410 P.3d 879
Kan.2018Background
- Matthew E. Hult, admitted in Kansas (2012), practiced immigration law in Kansas and maintained an office in Sioux City, Iowa; he was reprimanded by the Iowa Supreme Court for failing to comply with Iowa multijurisdictional practice and trust-account rules.
- Kansas Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging multiple KRPC and Kansas Supreme Court Rule violations; Hult failed to timely file an answer but submitted a "pleading" admitting many violations.
- Investigated client matters: (1) J.W./T.W. — paid fees; Hult failed to deposit filing fees in trust, delayed filings, poor communication, refunded filing fees but not attorney fees; (2) E.V. — E-2 visa mishandled, client forced to travel, malpractice suit resulted in default judgment (~$22,906) which Hult failed to satisfy and resisted garnishment/subpoena.
- (3) C.W. — British passport assistance delayed by Hult’s errors (including misreading date format); client obtained passport herself and sought a refund Hult partly offered.
- Panel findings: Hult violated KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.3(a), 8.4(d), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(c), and R. 211(b); panel recommended indefinite suspension citing incompetence, pattern of misconduct, and client injury.
- Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel’s conclusions and ordered indefinite suspension, costs, and a reinstatement hearing requirement under Rule 219(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hult violated duties of competence, diligence, and communication (KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) | Disciplinary Administrator: Hult failed to file required immigration paperwork, missed deadlines, and repeatedly failed to communicate, causing client harm | Hult: asserted office closure in Iowa, blamed misunderstandings, acknowledged some failures but attributed others to inexperience and personal issues | Court: Violations proved by clear and convincing evidence; panel findings adopted. |
| Whether Hult mishandled client funds and trust accounting (KRPC 1.15) | Administrator: Hult never maintained trust accounts, deposited client funds in operating account, treated flat fees as earned on receipt, jeopardizing client funds | Hult: claimed flat fees were earned, lacked understanding of trust-account requirements, closed Iowa office and returned registration fee | Court: Violations established; failure to maintain trust accounts and commingling funds violated KRPC 1.15. |
| Whether Hult disobeyed tribunal rules and obstructed proceedings (KRPC 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.4(d)) | Administrator: Hult failed to answer malpractice suit, ignored motions/subpoenas, transferred funds to avoid garnishment — prejudicial to administration of justice | Hult: contested some factual characterizations but did not file timely defenses or comply with orders; blamed inexperience and personal problems | Court: Conduct prejudicial and disobedient to tribunal rules; violations sustained. |
| Appropriate discipline (indefinite suspension vs. probation) | Administrator: Indefinite suspension given pattern of misconduct, client injury, and lack of competence | Hult: Proposed probation plan and remediation; requested to continue practicing | Court: Indefinite suspension ordered; reinstatement hearing required; probation denied (panel could not recommend probation due to untimely plan). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 258 P.3d 375 (Kansas 2011) (standard for proving attorney misconduct)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 204 P.3d 610 (Kansas 2009) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1 (Kansas 2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Denton, 814 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 2012) (flat fees are special retainers; advance fees must be deposited into client trust account)