In re Royer
Decision Date | 31 October 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 90,703.,90,703. |
Citation | 78 P.3d 449,276 Kan. 643 |
Parties | In the Matter of ROBERT H. ROYER, JR., Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Ann L. Hoover, of Topeka, argued the cause for the respondent, and Robert H. Royer, Jr., respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Robert H. Royer, Jr., of Abilene, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas.
Complaints filed against the respondent alleged that the respondent violated KRPC 4.3 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 429) ( ); KRPC 4.4 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 430) ( ); KRPC 8.1 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 445) ( ); and KRPC 8.4 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 449) (misconduct).
A disciplinary panel of the Kansas Board for the Discipline of Attorneys conducted a formal hearing, as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 260). The office of the Disciplinary Administrator appeared by and through Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator. The respondent, Robert H. Royer, Jr., appeared in person and by and through his attorney, Ann L. Hoover.
Based upon clear and convincing evidence, the panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Comfort
...motive or purpose is relevant but not finally determinative in our evaluation of whether Rule 4.4 was violated. See In re Royer, 276 Kan. 643, 649, 78 P.3d 449 (2003) (in order to determine whether attorney's action had substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, burden third person......
-
Clark v. Newman Univ.
...850 (2016); In re Millett, 291 Kan. 369, 241 P.3d 35 (2010), reinstatement granted, 295 Kan. 1069, 287 P.3d 932 (2012); In re Royer, 276 Kan. 643, 78 P.3d 449 (2003), reinstatement granted, 277 Kan. 266, 84 P.3d 1045 (2004); In re Pyle, 278 Kan. 230, 91 P.3d 1222 (2004) (all attorney discip......
-
IN RE ROYER, 90,703.
...2, 2004. On October 31, 2003, this court suspended the respondent, Robert H. Royer, Jr., for a period of 3 months. See In re Royer, 276 Kan. 643, 78 P.3d 449 (2003). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action and to comply with Supreme Cour......
-
The Fine Art of Self-promotion: a Primer on Modern Lawyer Advertising Under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct
...F.Supp. 565, 580-81 (S.D. Miss. 1995). [46] Kansas Ethics Opinion 08-03 (August 4, 2008). [47] Id. [48] Rule 4.4(a), KRPC. In re Royer, 276 Kan. 643, 649, 78 P.3d 449 (2003)("Respondent violated rule 4.4."); In re Blume, 443 P.3d 305, 314 (Kan. 2019)("respondent repeatedly violated Rule 4.4......
-
Deception and Misrepresentation in the Practice of Law
...from this incident discussed later in this article. [20] Matter of Black, 262 Kan. 825, 941 P.2d 1380 (1997). [21] Id. at 826. [22] 276 Kan. 643, 78 P3d 449 (2003). [23] Id. at 454. [24] In re Berg, 264 Kan. 254, 955 P.2d 1240 (1998). [25] In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 124 P.3d 467 (2005). ......
-
Ethics in Practice
...W. Gunnarsson, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.4, Scope of Rule 4.4 p. 487 (9th Ed. 2019) 487 (citing In re Royer, 78 P.3d 449, 454 (Kan. 2003). [34] DR 7-105(A). [35] Me. R. Prof. Conduct 4.4(a). [36] Id. R. 4.4(b). [37] Id. [38] See Maine Ethics Opinion No. 172; Core......