report")."[A] lawye......
-
In re Holmes
...determinations; however, we are not bound by the Disciplinary Administrator's or the hearing panel's recommendations. In re Kupka , 311 Kan. 193, 204, 458 P.3d 242 (2020). The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator asserted at oral argument that because Holmes did not file exceptions to t......