In re Beck
298 Kan. 881
Kan.2014Background
- Beck is a Kansas attorney admitted in 1988; disciplinary actions were initiated via two formal complaints (DAI1260 and DA11553) with a proposed probation plan; hearings occurred April 9, 2013.
- Beck stipulated violations of KRPC 1.4, 8.4(c), and 5.5, and the panel further found violations of KRPC 1.1, and Supreme Court Rules 208 and 218.
- Key misconduct includes drafting seven documents for L.H without her participation, forging signatures (L.H. and secretary), notarization fraud, and misrepresenting witnesses.
- Beck’s license was suspended in 2006 for CLE deficiencies, he practiced while suspended for about three years, and he failed to notify clients of the suspension; he was reinstated in 2009.
- The Supreme Court ultimately disbarred Beck, ordered compliance with Rules 218/219, and assessed costs against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Beck violate KRPC 1.1 (competent representation)? | DAI asserts Beck failed to discuss/advise L.H., lacked competence. | Beck contends no meaningful defense stated. | Yes; Beck violated 1.1. |
| Did Beck violate KRPC 1.4 (communication with client)? | DAI contends Beck failed to inform L.H. about the matter. | Beck asserts no communicative breach. | Yes; Beck violated 1.4. |
| Did Beck’s conduct violate KRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation)? | DAI argues forging signatures and notarization fraud show dishonesty. | Beck disputes characterization of his conduct. | Yes; Beck violated 8.4(c). |
| Did Beck’s post-suspension practice and failure to notify violate 5.5, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208, and R. 218? | DAI asserts ongoing practice after suspension and failure to notify clients. | Beck contends probation could address issues. | Yes; Beck violated 5.5, R. 208, and R. 218. |
| What discipline is appropriate? | DAI seeks indefinite suspension or disbarment; panel suggested 2-year suspension. | Beck urged censure and probation. | Disbarment; two-year suspension not sufficient; costs assessed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stockwell, 296 Kan. 860 (2013) (reliability concerns of dishonesty in discipline precedents)
- In re Baker, 296 Kan. 696 (2013) (dishonesty undermines probation prospects; supervision ineffective)
- In re Johanning, 292 Kan. 477 (2011) (standards for evaluating sanctions; mitigation vs. aggravation)
- In re Collins, 295 Kan. 1084 (2012) (credibility of remorse and handling of disciplinary process)