In re Murphy
Decision Date | 16 October 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 122,036,122,036 |
Citation | 312 Kan. 203,473 P.3d 886 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Mark D. MURPHY, 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 brief for petitioner.
Daniel F. Church, of Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause and was on the briefs for respondent. Mark D. Murphy, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is a contested attorney discipline proceeding against Mark D. Murphy, of Overland Park, Kansas. He was admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas in 1987. A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys made lengthy findings of fact and concluded Murphy violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The violations include representing both parties in a business transaction that was not disclosed to a federal bankruptcy court which had jurisdiction and related matters.
In December 2016, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint alleging violations of the KRPC against Murphy. Almost two years later, and after several continuances and a remand on behalf of the Disciplinary Administrator's office, an amended formal complaint was filed in January 2019. Murphy's answer to the amended formal complaint was filed in February 2019.
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys began a hearing on March 5, 2019, but was unable to finish the presentation of evidence on that day so the hearing was continued to April 10, 2019. The hearing panel determined respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 295) (competence), 1.2(c) (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 332) (scope of representation), 1.7 (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 372) (conflict of interest), 2.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 345) (independent judgment), and 8.4(d) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) ( ).
The Disciplinary Administrator's office recommended disbarment. Counsel for the respondent recommended reprimand. The hearing panel unanimously recommended one year's suspension.
The respondent filed exceptions to the panel's final hearing report, although he concedes several KRPC violations, albeit with explanations in mitigation. Before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office endorses the panel's findings and continues to recommend disbarment. Respondent recommends reprimand with a plan of probation. We quote the report's pertinent parts below.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Spradling
...not reweigh evidence or evaluate the witnesses' credibility. In re Saville , 311 Kan. 221, 235, 458 P.3d 976 (2020) ; In re Murphy , 312 Kan. 203, 224, 473 P.3d 886 (2020). The panel made such a credibility determination here, and evidence presented at the hearing supports this finding. We ......
-
In re Ayesh
...is "evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that ‘the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.’ " ’ " In re Murphy , 312 Kan. 203, 218, 473 P.3d 886 (2020).Ayesh was given adequate notice of the formal complaint to which he filed an answer. He was also given adequate notice of......
-
In re Spradling
...... the chance to observe the witnesses and assess their. demeanor. As such, we will not reweigh evidence or evaluate. the witnesses' credibility. In re Saville , 311. Kan. 221, 235, 458 P.3d 976 (2020); In re Murphy ,. 312 Kan. 203, 224, 473 P.3d 886 (2020). The panel made such a. credibility determination here, and evidence presented at the. hearing supports this finding. We will not disturb it. . 74 . . The. fifth and final instance of ......
-
In re Huffman
...evidence is evidence that causes the fact-finder to believe that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. In re Murphy , 312 Kan. 203, 218, 473 P.3d 886 (2020). A finding is considered admitted if exception is not taken. When exception is taken, the finding is typically not deeme......