In re Mintz
298 Kan. 897
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Robert A. Mintz, a Kansas attorney admitted in 1990, was accused in a disciplinary complaint of dishonest conduct after the unattended death of a woman (J.A.) with whom he had an intimate relationship.
- After discovering J.A.’s body, Mintz delayed calling authorities for over 2½ hours, moved her car from the restaurant to her apartment, deleted text messages on both phones, changed clothes at home, and initially gave false statements to police about times and alcohol consumption.
- Mintz later consulted lawyers, returned to correct his statements to investigators within about 48 hours, and admitted the underlying facts in the disciplinary process (admitting 326 of 327 factual allegations).
- A Board hearing panel found the facts established but concluded Mintz did not violate KRPC 8.4(b), 8.4(c), or 8.4(d), characterizing his false statements as an isolated, human reaction to trauma.
- The Disciplinary Administrator appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the record, concluded Mintz violated KRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty) and KRPC 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice), and ordered an indefinite suspension (majority), with costs assessed to Mintz.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Administrator's Argument | Mintz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mintz violated KRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation) | Mintz knowingly made false statements to police, deleted texts, moved evidence, and intended to conceal facts — clear & convincing evidence of dishonesty | The conduct was an isolated, human reaction to trauma unrelated to law practice and should not trigger discipline | Court: Violation of KRPC 8.4(c); dishonesty to investigators established by clear & convincing evidence |
| Whether Mintz violated KRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) | False statements and alteration of scene impeded investigation and thus prejudiced the administration of justice | Impact was minimal and temporary; he corrected statements quickly; no client was involved | Court: Violation of KRPC 8.4(d); false statements had bearing on the legal process and harmed the justice system generally |
| Whether criminal charges (tampering/obstruction) are required to sustain disciplinary violations | Disciplinary sanction may apply even absent criminal charges or convictions; dishonesty/interference alone can warrant discipline | Mintz emphasized absence of criminal charges and limited impact | Court: Criminal charges not required; past cases support discipline without conviction |
| Appropriate discipline (disbarment vs. suspension vs. censure) | Disciplinary Administrator sought disbarment under ABA Standards for intentional dishonesty interfering with administration of justice | Mintz argued disbarment is excessive given single episode, prompt remedial steps, lack of conviction, and mitigating factors | Court: Majority ordered indefinite suspension (not disbarment); minority would have imposed censure or defined suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Millett, 291 Kan. 369 (attorney violated 8.4(c) by false statement to detectives)
- In re Arabia, 283 Kan. 851 (attorney violated 8.4(c) for providing false information to detective)
- In re Harrington, 296 Kan. 380 (misstatements to officers and related convictions supported substantial suspension)
- In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520 (leaving accident scene and false denial to officers supported discipline)
- In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96 (KRPC 8.4(d) covers conduct injuring the justice system generally)
- In re Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 (lawyers bound by professional honesty in all activities; disciplinary liability outside client representation)
- In re Depew, 290 Kan. 1057 (absence of criminal charge/conviction does not preclude disciplinary action)
- In re Jantz, 243 Kan. 770 (mitigation where misconduct occurred under severe emotional distress)