In re Collins
288 P.3d 847
Kan.2012Background
- Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Craig E. Collins on December 8, 2011; Collins answered January 12, 2012 and a hearing was held January 25, 2012.
- Hearing panel found violations of KRPC 1.3, 1.15(a)/(d)(1), 8.1(b), 8.4(g), and Supreme Court Rule 207(b).
- Two separate complaints were heard: DAI1202 alleging trust-account overdrafts and failure to cooperate; DA11399 alleging failure to diligently prepare Hanes tax returns.
- Overdrafts occurred across 2010 with multiple checks written when funds were insufficient; Collins admitted using personal funds in his trust account for expenses such as CLE and registration.
- Hanes matter showed delay in filing federal/state tax returns for 2001–2005; subsequent IRS/KDOR actions caused property seizures and client losses totaling $11,775.18 in refunds.
- Panel recommended a one-year suspension with a reinstatement hearing under Rule 219; the superseding court imposed a one-year suspension beginning from the date of the opinion and ordered costs and a Rule 219 reinstatement hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins violated 1.15 by misusing client funds in the trust account. | DAI1202 establishes misappropriation of client funds through overdrafts. | Collins contends no client funds were present, arguing no commingling. | Yes; court finds clear and convincing 1.15 violation. |
| Whether Collins failed to cooperate in disciplinary investigations under 8.1(b) and Rule 207(b). | Disciplinary Administrator showed delays in responses to requests. | Collins claims extenuating circumstances justify delay. | Yes; court upholds 8.1(b)/207(b) violation. |
| Whether Collins violated 1.3 and 8.4(g) by neglecting Hanes tax matters and conduct reflecting on fitness to practice. | Failure to diligently prepare returns harmed clients and reflected poorly on fitness. | Disputes about information provided by Hanes; issues with credibility of Hanes and others. | Yes; court finds 1.3 and 8.4(g) violations. |
| Whether the discipline (sanction) of suspension is appropriate given the conduct and standards. | Disciplinary Administrator and panel urged a 1-year suspension with Rule 219 reinstatement hearing. | No argument; respondent did not propose alternative discipline. | Yes; 1-year suspension with reinstatement hearing required prior to any reissuance of license. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Patterson, 289 Kan. 131, 209 P.3d 692 (2009) (clear and convincing standard governs attorney misconduct evidence)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1 (2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (unlimited review of procedural issues in discipline cases)
- In re Wiles, 289 Kan. 201, 210 P.3d 613 (2009) (courts refrain from weighing conflicting credibility on review)
- In re Bryan, 275 Kan. 202, 61 P.3d 641 (2003) (interpretation of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct is a question of law with unlimited review)