252 P.3d 111
Kan.2011Background
- Gillian Luttrell, admitted to practice in Kansas in 2006, was administratively suspended on October 18, 2010 for unpaid registration fee and CLE deficiencies.
- Formal disciplinary complaint filed September 21, 2010; Luttrell did not answer, and failed to appear at the October 28, 2010 hearing before the Board panel.
- Hearing panel found Luttrell violated KRPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(b), and Kansas Supreme Court Rules 207(b) and 211(b).
- Factual conduct alleged across multiple matters: Moore civil case (failure to respond to discovery, failed appearances and judgment against client), Buttram divorce (poor diligence, communication failures, failure to complete timely), and Lowe probate (failure to act, failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries).
- Specifically, Luttrell failed to promptly handle client matters, failed to return calls, mismanaged client funds/fees, and did not provide required responses to disciplinary inquiries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Luttrell violate the duty of diligence? | Luttrell repeatedly neglected clients in Moore, Buttram, Lowe matters. | Luttrell's conduct was not diligent to the extent alleged; any delays were excusable | Yes; violated KRPC 1.3 |
| Did Luttrell violate the duty of communication? | Luttrell failed to inform or respond to clients and clients’ counsel. | Any communications issues were isolated and not material | Yes; violated KRPC 1.4(a) |
| Did Luttrell violate safekeeping of client property/funds? | Luttrell failed to refund unearned fees to Mr. Cooper and mishandled client funds. | Any fee issues were administrative or minor | Yes; violated KRPC 1.15(b) |
| Did Luttrell fail to cooperate in disciplinary investigations? | Luttrell did not provide requested written responses to initial complaints. | Luttrell disputes or minimizes the requests | Yes; violated Kan. Sup.Ct. R. 207(b) |
| Did Luttrell fail to file an answer to the formal complaint? | Luttrell did not file an answer within the time required. | Procedural timing issues were satisfied by service | Yes; violated Kan. Sup.Ct. R. 211(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing standard for attorney discipline; review of evidence standard)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (clear and convincing evidence required; evaluating attorney misconduct)
- State v. Caenen, 235 Kan. 451 (1984) (circumstances permitting consideration of additional violations)