Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court disciplined Ray S. Sutton for practicing law while his Kansas license was inactive or suspended, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failing to answer a formal disciplinary complaint. The court adopted the hearing panel’s findings and imposed a six-month suspension, followed by administrative suspension until Sutton satisfies the requirements for reinstatement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Sutton violated KRPC 5.5(a) by practicing law while his Kansas license was inactive or suspended.
- Whether Sutton violated KRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Whether Sutton violated Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to answer the formal disciplinary complaint.
- What discipline should be imposed for the established violations.
Holdings
- Sutton violated KRPC 5.5(a) by representing clients in Kansas while he lacked an active license to practice law.
- Sutton violated KRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Sutton violated Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to file an answer to the formal complaint within the required period.
- The charged misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence.
- Sutton was suspended from practicing law in Kansas for six months, after which he remained administratively suspended until satisfying the requirements for reinstatement to active or inactive status.
Key quotations
“Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” (298 Kan. at 800)
“Accordingly, we do not condition the length of disciplinary suspension upon a reinstatement hearing. Rather, we deem it more appropriate to impose a fixed period of disciplinary suspension of 6 months from the filing date of this opinion.” (298 Kan. at 801)
Factual background
Sutton had been admitted to practice in Kansas but became inactive and was later suspended for failing to pay the inactive registration fee. Despite lacking an active Kansas license, he represented multiple criminal defendants in Kansas courts, including appearing in proceedings for M.C., T.B., and A.L. His lack of licensure caused a scheduled jury trial to be continued so that T.B. could obtain licensed counsel. Sutton admitted representing 10 to 15 Kansas clients while unlicensed and continued representing clients in Missouri after his Missouri license was suspended.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging that Sutton practiced law while his Kansas license was inactive or suspended, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failed to answer the formal complaint. Sutton did not file an answer or exceptions to the hearing panel's final report. After a hearing, the panel found violations and recommended a 30-day suspension with reinstatement conditions. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and conclusions but imposed a fixed six-month suspension and continued administrative suspension until reinstatement requirements were satisfied.