310 P.3d 399
Kan.2013Background
- Formal complaint filed January 3, 2013 against Michael C. Schnittker for KRPC violations; respondent answered January 24, 2013.
- Hearing held March 8, 2013; panel found violations of KRPC 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).
- Partnership Sullivan & Schnittker; firm deposited fees into operating account, but respondent diverted fees to his personal account.
- From 2008-2009 to about 2011, respondent deposited client fees into his personal account totaling over $150,000.
- Sullivan confronted respondent; restitution paid; panel recommended indefinite suspension; Supreme Court ultimately disbars respondent; costs imposed; opinion published.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Schnittker violate KRPC 8.4(b) and 8.4(c)? | DA supports violations. | Schnittker disputes or minimizes conduct. | Yes, violations established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What discipline is warranted for the violations? | Indefinite suspension recommended or disbarment. | Censure argued. | Disbarment warranted; some mitigating considerations acknowledged. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to support the panel's conclusions? | Evidence meets clear and convincing standard. | Defense challenges weight of evidence. | Evidence sufficient to adopt panel's findings and conclusions. |
| Should costs be assessed against the respondent? | Costs to be imposed per normal procedure. | Not disputed. | Costs assessed against Schnittker. |
| Is publication of the opinion required? | Standard for discipline includes publication. | Not specifically contested. | Opinion to be published in official Kansas Reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (clear and convincing standard for attorney discipline)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence in discipline cases)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (application of clear and convincing standard in disciplinary proceedings)