In re Lundgren, 117201

Background

Alvin R. Lundgren, admitted in Kansas (1990) and other states, was disbarred in Utah (effective Sept. 20, 2015) for intentional misappropriation of client funds, after a Utah district court granted summary judgment and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed disbarment.
Utah findings: Lundgren took $2,500 earmarked to pay a client's medical bills and, over ~4 years, converted other client trust funds to personal/business use; he later reimbursed but only after complaint and enforcement.
He previously faced discipline for unauthorized practice in California (suspension) and reciprocal discipline in Missouri; he also voluntarily resigned in California while omitting notice of the pending Utah complaint.
Lundgren failed to notify the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator of his Utah disbarment and provided misleading/false statements in correspondence and forms. He also did not keep the Clerk of the Appellate Courts apprised of his current address.
A Kansas hearing panel found violations of KRPC 1.15(a) & (d) (safekeeping client property), 8.3(a) (duty to report), 8.4(c) (dishonesty), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(c) (reporting discipline), and R. 208(c) (change of address) and recommended disbarment.
The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel’s findings, concluded the misconduct was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered Lundgren disbarred in Kansas; costs assessed to respondent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lundgren misappropriated client funds in violation of safekeeping rules	Disciplinary Administrator: Lundgren knowingly converted client trust funds and failed to maintain trust records (violations of KRPC 1.15)	Lundgren acknowledged payment later and argued mitigation (repayment, less severe compared with other cases)	Held: Proven by clear and convincing evidence; violations of KRPC 1.15(a) and (d) established
Whether Lundgren engaged in dishonest conduct and made false statements	Plaintiff: Conversion, false resignation form, and misleading correspondence show dishonesty (KRPC 8.4(c))	Lundgren minimized misconduct and disputed characterization	Held: Violations of KRPC 8.4(c) proven
Whether Lundgren failed to report disciplinary action and notify courts of address change	Plaintiff: He failed to notify Kansas authorities of Utah disbarment and failed to update appellate clerk (Rules 207(c) & 208(c); KRPC 8.3(a))	Lundgren argued limited Kansas ties and sought chance to defend or be reinstated	Held: Violations of KRPC 8.3(a), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(c), and R. 208(c) proven
Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs. probation or lesser)	Disciplinary Administrator: Disbarment is the presumptive and appropriate sanction given intentional misappropriation, prior discipline, dishonesty, and lack of truly compelling mitigation	Lundgren requested probation or opportunity to retain/reinstate, citing repayment and asserted mitigating facts	Held: Disbarment affirmed—intentional misappropriation warrants disbarment absent truly compelling mitigation, which Lundgren failed to show

Key Cases Cited

In re Discipline of Babilis, 951 P.2d 207 (Utah 1997) (establishes rule: intentional misappropriation results in disbarment absent truly compelling mitigation)
In re Discipline of Ince, 957 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1998) (discusses scope of "truly compelling mitigating circumstances")
In re Discipline of Ennenga, 37 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2001) (reiterates standard and rejects comparative-severity mitigation)
In re Discipline of Corey, 274 P.3d 972 (Utah 2012) (attorney-discipline review and sanctions principles)
In re Discipline of Grimes, 297 P.3d 564 (Utah 2012) (characterizes misappropriation as among most severe misconduct)
Utah Supreme Court — In re Lundgren, 355 P.3d 984 (Utah 2015) (affirming disbarment for Lundgren's misappropriation)
Jardine v. Utah State Bar, 289 P.3d 516 (Utah 2012) (distinguishes mishandling/retainers from knowing misappropriation)
In re Stockwell, 295 P.3d 572 (Kan. 2013) (holds dishonest conduct not correctable by probation)