In re Collins

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviews a disciplinary proceeding involving attorney Craig E. Collins. The court addresses violations arising from overdrafts and misuse of an attorney trust account, failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and prolonged failure to prepare clients' federal and state tax returns. The opinion discusses the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and the applicable Kansas professional-conduct rules.

Holdings

1. KRPC 1.15(d)(1) prohibits depositing personal funds into a client trust account regardless of whether client funds are also present, subject only to the rule's stated exceptions. Collins violated KRPC 1.15(a) and (d)(1) by keeping and using personal funds in his attorney trust account.
2. An attorney's duty to cooperate with disciplinary authorities under KRPC 8.1(b) and Supreme Court Rule 207(b) is a separate, independent duty and does not depend on proof of an underlying KRPC 1.15 violation. Collins violated both provisions by failing to timely respond to the Disciplinary Administrator's requests.
3. Collins violated KRPC 1.3 and 8.4(g) by failing for years to prepare and file the Hanes clients' federal and state income tax returns despite having sufficient information, thereby failing to act with reasonable diligence and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
4. A one-year suspension from the practice of law is appropriate for Collins's pattern of neglect, failure to perform legal services causing client injury, misuse of a client trust account, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Reinstatement requires compliance with Supreme Court Rule 218 and a hearing under Rule 219.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Collins violated KRPC 1.15 by depositing personal funds into his attorney trust account.
2. Whether Collins's failure to respond promptly to the Disciplinary Administrator's requests violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Supreme Court Rule 207(b), independently of any trust-account violation.
3. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Collins violated KRPC 1.3 and 8.4(g) by failing to prepare the Hanes clients' tax returns diligently and promptly.
4. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for the proven violations.

Disposition

other