In re Terry

293 Kan. 467 (2011) · Supreme Court of Kansas · October 21, 2011

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court considered disciplinary charges against Paul C. Terry arising from his representation of a client in a wrongful-termination matter. The court upheld findings that Terry violated multiple Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules concerning competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping client funds, honesty, and cooperation with disciplinary authorities. The court ordered Terry disbarred from practicing law in Kansas and assessed the costs of the proceedings against him.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Decision date
October 21, 2011
Procedural posture
Original attorney-discipline proceeding brought by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. After a hearing panel found multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment, the Kansas Supreme Court independently reviewed the record and determined the appropriate discipline.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court considers the evidence, the disciplinary panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether violations occurred and what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence; unchallenged hearing-panel findings are deemed admitted.
Precedential value
Published Kansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator v. Paul C. Terry
Disposition
other

Topics

employment lawwrongful terminationemployment contracts

Practice areas

legal ethics and professional responsibilityattorney disciplineemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the hearing-panel findings established Terry's violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by clear and convincing evidence.
  2. What discipline should be imposed for Terry's multiple violations involving incompetence, lack of diligence, inadequate communication, improper handling of client funds, failure to protect a client upon termination, failure to cooperate with discipline authorities, dishonesty, and failure to file a timely answer.

Holdings

  1. The hearing-panel findings, which Terry did not challenge, were supported by clear and convincing evidence and established violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(d), 1.15(a), 1.15(d)(2)(v), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b).
  2. Disbarment was the appropriate discipline for Terry's multiple violations.

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. (476)
Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. (476)
We decline the respondent’s request for suspension and subsequent probation. (477)
It Is Therefore Ordered that Paul C. Terry be disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 276). (477)

Factual background

Paul C. Terry, whose Kansas law license was suspended during the relevant period and who was never licensed in Missouri, agreed to represent Joyce Collins in a Missouri wrongful-termination action. He accepted $2,000, failed to provide a written contingent-fee agreement, deposited unearned fees into an operating account, used the money for personal expenses, performed little work, failed to communicate with Collins, and did not inform her that the action had been dismissed. Terry also failed to cooperate fully with the disciplinary investigation, including failing to produce requested trust-account records and filing a late answer to the formal complaint.

Procedural history

The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging that Terry violated multiple Kansas professional-conduct rules and Supreme Court Rule 211(b). A hearing panel found the violations established, recommended disbarment, and assessed costs. Terry filed no exceptions, so the panel's factual findings were deemed admitted; the Supreme Court concluded the findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and imposed disbarment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…