344 P.3d 370
Kan.2015Background
- Original disciplinary proceeding against Louis M. Clothier, a Kansas attorney admitted in 1981.
- Formal complaint filed July 10, 2014; respondent answered July 17, 2014.
- Hearing held August 18, 2014; panel found multiple rule violations by Clothier.
- Panel concluded violations included: KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.5(c), 3.5(d), 8.2(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g)
- Court ultimately imposed probation for 3 years under a detailed plan, instead of suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clothier violated multiple KRPC rules as found by the panel. | Disciplinary Administrator; violations established by clear and convincing evidence | Clothier; argues probation or lesser sanction is appropriate | Yes; panel's violations adopted; probation ordered. |
| Whether probation is appropriate and in the public interest. | Probation is warranted given pattern and mitigating factors | Probation plan is workable and in best interests | Probation adopted; plan deemed workable and in best interests. |
| Whether the probation plan adequately safeguards public, clients, and integrity of the courts. | Plan provides supervision, audits, and monitoring | Plan sufficiently protects duties; respondent complies | Yes; probation plan approved with stringent terms. |
| Whether the court should impose suspension instead of probation. | Suspension may be warranted given offenses | Rehabilitation evidence supports probation | Minority would suspend; majority imposes probation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897 (2014) (court may deviate from disciplinary administrator’s recommendation based on facts)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing standard governs attorney discipline)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (guidance on evidentiary standards in discipline proceedings)