In re Baker
294 P.3d 326
Kan.2013Background
- Respondent Douglas Lee Baker, Kansas attorney since 1975, subject to disciplinary proceedings filed December 15, 2011.
- Hearing panel found violations of KRPC 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(g) based on misrepresentations/omissions related to AZID mining investments.
- AZID and related entities raised about $2.6 million from 36 investors across six states; Baker controlled funds as managing member.
- Idaho securities actions culminated in 2005–2006 judgments totaling roughly $2.96 million against AZID and Baker; Baker paid only $500 by the disciplinary hearing.
- Hearing panel recommended two-year suspension; Baker sought probation under Rule 211(g); Disciplinary Administrator recommended suspension; Baker filed exceptions.
- Kansas Supreme Court ultimately disbarred Baker effective upon filing of the opinion and taxed costs against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker violated KRPC 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(g). | Disciplinary Administrator argues yes based on material misrepresentations and omissions to investors. | Baker argues the panel erred in treating conduct as ethical violations despite mitigating factors. | Yes; court agrees with panel that Baker violated all three rules. |
| Whether probation under Rule 211(g) was appropriate. | Disciplinary Administrator contends probation is unwarranted given dishonesty and harm. | Baker argues plan of probation is workable and should be approved. | Probation not warranted; plan deemed not workable or in best interests. |
| Whether disbarment is appropriate discipline. | Disciplinary Administrator supports disbarment under ABA Standards for serious misconduct. | Baker urges suspension or probation as lesser sanctions. | Disbarment is appropriate; majority finds misconduct severe and elements of dishonesty and harm dispositive. |
| How mitigating factors affect discipline. | Panel properly weighed mitigating factors but found them insufficient to reduce discipline. | Additional mitigating factors (remorse, lack of prior discipline, public service) should lessen discipline. | Mitigating factors given little weight; do not warrant lesser sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ireland, 294 Kan. 594 (2012) (abandoned exceptions doctrine; standards for discipline scope and review)
- In re Woodring, 289 Kan. 173 (2009) (ABA standards guidance; deference to panel findings)
- In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520 (2010) (advisory status of panel; standard of review)
- In re Anderson, 247 Kan. 208 (1990) (ABA Standards as guidelines; no requirement to cite every standard)
- In re Thomas, 291 Kan. 443 (2010) (discretion in applying ABA Standards; discipline progression)
- In re Robertson, 256 Kan. 505 (1994) (precedent on disciplinary sanctions; court’s review authority)
- In re Conwell, 275 Kan. 902 (2003) (probation considerations and safeguards under Rule 211(g))
- In re Kershner, 250 Kan. 383 (1992) (discusses sanctions for securities violations and public policy; distinction from isolated incidents)