Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary proceeding against attorney David L. Polsley arising from frivolous and incompetent litigation involving the Estate of Nancy E. Green. The court adopted the hearing panel’s findings that Polsley violated professional-conduct rules and Supreme Court Rule 211(b), and ordered that he be censured, with the order published and costs assessed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the hearing panel's findings that Polsley violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 3.1, KRPC 8.4(d), KRPC 8.4(g), and Supreme Court Rule 211(b) were established by the applicable disciplinary standard.
- Whether the hearing panel's report should be treated as admitted when Polsley filed no exceptions.
- What discipline was appropriate for the violations found.
Holdings
- The violations were established by clear and convincing evidence, and the hearing panel's findings and conclusions were properly adopted.
- Polsley violated KRPC 1.1 by failing to provide competent representation, KRPC 3.1 by pursuing frivolous litigation, KRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, KRPC 8.4(g) by engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, and Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to timely answer the formal complaint.
- Censure was the appropriate discipline for Polsley's violations, and the censure should be published in the official Kansas Reports.
Key quotations
“It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent, David L. Polsley, be censured in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3) (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 224) for the violations found herein.” (275 Kan. at 241)
“It Is Further Ordered that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs of this action be assessed to respondent.” (275 Kan. at 241)
Factual background
Polsley represented the Estate of Nancy E. Green in litigation arising from Green's murder and later pursued malpractice and related claims against attorneys and Green's sole heir. The underlying civil action was dismissed or settled, and a subsequent malpractice action was dismissed on summary judgment because the estate lacked evidence of damages and had not designated expert testimony. The district court found the malpractice action had been filed in bad faith and imposed sanctions. In the disciplinary proceeding, the hearing panel found that Polsley had provided incompetent representation, pursued frivolous claims, prejudiced the administration of justice, adversely reflected on his fitness to practice, and failed to timely answer the formal complaint.
Procedural history
A hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that Polsley violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 3.1, KRPC 8.4(d), KRPC 8.4(g), and Supreme Court Rule 211(b), and recommended censure. Polsley filed no exceptions, so the panel's report was deemed admitted. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and conclusions, accepted the recommended discipline, ordered censure, directed publication in the Kansas Reports, and assessed costs against Polsley.