Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court considered disciplinary charges against attorney Kiehl Rathbun arising from his representation of clients in postdivorce and criminal proceedings. The court upheld findings that Rathbun violated multiple Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court rules, including duties of competence, diligence, communication, fee reasonableness, candor, and protection of client interests. In light of his prior discipline, repeated misconduct, and failure to appear, the court imposed disbarment rather than the hearing panel’s recommended indefinite suspension.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established Rathbun's violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 211(b).
- Whether Rathbun's failure to appear before the Supreme Court violated Supreme Court Rule 212(d).
- Whether disbarment, rather than the hearing panel's recommended indefinite suspension, was the appropriate discipline given Rathbun's repeated misconduct, prior discipline, and violation of probation-related orders.
Holdings
- Clear and convincing evidence established that Rathbun violated KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.3(d), and 8.4(d), as well as Supreme Court Rule 211(b).
- Rathbun's failure to appear before the Supreme Court after being notified of the proceedings violated Supreme Court Rule 212(d).
- Disbarment was the appropriate discipline for Rathbun's repeated and knowing misconduct, notwithstanding the hearing panel's recommendation of indefinite suspension.
Key quotations
“In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the hearing panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed.” (285 Kan. 143-144)
“Repeated attempts at probation and rehabilitation have failed. We conclude that the appropriate discipline is disbarment.” (285 Kan. 145)
Factual background
Rathbun represented a client in postdivorce proceedings and failed to timely prepare a journal entry, sought an ex parte visitation order without disclosing the existing visitation plan, and thereby caused the opposing party travel and related expenses for which sanctions were imposed against him. In a separate criminal representation, he failed to interview witnesses, waived a jury trial, presented no factual defense, failed to submit requested briefing, inadequately investigated sentencing consequences, and took no further action after filing a notice of appeal. He also used abusive language toward a court services officer and filed his answer to the disciplinary complaint only six days before the hearing. Rathbun had substantial prior disciplinary history, including probation for similar misconduct, and failed to appear before the Supreme Court.
Procedural history
The hearing panel conducted a formal hearing on two disciplinary complaints and found violations involving competence, diligence, communication, fees, termination of representation, candor toward the tribunal, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failure to timely answer the formal complaint. The panel unanimously recommended indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court deemed the report admitted because Rathbun filed no exceptions, independently reviewed the matter, found clear and convincing evidence of the violations, and imposed disbarment rather than the recommended suspension.