In re Shores
279 P.3d 710
Kan.2012Background
- Original disciplinary proceeding against Sean E. Shores, Kansas attorney since 2004.
- Disciplinary Administrator filed formal complaint May 16, 2011; supplement Aug. 4, 2011.
- Hearing held Oct. 27, 2011; Shores appeared without counsel, admitted to some findings.
- Panel found multiple violations: KRPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), 8.4(b), 8.4(d), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b).
- Discoverable misconduct spanned six complaints, including missed sentencings, misrepresentations, and failure to return papers/fees.
- Court temporarily suspended Shores’ license in April 2012; final discipline: disbarment effective upon filing of opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Shores violate diligence and communication duties? | Shores neglected client matters and failed to return calls. | Shores disputes breadth of misconduct; argues mitigation present. | Yes, violations established; sustained disciplinary findings. |
| Did Shores properly terminate representation and protect clients’ interests? | Failed to terminate and return papers or unearned fees timely. | Not adequately disputed; some refunds occurred. | Yes, violated 1.16(d) requirements; improper termination and restitution necessary. |
| Did Shores’ criminal conduct reflect on fitness to practice and justify discipline? | Convictions for battery involving a minor show unfitness. | Argues as to weight of criminal conduct or rehabilitative efforts. | Yes, violations of 8.4(b) established; criminal acts reflect on fitness. |
| Did Shores’ conduct prejudicially affect the administration of justice? | Failure to appear and respond undermines court proceedings. | Requests leniency based on circumstances and remorse. | Yes, 8.4(d) violated; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice found. |
| Did Shores timely file an Answer to the Formal Complaint as required by Rule 211(b)? | He failed to timely answer; late filings acknowledged. | Late filings corrected by later submissions. | Yes, 211(b) violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (clear and convincing standard governs disciplinary findings)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing evidence required for discipline)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (guide to evidence and disciplinary standards)