Hays v. Ruther
298 Kan. 402
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Federal district court certified two questions about applying KCSOA and KCPA to attorneys and law firms in Kansas client-attorney relationships.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of KCSOA and KCPA by a Kansas-lawyer's law firm and related entities in connection with debt management services.
- KCSOA exempted attorneys practicing law within the course of practice; the statute defined 'person' broadly, creating tension with the exemption.
- 2012 amendments added explicit exemption for an individual’s law firm and defined 'law firm' to clarify legislative intent.
- Court analyzes certified questions as questions of law and declines to resolve factual scenarios beyond the record, focusing on statutory interpretation and separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the attorney exemption extend to the lawyer's law firm? | Exemption covers individuals only, not firms. | Exemption applies to both individuals and their law firms through broader 'person' and amended definitions. | Yes; exempt attorney's law firm is also exempt. |
| Does applying KCPA or KCSOA to attorneys/law firms violate separation of powers? | Applying statutes to lawyers would infringe judiciary's exclusive regulation of the practice of law. | Statutes may regulate incidental aspects without violating separation, with courts retaining regulatory power over the practice. | Not inherently unconstitutional; some remedies contingent on avoiding infringement of judicial powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of H.C.H., 297 Kan. 819 (2013) (statutory interpretation framework; ambiguity may invite legislative history)
- State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 (2012) (statutory ambiguity and canons of construction)
- Kansas One-Call System v. State, 294 Kan. 220 (2012) (absurd results avoidance; legislative intent)
- State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45 (1984) (separation of powers principles; four-part test)
- Martin v. Naik, 297 Kan. 241 (2013) (statutory interpretation; ambiguity and legislative history)
- State ex rel. Morrison v. Sebelius, 285 Kan. 875 (2008) (separation of powers; judicial power vested in courts)
- State ex rel. Stephan v. Smith, 242 Kan. 336 (1987) (legislative actions affecting the practice of law; permissible scope)
- Kansas Bar Ass’n v. Judges of the Third Judicial Dist., 270 Kan. 489 (2000) (legislative or executive rules affecting practice may be permissible)
- Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 270 Kan. 502 (2000) (regulation of the profession within constitutional boundaries)
- Moore v. Bird Engineering Co., 273 Kan. 2 (2002) (professional services and KCPA interplay)
- In re Daugherty, 285 Kan. 1143 (2008) (purpose of disciplinary system and public protection)