In re Kurth
Decision Date | 25 January 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 118,944,118,944 |
Citation | 309 Kan. 224,433 P.3d 679 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Tammie E. KURTH, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Kimberly Knoll, 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 Tammie E. Kurth, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Respondent Tammie E. Kurth of Liberal, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1986.
Respondent initially entered into a diversion agreement. As a part of that agreement she stipulated to violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 292) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 293) (communication); 1.5(a) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 294) (fees); and 1.16(d) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 333) (termination of representation), as well as facts supporting those violations.
Respondent did not successfully complete the diversion, leading to its revocation. The Disciplinary Administrator's office then filed a formal complaint against Respondent, adding new allegations that she had also violated KRPC 8.4 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 381) ( ) and Supreme Court Rule 208 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246) (annual registration violation for failure to update address) during the period of time her diversion agreement was in effect.
A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys in August 2017. Respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The panel determined that Respondent committed the four rules violations that gave rise to the diversion, but it rejected the two new allegations. The panel drew this distinction despite Respondent's earlier statement in her answer that she admitted to the violations alleged by the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
Respondent has filed what are styled as four exceptions to the panel hearing report, but this case is not contested on the panel's factual findings or on its legal conclusions regarding the existence of the four violations. Thus this is not a conventional contested disciplinary case.
Respondent and her counsel instead take issue only with the suspension sanction recommended by a majority of the hearing panel, questioning whether, in particular, the panel's recommendation was dependent in part on a factually unsupported and legally improper evaluation by panel members of Respondent's fitness—here, meaning physical and mental capacity—to practice law. In Respondent's view, that subject would have been appropriate for consideration were this a proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 220 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 267), which prescribes a particular process for dealing with lawyers who are alleged to be incapacitated; but her fitness to practice law should not influence the sanction recommended or imposed in this disciplinary matter.
In order to resolve this case, we first set out a chronological review of the pertinent facts, including those recited by the panel and additions we draw from uncontroverted portions of the record. The additions and some re-ordering of the panel's recitation are necessary for completeness and clarification.
As the panel set out, this case began with Respondent's representation of two clients, A.M. and A.O.
A.M. retained Respondent in June 2011 and agreed to pay $2,500 for representation in a divorce. A.M. paid Respondent $1,500 of the fee, and Respondent met with A.M. on one occasion. Respondent filed a petition for divorce for A.M. on July 13, 2011.
A.O. retained Respondent
Within three weeks after these events, Respondent's adult daughter was flown from southwest Kansas to receive care at a Wichita hospital. This was the second time in a few months that such emergency transport had been required. Respondent left her law practice and went to Wichita, where she remained at her daughter's bedside for the next three months.
A.M. was unable to reach Respondent by telephone or in person despite repeated attempts to do so. No action occurred in A.M.'s divorce proceeding.
Respondent's daughter died on December 6, 2011.
As the panel wrote regarding the subsequent events in A.M.'s divorce:
Soon, on March 12, 2012, A.O. sent an email message to Respondent, which read:
"Tammie I was just wanting to make sure u haven't forgot about me because I have not received a bill or receipt in the mail stating how much I owe u or how much I am getting back just wanted to check and make sure u haven't forgot about me."
Respondent did not respond to A.O.'s email.
Gilmore completed the representation of A.M. by March 30, 2012.
A.O. lodged a complaint against Respondent with the Disciplinary Administrator's office on April 25, 2012. After receiving notice of A.O.'s dissatisfaction, Respondent informed the Disciplinary Administrator's office in writing that she considered the problem a fee dispute. She also described the personal difficulties that had beset her and her family:
On July 11, 2012, A.M. lodged a complaint against Respondent with the Disciplinary Administrator's office. The Disciplinary Administrator's office sent Respondent a letter telling her that A.M.'s complaint had been docketed for investigation on July 23, 2012.
The same day, the Disciplinary Administrator's office sent Respondent a letter acknowledging her response to A.O.'s allegation and telling her that A.O.'s complaint also had been docketed for investigation.
On September 14, 2012, Nels P. Noel informed the Disciplinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Cullins
...facts asserted is highly probable. In re Henderson, 301 Kan. 412, 422, 343 P.3d 518 (2015) ( Henderson I ); see also In re Kurth , 309 Kan. 224, 247-48, 433 P.3d 679 (2019) (in attorney discipline case, clear and convincing evidence causes the factfinder to believe that the truth of the fac......
- In re Grillot
-
To Err is Human, to Apologize is Hard: the Role of Apologies in Lawyer Discipline
...765 (Colo. 2019). For other examples of cases in which apologies at the hearing were credited as evidence of remorse, see In re Kurth, 433 P.3d 679, 682, 684, 690 (Kan. 2019); Geauga City Bar Ass’n v. Patterson, 855 N.E.2d 871, 873 (Ohio 2006); Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Sirk, 810 S.E.2d 27......