In Re Ireland
276 P.3d 762
Kan.2012Background
- Kansas attorney admitted to practice in 2005; disciplinary action for making false statements about a judge; hearing panel found violations of KRPC 8.2(a).
- Divorce case 07CV02121 filed March 19, 2007; mediation conducted Sept. 26, 2007 by Judge Moriarty; respondent claimed misconduct during mediation.
- Respondent alleged Judge Moriarty used profanity, threats, and harassed her during mediation; content included sexualized and demeaning remarks.
- Respondent filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Qualifications on Oct. 3, 2007; later asserted false allegations in related federal and disciplinary filings.
- Judge Fleming of the CJQ acknowledged some misconduct by Moriarty but found no support for most of respondent’s remaining allegations; respondent’s later actions included a federal suit and public statements claiming misconduct.
- Respondent agreed to a temporary suspension on March 1, 2010; Kansas Supreme Court temporarily suspended her on March 31, 2010; final suspension imposed in 2012 with retroactive effect to the temporary suspension date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ireland violated KRPC 8.2(a) | DA contends respondent knowingly made false statements about Moriarty. | Ireland contends the statements were in a highly stressful context and not intended to cause harm. | Yes; respondent knowingly violated 8.2(a). |
| Appropriate discipline for 8.2(a) violation | DA recommends indefinite suspension. | Ireland argues for lesser sanctions (one-year suspension or censure). | Indefinite suspension warranted; retroactive to temporary suspension. |
| Impact of aggravating/mitigating factors on discipline | Aggravators (dishonest motive, pattern of misconduct) justify harsh discipline; mitigators present but not controlling. | Mitigating factors (emotional distress, inexperience, remorse) lessen severity. | Factors support substantial suspension; misconduct magnitude warrants suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 258 P.3d 375 (2011) (discipline standards; clear and convincing evidence standard applicable)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (clear and convincing standard; factors for sanctions)
- In re Depew, 290 Kan. 1057, 237 P.3d 24 (2010) (ABA Standards; advisory nature of panel recommendations)
- In re Swanson, 288 Kan. 185, 200 P.3d 1205 (2009) (sanctions appropriate for negligent to intentional misconduct)
- In re Bishop, 285 Kan. 1097, 179 P.3d 1096 (2008) (comparison of sanctions based on degree of misconduct)