In re Saville
Decision Date | 06 March 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 121,050,121,050 |
Citation | 458 P.3d 976 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Daniel Vincent SAVILLE, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Penny R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the brief for the petitioner.
Michael J. Studtmann, of Law Office of Michael J. Studtmann, P.A., of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Daniel Vincent Saville, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1993.
On July 25, 2018, 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 August 17, 2018. The respondent filed a probation plan on September 10, 2018, and an amended probation plan on October 1, 2018. Respondent personally appeared and was represented by counsel at the complaint hearing before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, which was conducted on September 24-25, 2018. During the hearing, respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.7(a)(2) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 308) (conflict of interest).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel determined that respondent had violated KRPC 1.7(a)(2) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 308) (conflict of interest); 1.8(e) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 315) ( ); 3.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 353) ( ); and 8.4(d) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) ( ). The panel set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with its recommendation on disposition, in a final hearing report, the relevant portions of which are set forth below.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Spradling
...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 eviden......
-
In re Ogunmeno
...do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence." In re Saville , 311 Kan. 221, 232, 458 P.3d 976 (2020) ; see also Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 254) ("To warrant a finding of misconduct the charges must be es......