In re James – (, 117517

Kurt L. James, admitted 1996, was the subject of an uncontested disciplinary proceeding after a formal complaint alleging multiple KRPC violations related to three client matters (D.W., M.B., L.H.).
Common misconduct: poor communication, repeated failure to act diligently, missed deadlines, discovery noncompliance, failure to account for client funds, delayed withdrawal after client termination, and causing unnecessary litigation delay.
Specific client harms: D.W. paid $1,941 by wire (and a $1,359 tax refund); bills failed to reflect credits, client’s bankruptcy filings and child-support modification were neglected; M.B.’s journal entry was delayed causing loss of wage-garnishment opportunity; L.H. suffered compromised negotiation position from discovery failures and last-minute conversion to paternity action.
Hearing panel found violations of KRPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.7(a)(2), 1.15(a),(b), 1.16(a), 3.2, and 8.4(d); panel recommended a 2-year suspension stayed in favor of 3 years probation with detailed supervisory requirements.
The Disciplinary Administrator and James both recommended a 1-year suspension stayed for 3 years probation; the Kansas Supreme Court adopted that recommendation and ordered a one-year suspension stayed pending successful completion of a three-year probation with the panel’s probation terms.

Issue	Disciplinary Administrator's Argument	James's Argument	Held
Whether James violated duties of diligence and communication (KRPC 1.3, 1.4)	Repeated failure to timely act, respond, and keep clients informed across three matters	Acknowledged failures and cooperated; proposed probation and corrective measures	Court adopted panel findings: clear-and-convincing violations of KRPC 1.3 and 1.4
Whether James engaged in a concurrent conflict of interest (KRPC 1.7)	Personal interest (avoiding sanctions/fees) materially limited representation of L.H. at trial	Did not contest facts; mitigation argued	Panel and Court held violation of KRPC 1.7(a)(2)
Whether James failed to safeguard/account for client funds (KRPC 1.15)	Billing records repeatedly failed to reflect client payments; poor accounting	Returned some funds during investigation; argued lack of dishonest motive	Held violations of KRPC 1.15(a) and (b) for inadequate records and accounting
Appropriate discipline (suspension vs. stayed suspension with probation)	Recommended stayed 1-year suspension with 3-year probation (Disciplinary Administrator); panel recommended longer suspension but probation	Agreed to stayed 1-year suspension with proposed probation plan and corrective steps	Court imposed one-year suspension stayed pending successful completion of a three-year probation under detailed supervisory conditions

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (discussing standard of proof and disciplinary review)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (defining clear-and-convincing standard in attorney discipline)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (quoted for definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)