In re Harrington, 385 P.3d 905

Background

Bruce C. Harrington, admitted 1968, was the respondent in two disciplinary matters (DA11998 and DA12163) involving probate and trust-account conduct; the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint Nov. 12, 2015.
In DA11998 (N.H. estate): Harrington drafted a durable power of attorney for N.H., collected numerous checks from N.H./R.H. accounts (some after N.H.'s death), misrepresented that he was alternate executor, paid himself substantial fees (totaling roughly $30,946 between Jan–Jun 2013), and filed an inadequate accounting and failed to publish creditor notice.
In DA12163 (savings bonds): Harrington redeemed bonds, deposited $53,484 into his trust account, distributed amounts but retained and later converted roughly $25,000 belonging to H.B.; he later borrowed funds and paid $25,000 into Kansas unclaimed property, but records showed he kept excess fees and did not fully account.
Harrington failed to produce requested trust-account records timely, gave misleading and false statements to the probate court and to disciplinary investigators, and refused to answer many investigatory questions.
The hearing panel found numerous KRPC violations (including 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.8(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(d)(2)(v), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b)), recommended disbarment, and the Kansas Supreme Court ultimately ordered immediate disbarment and assessed costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance / right to chosen counsel	Panel denial was proper given serious allegations and public protection; respondent had ample notice.	Harrington said denial prevented representation by his chosen (hospitalized) attorney and violated due process.	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; respondent had sufficient notice and failed to show actual prejudice.
Source/form of complaint / due process	Disciplinary Administrator may investigate without a signed third‑party complaint; investigation produced independent evidence.	Harrington argued initial informal complaint by office mate (not written) deprived him of fundamental fairness.	No due process violation; absence of a written complaint did not prejudice Harrington.
Misuse of power of attorney, conversion, false statements	Harrington misused POA, converted client/estate funds, made false probate and investigatory statements, and withheld records.	Harrington largely denied misuse and emphasized restitution (payment into unclaimed property).	Court found clear and convincing evidence of misuse, conversion, dishonesty, and false statements; violations of multiple KRPC provisions proven.
Appropriate discipline (disbarment vs lesser sanction)	Disciplinary Administrator and panel recommended disbarment given conversion, pattern of misconduct, false statements, aggravating factors.	Harrington sought time to wind down practice; argued restitution mitigated need for disbarment.	Court affirmed disbarment as appropriate and effective immediately; restitution did not excuse conversion or negate sanction.

Key Cases Cited

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (discipline requires clear and convincing proof)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (clarifying standard for clear and convincing proof)
Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., 284 Kan. 476 (2007) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Seck, 258 Kan. 530 (1995) (continuance discretion in disciplinary proceedings)
State v. Moyer, 302 Kan. 892 (2015) (standards for abuse of judicial discretion)
In re Lockett, 270 Kan. 640 (2001) (expeditious discipline to protect public)
In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619 (2005) (due process applies in lawyer discipline)
In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897 (2014) (court not bound by panel recommendation)
In re Johanning, 292 Kan. 477 (2011) (factors for choosing discipline)
In re Hawkins, 304 Kan. 97 (2016) (use of ABA Standards in sanctioning)
In re Long, 266 Kan. 664 (1999) (probation requires pre-submitted plan)
In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96 (2013) ("no harm, no foul" rejected in discipline context)
In re Black, 283 Kan. 862 (2007) (restitution insufficient to excuse ethical violation)
In re Berg, 264 Kan. 254 (1998) (conversion and dishonesty support severe discipline)