In Re Doudin
249 P.2d 1190
Kan.2011Background
- Disciplinary Administrator filed formal complaint against Conrad E. Doudin in Kansas Supreme Court discipline proceeding (Jan. 11, 2010).
- Respondent answered (Aug. 9, 2010) and submitted probation plan (Aug. 14, 2010).
- Hearing panel conducted Aug. 18, 2010; parties submitted joint stipulation of facts.
- Panel found violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, 8.1, and Supreme Court Rules 207 and 211.
- Illustrative subsections include: late filing in 2006–2007 visitation case; failure to timely enter appearance; mishandling client funds; failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries; failure to cooperate with auditors.
- Panel recommended one-year suspension with reinstatement hearing; probation denied; costs assessed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Doudin's conduct a violation of the duty of competence and diligence? | DA asserts violations of 1.1 and 1.3. | Doudin contends issues disputed; argues probation plan. | Yes; violations found (competence and diligence). |
| Did Doudin violate safekeeping of client property? | DA argues funds not properly safeguarded. | Doudin disputes misappropriation claims. | Yes; violation of KRPC 1.15 established. |
| Did Doudin fail to cooperate in disciplinary investigations? | DA claims failure to respond and obstructed audit. | Doudin contends counsel actions not imputable. | Yes; violations of KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). |
| Did Doudin fail to file a timely answer to the Formal Complaint? | DA asserts Rule 211(b) violation. | Doudin argues defenses and procedure. | Yes; violation of Kan. Sup.Ct. R. 211(b). |
| Did Doudin's conduct show a pattern of neglect and improper conduct warranting discipline? | DA seeks discipline under ABA standards for multiple offenses. | Doudin argues mitigating factors and counseling. | Yes; pattern of misconduct supports suspension and reinstatement hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 78 P.3d 442 (Kan. 2003) (clear and convincing evidence standard in discipline)
- In re Patterson, 289 Kan. 131, 209 P.3d 692 (Kan. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence; standard for discipline)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008) (standards for sanctions under ABA framework)