Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court considered attorney-discipline charges arising from E. Thomas Pyle III's letter criticizing his prior public censure and the Kansas attorney-disciplinary system. The court addressed alleged violations involving statements concerning the integrity of adjudicatory officers, dishonesty or misrepresentation, and prejudice to the administration of justice, including the effect of constitutional free-speech protections. The excerpt describes divided hearing-panel opinions and the disciplinary proceedings but does not include the court's final disposition.
Holdings
- The evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Pyle knowingly made, or made with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, false statements concerning the qualifications or integrity of disciplinary-board members or other adjudicatory officers.
- Pyle did not violate KRPC 8.4(c) because the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that his statements involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
- KRPC 8.4(d) is not limited to conduct occurring during a pending trial or adjudicatory proceeding; post-decision conduct may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pyle's statements about the qualifications or integrity of members of the Kansas disciplinary system violated KRPC 8.2(a).
- Whether Pyle's statements constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of KRPC 8.4(c).
- Whether Pyle's post-decision letter constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under KRPC 8.4(d), despite being sent after the earlier disciplinary proceeding had concluded.
- What sanction should be imposed for the established violation.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (32)
- In re Pyle, 278 Kan. 230, 91 P.3d 1222 (2004)(followed)
- In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 78 P.3d 442 (2003)(followed)
- In re Boone, 269 Kan. 484, 7 P.3d 270 (2000)(followed)
- State v. Nelson, 210 Kan. 637, 504 P.2d 211 (1972)(distinguished)
- In re Johnson, 240 Kan. 334, 729 P.2d 1175 (1986)(followed)
- Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 1995)(persuasive authority)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990)(persuasive authority)
- State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 610 P.2d 1122 (1980)(followed)
- In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 124 P.3d 467 (2005)(followed)
- N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S. Ct. 328, 9 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1963)(persuasive authority)
Showing top 10 of 32.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…