In Re Thomas
241 P.3d 104
Kan.2010Background
- Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Bobby Lee Thomas, Jr., a Kansas-licensed attorney suspended since Oct. 17, 2008.
- Hearing panel found violations of KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207/218 based on multiple client matters.
- Respondent admitted to some misconduct; proceedings included 13 client complaints and a prior six-month suspension in 2008 (Thomas, 287 Kan. 88, 193 P.3d 907).
- Panel concluded respondent’s conduct caused substantial client injury and demonstrated a pattern of misconduct; recommended indefinite suspension.
- Court adopted the panel’s findings, adopting clear and convincing evidence standard and ordering indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions.
- Discipline costs assessed to respondent and opinion published.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated multiple KRPC rules | DA argues clear violations proven by stipulation | Thomas contends no willful misconduct on all counts | Yes, violations proven; indefinite suspension warranted |
| Appropriate discipline for the violations | DA seeks indefinite suspension and restitution to funds/Client Protection Fund | Thomas seeks shorter suspension or reinstatement conditions | Indefinite suspension ordered with reinstatement conditions under Rule 219 |
| Duty to notify and cooperate in investigations | Respondent knowingly failed to respond to complaints; obstructed investigations | Respondent cooperated at hearing | Violations of KRPC 8.1(a/b) and Kan. Sup.Ct. R. 207(b) established |
| Restitution and safeguarding client funds | Respondent failed to refund unearned fees and provide accounts | Respondent argued partial refunds and processes | Repeated violations of KRPC 1.15 and 1.16 found; restitution required upon reinstatement |
| Notification to clients after suspension | Respondent failed to notify clients; improper post-suspension handling | Limited ability to notify due to suspension timing | Violation of Kan. Sup.Ct. R. 218(a) established |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard; disciplinary review)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence; standards of proof)
- In re Thomas, 287 Kan. 88 (2008) (prior suspension for misconduct; pattern of misconduct)