In re Hodge - (
307 Kan. 170
| Kan. | 2017Background
- Rickey E. Hodge Jr., a Kansas lawyer admitted in 2008, represented Complete Landscaping Systems, Inc. (CLS) in collection litigation and advised its owner L.A. while CLS faced serious financial distress and multiple creditor actions.
- Hodge simultaneously formed and controlled two business entities: Yard Concerns (buyer of CLS assets) and Hodge Acquisitions (buyer of L.A.’s 80-acre ranch).
- In August 2013 Yard Concerns offered to buy most of CLS’s local assets; CLS (through L.A. and P.S.) accepted; Yard Concerns began taking possession and collecting receivables.
- Hodge purchased L.A.’s ranch via Hodge Acquisitions for substantially less than prior appraisals and county valuation and entered a lease/repurchase arrangement with L.A.
- The disciplinary panel found Hodge continued to provide legal advice to CLS and L.A. after a purported termination of representation, engaged in self-dealing, failed to obtain informed written consent, communicated with a represented party, and used client information to clients’ disadvantage.
- The panel concluded Hodge violated KRPC 1.7, 1.8(a) and (b), 4.2, and 8.4(g) and unanimously recommended disbarment; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did an attorney-client relationship with CLS and L.A. exist (implied or continued) after Hodge's written "termination"? | Panel/Disciplinary Administrator: Yes — conduct (advice, signature block, not withdrawing, continued influence) created/maintained implied relationship. | Hodge: He terminated representation and thereafter acted only in a business capacity (not as counsel) or engaged in limited "wrap-up." | Held: Yes. Clear and convincing evidence established ongoing/implied attorney-client relationships. |
| Did Hodge's simultaneous representation of buyer entities and clients violate KRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest)? | Panel: Hodge represented Yard Concerns/Hodge Acquisitions and CLS/L.A. concurrently without informed written consent; interests were directly adverse. | Hodge: No concurrent representation because he ceased representing CLS/L.A.; alternatively, he obtained consent/acted in business mode. | Held: Violations of KRPC 1.7 (no informed written consent; direct adverse interests). |
| Did Hodge enter into prohibited business transactions and misuse client information in violation of KRPC 1.8(a) and 1.8(b)? | Panel: Hodge entered business transactions with clients (asset purchase, ranch sale) without fair terms, without proper written disclosure/advice/opportunity to seek independent counsel, and used confidential info to clients’ disadvantage. | Hodge: Denied existence of binding transactions or insisted adequate opportunity/consent existed; characterized actions as nonlegal business dealings. | Held: Violations of KRPC 1.8(a) and 1.8(b) supported by record — transactions were unfair, clients lacked reasonable opportunity for independent counsel, and no informed written consent. |
| Did Hodge improperly communicate with represented parties and engage in conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice (KRPC 4.2 and 8.4(g))? | Panel: Hodge directly counseled represented CLS principals to ignore their bankruptcy counsel and took actions showing self-dealing and exploitation, undermining fitness to practice. | Hodge: He was acting as buyer or private businessperson, not as counsel; conduct did not rise to "other conduct" under 8.4(g). | Held: Violations of KRPC 4.2 and 8.4(g) proven; conduct intentionally interfered with opposing counsel’s client and reflected adversely on fitness to practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Double M Const. v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n, 288 Kan. 268 (2009) (look‑and‑act analysis: parties’ conduct controls characterization despite labels).
- Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 266 Kan. 1047 (1999) (attorney‑client relationship may be implied from conduct; fee or formal contract not required).
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition and standard for "clear and convincing" and discussion of "knowingly").
- In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96 (2014) (appellate review of disciplinary panel findings; do not reweigh credibility).
- Barragree v. Tri‑County Elec. Co‑op., Inc., 263 Kan. 446 (1997) (termination of attorney‑client relationship and its evidentiary context).
- In re Kershner, 250 Kan. 383 (1992) (discipline and interplay of various 8.4 subsections in sanctions analysis).