In re Wall
Decision Date | 25 January 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 86,975.,86,975. |
Citation | 38 P.3d 640,272 Kan. 1298 |
Parties | In the Matter of LARRY W. WALL, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Alexander M. Walczak, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal complaint for petitioner.
Stephen M. Joseph, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for respondent, and Larry W. Wall, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is a contested attorney discipline case filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Larry W. Wall, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the State of Kansas. All exhibits were admitted by agreement of counsel. Other evidence was submitted by stipulation. Respondent was the only witness.
The Hearing Panel concluded that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 (diligence) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 323), KRPC 1.4(a) (communication) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334), KRPC 1.15(a) (safekeeping property, separate account) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 376), and KRPC 1.15(b) ( ). The panel recommended public censure.
The respondent takes exceptions to three of the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The panel's findings are as follows (those findings and conclusions to which the respondent takes exception are marked with an asterisk):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Barker
...that D.H. was a vulnerable client. In support of his argument that D.H. was not a vulnerable client, the respondent cites In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 38 P.3d 640 (2002), where this court rejected the panel's finding of vulnerability based on evidence that the client, a personal injury claima......
-
In re Bryan, 89,105
...it is not against the clear weight of the evidence, or where the evidence consists of sharply conflicting testimony. In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 38 P.3d 640 (2002); In re Carson, 252 Kan. at 406. Thus, this court is to examine disputed findings of fact and determine whether they are supporte......
-
In re Rumsey, 90,062.
...In re Wagle, 275 Kan. 63, 75-76, 60 P.3d 920 (2003); In re Kellogg, 274 Kan. 281, 292, 50 P.3d 57, 65-66 (2002); In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 1308-11, 38 P.3d 640 (2002); Bailey, 268 Kan. at 65; Internal Operating Rules of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, E.3 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. An......
-
In re Lober
...In re Wagle, 275 Kan. 63, 75-76, 60 P.3d 920 [2003]). See In re Kellogg, 274 Kan. 281, 292, 50 P.3d 57, 65-66 (2002); In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 1308-11, 38 P.3d 640 (2002); In re Bailey, 268 Kan. 63, 65, 986 P.2d 1077 (1999); Internal Operating Rules of the Kansas Board for Discipline of A......
-
So Help Me God
...to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients," among other charges ― lawyer disbarred); In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 1299, 38 P.3d 640 (2002)(lawyer missed statute of limitations ― censured); In re Knox, 309 Kan. 167, 172, 432 P.3d 654, 658 (2019)(two and one-ha......
-
“so Help Me God” the Lawyer’s Oath of Admission and the Rules of Ethics
...to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients,” among other charges – lawyer disbarred); In re Wall, 272 Kan. 1298, 1299, 38 P.3d 640 (2002)(lawyer missed statute of limitations – censured); In re Knox, 309 Kan. 167, 172, 432 P.3d 654, 658 (2019)(two and one-ha......