Petition of Pringle, 55316

• Decision Date: 10 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 55316,55316
• Citation: 248 Kan. 498,808 P.2d 1339
• Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of Bobby Lee PRINGLE for Reinstatement.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1339

808 P.2d 1339

248 Kan. 498

In the Matter of the Petition of Bobby Lee PRINGLE for Reinstatement.

No. 55316.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 10, 1991.

ORDER

Bobby Lee Pringle, respondent, was admitted to practice law in Kansas on February 16, 1955. In State v. Pringle, 233 Kan. 726, 667 P.2d 283 (1983), the court suspended respondent from the practice of law in Kansas for an indefinite period of time for violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) (1990 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 165) and DR 9-102(A), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(4) (1990 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 204). These violations occurred in respondent's improper handling of a client's money. On July 25, 1983, respondent filed a motion for rehearing, claiming that the court's opinion was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The motion was denied on September 8, 1983. On November 3, 1983, respondent filed an amended motion for modification, which was denied by the court on December 9, 1983.

On April 3, 1986, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (1990 Kan.Ct.R.Annot. 157), respondent filed a petition for an order vacating, terminating, or modifying the order of indefinite suspension. An evidentiary hearing on respondent's petition was held on July 17, 1986. The hearing panel for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that respondent had not met the court's established standards for reinstatement as contained in In re Dunn, 238 Kan. 31, 707 P.2d 1076 (1985), and State v. Russo, 230 Kan. 5, 630 P.2d 711 (1981). The panel report noted that, in Russo, the court stated: "When a former attorney seeks reinstatement, he must meet an even greater burden than when he was originally admitted and must overcome the prior adverse conclusions of the court as to his fitness to practice law." 230 Kan. at 9, 630 P.2d 711.

This court accepted the recommendation of the hearing panel and denied respondent's motions on October 31, 1986. On August 20, 1990, respondent filed a new petition for reinstatement, which the court referred to the disciplinary administrator for investigation and hearing on August 29, 1990.

The disciplinary administrator started his investigation on September 5, 1990, by requesting respondent to furnish information. The disciplinary administrator's letter stated, in part:

"The first step of our consideration is investigation. We must obtain current information about you for submission to the hearing panel of the Kansas Board [for] Discipline and the Supreme Court.

"Enclosed please find a copy of a form entitled 'Questionnaire and Affidavit of Applicant for Reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 219.' Please answer all questions on the form. Provide this office with the completed questionnaire and the requested documentation within 30 days of the date of this letter. Your application will be placed on 'hold' within this office until that is accomplished.

"After receipt of the requested information, this office will make a decision as to whether additional investigation is required. If no additional investigation is required your application will be set for an evidentiary hearing before the Kansas Board [for] Discipline."

Respondent furnished none of the requested information but, by way of a letter received by the disciplinary administrator on October 3, 1990, stated, in part:

"I have examined the latest copy of Kansas Supreme Court Rule 219 that I could find in the SMU Law Library and cannot find that it requires me to surrender my Constitutional right to privacy, therefore, unless you can provide me with a copy of a Kansas Supreme Court Rule which requires me to complete and file your requested 'Questionnaire and Affidavit of Applicant for Reinstatement Pursuant To Rule 219,' I am unwilling to execute and file it. I have already filed a sworn Application for Reinstatement which provides the information requested in the questionnaire which is germane to the inquiry. The Questionnaire looks more like a Credit Application than anything else and I cannot see that credit information is germane to my application for reinstatement. After all, any deficiencies in my credit standing have been generated by my Indefinite Suspension and the total loss of income resulting therefrom. The Honorable Charles Green's Minority Report on the last Application for Reinstatement, states my position on this issue exactly.

"I have likewise declined to execute and enclose the 'Kansas Board [for] Discipline Authorization and Release' form you have requested, since I can find no Supreme Court Rule requiring it. I am requesting my references to complete and file the 'Certificates of Character and Fitness' you have requested.

"If there is some Supreme Court Rule requiring the completion of your Questionnaire and Release Form which I have been unable to locate in the Pacific Reporter System and which you can supply me, I then and in that event, I request a reasonable period of time in which to complete and file it should I determine to do so after weighing the probable disruption of my family's lifestyle which I, after a great deal of adversity, have been able to...