In re Nwakanma (
116773
| Kan. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Respondent Uchechi O. Nwakanma, admitted in Kansas (2003), practiced exclusively in Houston, TX, and represented high‑stakes federal clients including U.I., who faced a 55‑count Medicare/Medicaid fraud indictment.
- Nwakanma executed a $3,000,000 nonrefundable retainer with U.I.; U.I. paid $2,170,808.49. Nwakanma retained and paid various counsel but failed to account fully for or return unearned funds.
- Nwakanma maintained deficient trust‑account records, commingled personal/business funds with client funds, paid personal and business expenses from the IOLTA, and had numerous overdrafts and unexplained cash transfers.
- He also represented J.Z. on immigration matters, charged fees, but failed to take meaningful steps to reopen removal proceedings or file required applications.
- During the disciplinary investigation and hearing he failed to timely produce tax returns and other documents, made numerous false statements in written responses and testimony, and entered a settlement with U.I. that sought to limit U.I.’s cooperation with disciplinary authorities.
- The hearing panel found multiple violations of Texas and Kansas professional rules, recommended disbarment; the Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel’s findings and disbarred Nwakanma.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Administrator's (Plaintiff) Argument | Nwakanma's (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence & diligence in representation (J.Z. & U.I.) | Nwakanma accepted matters beyond his competence and neglected client matters (failing to file/complete necessary immigration filings; inadequate criminal defense oversight). | He purported to supervise/associate local counsel and performed necessary oversight; disputed factual averments. | Violation proven: breached competence/diligence rules (KRPC 1.1/1.3; Tex. R. Prof. Cond. 1.01). |
| Fee reasonableness and retainers (U.I., J.Z.) | Fees were unconscionable/unreasonable ($3M fixed retainer; excessive relative to local rates and results); unearned fees not refunded. | Fees were earned due to time/effort and expenses; contract terms (nonrefundable) justified retention. | Violation proven: charged/unjustified/unreasonable fees; failed to refund unearned fees (KRPC 1.5; Tex. R. Prof. Cond. 1.04). |
| Safekeeping client property / trust account misuse | Commingling, using IOLTA for personal/business expenses, poor recordkeeping, overdrafts, and improper disbursements. | Claimed misunderstanding of IOLTA rules, occasional deposits to keep account active; denied improper commingling of client funds. | Violation proven: multiple safekeeping and recordkeeping breaches (KRPC 1.15; Tex. R. Prof. Cond. 1.14). |
| Cooperation with disciplinary process / false statements | Failed to produce tax returns and ordered documents timely; submitted false statements in responses and testimony; attempted to silence complainant via settlement. | Asserted inability to locate documents, later produced materials; denied intentional falsehoods and blamed staff. | Violation proven: dishonest statements and failure to cooperate (KRPC 8.1, 8.4; Tex. R. Prof. Cond. 8.01, 8.04); obstructive conduct found. |
| Fairness to opposing counsel / inducing silence | Settlement conditioned U.I. to withdraw/stop participation in bar proceedings — impermissible interference with a witness. | Framed settlement as confidential resolution of civil claims; insisted agreement was lawful. | Violation proven: induced client to refrain from providing relevant information (KRPC 3.4; Tex. R. Prof. Cond. 3.04). |
| Appropriate discipline | Disciplinary Administrator sought disbarment given pattern, dishonesty, client injury, obstruction. | Nwakanma disputed findings and declined to propose discipline. | Court adopted panel: disbarment ordered; costs assessed; compliance with post‑disbarment procedures required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 192 Kan. 707, 391 P.2d 74 (Kan. 1964) (judicial notice of public records in other forums).
- Board of County Comm'rs of Shawnee County v. Brookover, 198 Kan. 70, 422 P.2d 906 (Kan. 1967) (judicial notice of public records).
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 258 P.3d 375 (Kan. 2011) (disciplinary standard: burden and review).
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 204 P.3d 610 (Kan. 2009) (clear and convincing standard in attorney discipline).
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 188 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence).
- Khatib v. McDonald, 87 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 410 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. App. 1980) (improper to ask misleading or untrue questions on cross‑examination).
- Izquierdo v. State, 724 So. 2d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (same principle regarding misleading cross‑examination).