Potter, Matter of
Decision Date | 23 January 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 78950,78950 |
Citation | 952 P.2d 936,263 Kan. 767 |
Parties | In the Matter of Marcus B. POTTER, Jr., Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
John P. Biscanin, Kansas City, argued the cause, for respondent.
Marcus B. Potter, Jr., respondent, argued the cause pro se.
This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Marcus B. Potter, Jr., an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas whose business address is in Kansas City.
Procedurally, this case is in an unusual posture. Respondent did not file an answer to the formal complaint as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 223). Although given written notice of the date of the hearing before the hearing panel, respondent failed to appear, either in person or by counsel, and offered no reason for his absence. Notwithstanding, respondent, through counsel, subsequently filed his exception as follows:
The hearing panel made extensive, detailed findings of fact. Little would be gained from their inclusion in toto by virtue of the very limited exception filed herein. For our purposes, the following summary of unchallenged findings of fact is sufficient.
The complainant, Denise Carson, was injured in an automobile accident on June 17, 1993. In October of that year, she retained respondent to represent her in connection with the accident. No written fee agreement was entered into, although respondent ultimately took a percentage of the recovery for his fee.
The same month respondent wrote a five-sentence letter to the insurance carrier for the other driver (American Family Insurance Company), advising the company he was representing complainant on her claim. There was never any issue concerning liability. American Family's insured was solely responsible for the collision. The amount of damages was the sole issue.
Respondent took no further action for months. June Pinnick, an American Family claims analyst, wrote him several times in 1994 to settle the claim. Respondent made no response. Complainant became increasingly Respondent's secretary set up an appointment for February 20, 1995, for complainant, but respondent did not keep the appointment.
concerned, particularly after she was notified by her insurance carrier that no further PIP payment would be made. She placed numerous telephone calls to respondent. She was never successful in reaching him, and he did not return her calls. Complainant went to respondent's office several times. He refused to meet with or see her.
On February 23, 1997, complainant wrote a letter of complaint to the Disciplinary Administrator's office. On March 7, 1995, respondent called Ms. Pinnick, the claims analyst, to attempt settlement. It was a short conversation. Ms. Pinnick offered $10,000. Respondent then asked for $12,000. They agreed on $11,250. Respondent advised complainant he had settled for $11,250. Respondent withheld $1,250 for his fee.
The panel further found:
"
The panel then made the following conclusions:
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
....
disciplinary administrator's office. Alternatively, the panel concludes that respondent's neglect of the complainant's case, his misrepresentation of the facts to the disciplinary administrator, and his lack of communication with the complainant,[263 Kan. 769] reflect adversely on his ability to practice law. Therefore, respondent violated [MRPC] 8.4(g).
Respondent only filed exceptions to the panel's conclusions he violated MRPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(d) and (g) as based upon respondent's February 8, 1996, letter to Kevin Koch, the attorney who was investigating the complaint herein on behalf of the Disciplinary Administrator's office. This letter states:
The complainant filed her initial complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office by letter dated February 23, 1995, which was received on March 1, 1995. Respondent did not contact Ms. Pinnick relative to settlement of the claim until March 5 or 7, 1995. Accordingly, respondent's statement relative to the settlement being made prior to the filing of the complaint by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Potter
...8.1(a), MRPC 8.4(d) and (g), and Supreme Court Rule 207 in a personal injury case. The court published the censure at In re Potter, 263 Kan. 766, 952 P.2d 936 (1998). On July 28, 1998, the Disciplinary Administrator informally admonished the respondent in four separate cases. In A6467, the ......