In Re Chavez
251 P.3d 628
Kan.2011Background
- Respondent Bart A. Chavez, admitted to practice in Kansas in 1991, faced a disciplinary complaint citing KRPC violations.
- A hearing panel found Chavez violated KRPC 3.5(d) and 8.4(d) based on confrontational, disrespectful conduct toward EOIR staff.
- Events occurred in 2007–2009 during representation in an immigration matter involving Sindiso Luphahla; Chavez engaged in multiple confrontational telephone conversations with Dallas Court Administrator Barbara Baker and failed to appear as ordered.
- Chavez previously admitted to inactive status in Kansas (1997) and is also licensed in Nebraska; EOIR proceedings resulted in conduct findings and sanctions.
- A Settlement Agreement led to a public censure by EOIR in 2009 and Nebraska reprimand; Kansas Supreme Court ultimately imposed a published censure.
- Costs of proceedings were assessed against Chavez, and the opinion was ordered published in the Kansas Reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chavez violated KRPC 3.5(d). | Chavez engaged in undignified conduct degrading to a tribunal. | Chavez disputes or minimizes the conduct as isolated and non-prejudicial. | Yes; Chavez violated 3.5(d). |
| Whether Chavez violated KRPC 8.4(d). | Disrespectful conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. | Argues improper characterization of the interactions; not prejudicial. | Yes; Chavez violated 8.4(d). |
| What discipline is appropriate. | Recommend published censure reflecting prior EOIR/Nebraska discipline. | Accepts censure in light of mitigating factors and treatment. | Published censure appropriate and consistent with standards and prior discipline. |
| Role of mitigating factors and standards in sanctioning. | Mitigating factors justify lesser discipline than suspension. | Mental health treatment and lack of prior Kansas discipline support mitigation. | Mitigating factors justify censure with published reporting. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard governs professional discipline)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1 (2008) (clear and convincing evidence standard governs professional discipline)