Archive for the ‘Discipline’ Category

July 17th Disciplinary Decision

July 17, 2009

July 17th. The Kansas Supreme Court handed down an attorney discipline decision. The case was In re Rost (No. 101,746). In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

June 26th Disciplinary Decision

July 9, 2009

June 26th. The Kansas Supreme Court handed down an attorney discipline decision. The case was In re Woodring (No. 101,115). In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

July Disciplinary Decision

July 8, 2009

July 2nd. The Kansas Supreme Court handed down an attorney discipline decision. The case was In re Wiles (No. 101,413).  In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

April 17th Disciplinary Decisions

April 24, 2009

April 17th. The Kansas Supreme Court handed down two attorney discipline decisions. The cases were In Re Ellis (No. 101,485) and In Re Piekalkiewicz (No. 101,518). In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

April 2009 Decisions

April 10, 2009

April 10th. So far in April, the Kansas Supreme Court has issued three decisions. One of these will be covered here shortly. The other two are an unpublished decision and an Attorney Discipline case. The unpublished decision was:

Docket Number / Case Name / Judge / Disposition / County
100,930 — In the Matter of the Marriage of Gerow — Rosen, J. — Affirmed — Johnson.

Unpublished opinions are supposed to be those where the case turns on the straightforward application of existing law. Though widespread, the practice is not without controversy – it has been criticized elsewhere for allowing courts to hide ’stinkers’ as well as being unnecessary in the age of the internet where the size of printed materials is no longer a constraint. These cases are not available online. If anyone is aware of any controversy surrounding them, please contact this blog and we will investigate.

The  disciplinary case was In Re Lober (No. 101,212). In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

Attorney Discipline Decisions

February 3, 2009

January 30th. The Kansas Supreme Court issued two disciplinary opinions. The cases are In re Swanson (No. 100,543) and In re Nelson (No. 100,218). In the interests of balancing our workload against reader interest we do not write up Attorney Discipline cases, except in unusually newsworthy circumstances.

Disciplinary: In re Campbell

January 17, 2009

January 16th. The Kansas Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam opinion in the disciplinary case of In the matter of Frederick Campbell (No. 101116). Under normal circumstances such cases are not covered by this blog, however since this case concerns a public official, it is briefly summarized here. The Court suspended the law license of Frederick Campbell, county attorney for Anderson County. Chief Justice McFarland did not take part in the case, her place being filled by Court of Appeals judge Hill.

The case arose from a drunken party near Greely. An underage girl, who was drunk, was observed by partygoers and photographed having sex with a foreign exchange student. Afterwards the Anderson County Sheriff’s office acquired the photographs and referred them to Campbell. After doctoring the photographs to obscure faces, Campbell declined to prosecute (on the grounds that the sex had been consensual) but decided to share the amended photos with parents of other minors who had attended the party, in an attempt to stir outrage at what was happening at such parties. He did this over the objection of the girl and her mother.

The Disciplinary Hearing Panel held that by doing this, Campbell violated his duty to the public to maintain his personal integrity and his duty to the legal profession and the legal system to comply with the rules. The panel (and Campbell) held that Campbell should be censured for his actions. The Disciplinary Administrator argued for a 90 day suspension, but the Court imposed a 6 month suspension and indicated that some of its members had sought a longer punishment. In addition it ruled that Campbell must undergo a Rule 219 proceeding at the end of the suspension to regain his license, in which he must prove that among other things he understands why his actions were wrong and shows that he is in a fit mental state. The Court indicated that it adopted this position in part because Campbell had argued in mitigation that he suffers from ADD and possibly Aspergers Syndrome.