Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary proceeding against William Michael Gentry for failing to safeguard client funds, failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and failing to answer the formal complaint. The court adopted the hearing panel's findings and indefinitely suspended Gentry from practicing law in Kansas, assessed costs against him, and required compliance with applicable reinstatement rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Gentry violated KRPC 1.15(b) by failing to safeguard and apparently converting client funds.
- Whether Gentry violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) by knowingly failing to respond to disciplinary investigative demands.
- Whether Gentry violated Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to answer the formal complaint.
- What discipline should be imposed for the established violations.
Holdings
- Gentry violated KRPC 1.15(b) by failing to deposit and maintain Day's $980 in a client trust account and by apparently converting the funds to his own use.
- Gentry violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) by knowingly failing to provide a written response to the disciplinary complaint and investigator's lawful requests.
- Gentry violated Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to file a written answer to the formal complaint.
- Indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Kansas was warranted for Gentry's misconduct.
Key quotations
“In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed.” (227 P.3d at 960)
“Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” (227 P.3d at 960)
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that William Michael Gentry be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective upon the filing of this opinion” (227 P.3d at 960-961)
Factual background
Gentry agreed to hold money in trust for Jeanette Day while attempting to negotiate satisfaction of a judgment affecting her son's driver's license. Day forwarded $980 to Gentry, but he did not deposit or maintain the money in a client trust account and later testified that he used it to fund legal work for her son. He failed to return the funds, did not respond to repeated disciplinary inquiries, and did not answer the formal complaint. The Client Protection Fund reimbursed Day $980.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging that Gentry mishandled client funds, failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and failed to answer the formal complaint. Gentry did not file an answer but appeared at the hearing before the disciplinary panel. The panel found violations, recommended indefinite suspension and reimbursement of the Client Protection Fund, and the Supreme Court adopted the panel's findings and conclusions before imposing indefinite suspension.