In re Spiegel
Citation | 315 Kan. 143,504 P.3d 1057 |
Decision Date | 04 March 2022 |
Docket Number | 124,397 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF Michael M. SPIEGEL, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
W. Thomas Stratton Jr., Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Michael M. Spiegel, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Michael M. Spiegel, of Blue Springs, Missouri. Spiegel received his license to practice law in Kansas on March 7, 2002. Spiegel also is a licensed attorney in Missouri, admitted in 2000.
On July 7, 2021, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint against Spiegel alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The complaint was filed after Spiegel advised the Disciplinary Administrator's office of a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court to indefinitely suspend his license to practice law, effective March 17, 2020. The Missouri Supreme Court based its decision on a Missouri disciplinary hearing panel's finding that Spiegel violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with a client. The panel determined respondent violated MRPC 4-1.7(a) ( ), MRPC 4-1.8(j) ( ), and MRPC 4-8.4(d) (misconduct).
Spiegel filed a timely answer to the formal complaint and cooperated with the investigation. On September 14, 2021, the parties entered into a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273). In the summary submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and Spiegel stipulate and agree that Spiegel violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:
Before us, the parties jointly recommend a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The parties also recommend Spiegel undergo a reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission below.
DISCUSSION
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court generally considers the evidence, the disciplinary panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster , 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 375 (2011) ; see also Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 276) (a misconduct finding must be established by clear and convincing evidence). "Clear and convincing evidence is ‘evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable." ’ " In re Lober , 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009).
The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission and canceled a hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Johnston
...... evidence, the disciplinary panel's findings, and the. parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations. exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and. convincing evidence. In re Spiegel , 315 Kan. 143,. 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022); see Supreme Court Rule. 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S.Ct. R. at 281). Clear and. convincing evidence is evidence that causes the fact-finder. to believe that the truth of the facts asserted is highly. probable. In re Murphy , ......
-
In re Johnston
...do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel , 315 Kan. 143, 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022) ; see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that caus......
-
In re Holmes
...do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel , 315 Kan. 143, 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022) ; see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that caus......
-
In re Long
...if they do, the appropriate discipline. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel , 315 Kan. 143, 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022) ; see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). " ‘Clear and convincing evidence is "evidence that ca......