State ex rel. Stephan v. Williams

• Decision Date: 25 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. 63765,63765
• Citation: 246 Kan. 681,793 P.2d 234
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, ex rel. Robert T. STEPHAN, Attorney General, Petitioner, v. Franklin Dee WILLIAMS, Respondent.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 234

793 P.2d 234

246 Kan. 681

STATE of Kansas, ex rel. Robert T. STEPHAN, Attorney General, Petitioner, v. Franklin Dee WILLIAMS, Respondent.

No. 63765.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

May 25, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas and K.S.A 60-1202(1) vest original jurisdiction in the Kansas Supreme Court in an action in quo warranto against a person allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

2. This court has constitutional, statutory, and inherent jurisdiction to inquire by what authority one assumes to practice law in this state and to make appropriate orders relating thereto. A proceeding in the nature of quo warranto by the State on the relation of the attorney general is appropriate for that purpose.

3. In the interpretation of the laws and the administration of justice it is essential that there be members of the bar of ability, adequate learning, and sound moral character. One of the important functions of this court is to admit only such persons to the practice of law, to suspend or expel those found unworthy, and to prevent the practice of law by unauthorized persons.

4. The Kansas Supreme Court has the inherent power to prescribe conditions for admission to the bar and to define, supervise, regulate, and control the practice of law in Kansas.

5. In determining what constitutes the "practice of law" no precise, all-encompassing definition is advisable, even if it were possible. Every matter asserting the unauthorized practice of law must be considered on its own facts on a case-by-case basis.

6. The unauthorized practice of law is discussed.

Steve A. Schwarm and Daniel P. Kolditz, Asst. Attys. Gen., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., and John W. Campbell, Deputy Atty. Gen., were with them for petitioner.

Franklin Dee Williams, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM:

This is an original action in quo warranto filed by the State of Kansas (State or petitioner), on the relation of the Attorney General of Kansas, to enjoin and restrain Franklin Dee Williams (respondent) from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

The State filed its petition on May 19, 1989, and on the 8th day of June 1989 this court ordered Williams to respond to the petition on or before July 3, 1989. On July 3, 1989, Williams filed a voluminous document which purports to be an answer to the State's petition and further attempts to assert claims for relief in quo warranto and mandamus and by way of a cross-claim and counterclaim.

On July 13, 1989, the court appointed the Hon. Frederick Woleslagel, district judge retired, as Commissioner to conduct evidentiary proceedings and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order provides:

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that Frederick Woleslagel, be and he is hereby appointed Commissioner in the above entitled case to hear and pass on motions, to take testimony, to hear and receive evidence, to make suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to make his report to this Court for its final determination and judgment. And such Commissioner is hereby authorized and empowered to fix the time and place for hearings, to administer oaths, to issue subpoenas for witnesses, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to require the production of any pertinent papers, books, documents and testimony, to cause the depositions of witnesses to be taken if necessary, and to do any and all other things required, so a complete hearing may be had on all pertinent and relevant matters raised, or which may hereafter be raised, by the parties involved in such case; and to rule upon all legal questions presented in connection with any and all such matters."

The petition of the State alleged that Williams had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several district court cases including North Central Kansas Production Credit Association v. Hansen, et al., 85-C-07, Republic County; The Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Linn 88-C-20, Morris County; and Williams v. Postal Savings and Loan Association, 88-CV-528, Shawnee County. It is alleged that in most of his court appearances Williams claims to represent the Kansas Territorial Agricultural Society (KTAS or Society) as an attorney and counselor for the Society. Williams signed pleadings on behalf of the KTAS, issued unauthorized cease and desist orders, and in the Morris County proceedings, examined and cross-examined witnesses. Williams is no stranger to this court, and we can take judicial notice of the fact that he has appeared in various courts of this State purporting to be an attorney and purporting to represent the KTAS and others.

The respondent's answer, like most of his pleadings, is for all practical purposes unintelligible. The task of the Commissioner, and of this court, was made extremely difficult due to Williams lack of any understanding or knowledge of basic legal principles, proper procedure, or the role of an attorney in the American legal system. The Commissioner and this court have been flooded with voluminous, maundering pleadings which defy comprehension and interpretation. The various pleadings of the respondent would appear to assert certain alleged defenses which are totally frivolous and have no basis in law. They include (1) a lack of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear this matter; (2) that Williams is himself the Attorney General of Kansas; (3) that Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, was not properly elected to his office; (4) that Attorney General Stephan and the assistant attorneys general appearing in this case are not entitled to represent the State and are not authorized to practice law; and (5) that Williams is authorized by the charter of the KTAS to represent the Society and appear as an attorney on its behalf.

The Commissioner held a pretrial and discovery conference on September 25, 1989, and an evidentiary hearing on October 25, 1989. Following the October hearing, the parties were granted time in which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, on December 22, 1989, Commissioner Woleslagel filed his report consisting of findings of fact and conclusions of law and, on January 12, 1990, the respondent filed his exceptions to the Commissioner's report. In April, the parties presented oral argument to this court and respondent filed a twelve-page written argument to supplement his oral remarks.

A review of the voluminous record reveals that the respondent does not deny that he has engaged in the practice of law without being authorized to do so by the Kansas Supreme Court. He asserts that he derives his authority to practice law and appear as an attorney from the KTAS, which was originally established by 1855 Kansas Territorial Laws, ch. 58, § 1 et seq. Respondent asserts § 1 of the said laws grants the KTAS authority to name persons as attorneys entitled to practice law on its behalf even though such persons are not admitted to practice law by the Kansas Supreme Court. In fact, the language respondent relies upon is found in the by-laws of the KTAS and not in the territorial laws.

Commissioner Woleslagel's report reads:

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"1. This is an original action in quo warranto brought by the State of Kansas (State) on relation of the attorney general alleging that Franklin Dee Williams (Williams) has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law within this state.

"The petition requests this court to issue its order enjoining him from the unauthorized practice of law within the state in appearing as counsel or filing papers for others in any courts thereof, or in so assisting any other unauthorized persons to appear as counsel or file papers for others.

"In its petition, and its petition as later amended, the State asked that the Kansas Territorial Agricultural Society (KTAS) be declared a non-entity and similarly enjoined. During the October 25 hearing, the State withdrew its requests for action against KTAS.

"In his answer consisting of 88 numbered paragraphs and many attachments Williams appeared to deny all or some allegations of the petition. He also gratuitously amended the caption of the case to show that he was 'Contestee, and Cross-Claimant' and added 'ROBERT TAFT STEPHAN; and JOHN AND JANE DOES B to Z' as third party defendants. No permission has been granted to add any third parties.

"Further, he denied that this court had jurisdiction; he asserted that the attorneys representing the State were not entitled to do so; he alleged that he was the attorney general of this state; he claimed KTAS authority for his action; he counterclaimed and cross-claimed for actual and punitive damages and asked for an order of mandamus against an unnamed 'lower Court Judge.'

"2. Williams started filing pleadings in the District Court of Morris County on March 23, 1989, in Case Number 88-C-20, The Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. J.A. Linn, et al. (the Morris County case) filing 31 pleadings by October 30.

"The nature of the papers filed by Williams is indicated by the following index copied without any editing and with filing dates;

.... [The detailed index of pleadings has been omitted.]

"There was also evidence introduced which suggested that Williams appeared in two other courts on behalf of others. In those instances, however, the evidence was not of sufficient quality to furnish a basis for a finding as to his activity and that evidence was disregarded.

"3. The pleadings were filed on behalf of KTAS or the purported directors or purported members thereof.

"In almost all of the papers filed, the pleader, as identified therein, is KTAS. As the volume of pleadings increased, so did the indicated pleaders. The common variation was to list KTAS and its directors or its members. In three pleadings Williams lists himself as pro se. In one pleading he lists the pleader as the 'State of...