432 P.3d 654
Kan.2019Background
- John M. Knox, admitted 1994, was retained in 2013 to represent W.D. in a personal-injury claim from a motor vehicle collision; agreed to a 30% contingent fee but did not reduce the agreement to writing.
- Knox had poor communication with clients, moved offices without notifying them, failed to return calls, and did not pick up certified mail from his client.
- Knox filed two nearly identical suits on December 21, 2015, both outside the two-year statute of limitations; one was dismissed with prejudice and the other for lack of prosecution.
- Knox misrepresented to opposing counsel that the suit had been timely filed (blaming a clerk “glitch”) and assured his client the case was progressing despite inaction.
- Knox failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation (did not provide written responses), did not answer the formal complaint, and did not appear at disciplinary hearings; he had a prior discipline history including a one-year suspension in 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / timely filing | Knox failed to timely file suit; caused client's claim to be time-barred | (No answer filed) | Violated KRPC 1.1; incompetence established. |
| Diligence / prosecution | Knox neglected prosecution and missed deadlines | (No answer filed) | Violated KRPC 1.3 and 3.2. |
| Communication / fees | Knox failed to keep client informed; contingent fee not in writing | (No answer filed) | Violated KRPC 1.4(a) and 1.5(d). |
| Dishonesty / professional misconduct | Knox made false statements to counsel and client; obstructed investigation | (No answer filed) | Violated KRPC 4.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and Rule 207(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Caenen, 235 Kan. 451 (Kan. 1984) (due process notice in disciplinary proceedings; factual allegations may support additional rule violations)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (due process requires fair notice in lawyer disciplinary proceedings)
- State v. Turner, 217 Kan. 574 (Kan. 1975) (state need not plead specific disciplinary rules if facts are clear)
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (Kan. 2011) (attorney misconduct standard: clear and convincing evidence required)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (Kan. 2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (Kan. 2008) (discussion of evidentiary standards)
- In re Barker, 302 Kan. 156 (Kan. 2015) (failure to appear at Supreme Court disciplinary hearing is an aggravating factor)