In re Fahrenholtz - (
116544
| Kan. | Apr 14, 2017Background
- Terri L. Fahrenholtz, admitted in Kansas (2009), Minnesota (1999), and North Dakota (2006), ceased practicing in June 2013; she was later suspended in Minnesota and disbarred in North Dakota.
- Multiple clients complained after she stopped practicing; a North Dakota disciplinary proceeding found she abandoned her practice, mishandled files and client funds, failed to communicate, and caused serious client injury.
- The Kansas Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint (Mar. 22, 2016) alleging violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.16, 3.2, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b); Fahrenholtz did not answer or appear at the Kansas hearing.
- The Kansas hearing panel adopted the North Dakota findings, concluded multiple rule violations and aggravating factors (prior discipline, multiple offenses, bad-faith noncooperation, experience, lack of restitution), and recommended disbarment.
- The Kansas Supreme Court found notice was proper, adopted the panel’s findings and conclusions as supported by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered disbarment effective upon filing of the opinion; costs assessed to respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence) | Fahrenholtz failed to provide thorough, prepared representation; files were chaotic and matters unhandled | No answer or appearance (no contest) | Violated; findings adopted |
| Whether respondent violated KRPC 1.3 and 3.2 (diligence/expediting) | She failed to act with reasonable diligence or to expedite litigation, causing clients harm | No response | Violated; findings adopted |
| Whether respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) (communication) and 1.16 (termination) | She failed to keep clients informed, abandoned files, did not protect client interests or refund unearned fees | No response | Violated; findings adopted |
| Whether respondent violated KRPC 1.15(a) (safekeeping client property) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) (failure to answer) | Client funds and property were not kept separate; respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint | No response | Violated both; disbarment recommended and ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (discipline requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (defines clear and convincing standard for disciplinary facts)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (discussion of proof standard quoting clear and convincing formulation)