Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary charges against Sam S. Kepfield arising from his failure to diligently represent and communicate with an incarcerated client and to refund unearned fees. The court adopted the hearing panel's findings that Kepfield violated KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.16(d). It imposed a one-year suspension, immediately suspended, with three years of supervised probation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Kepfield violated KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.16(d).
- What discipline should be imposed for the established violations in light of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- The evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Kepfield violated KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.16(d).
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law, immediately suspended, with three years of supervised probation under the respondent's probation plan, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties; it determines whether violations of KRPC exist; and, if they do, it decides the discipline to be imposed.” (at 671)
“This court is not bound by the recommendations of the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel.” (at 672)
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sam S. Kepfield be and is hereby disciplined by a 1-year suspension from the practice of law, imposition of which is suspended immediately, and placement on 3 years' supervised probation, as outlined in his probation plan.” (at 673)
Factual background
Sam S. Kepfield accepted a $2,000 retainer to represent an incarcerated client in a habeas corpus matter challenging the computation of good-time credits. Kepfield failed to communicate adequately, did not diligently pursue the representation, failed to appear at two scheduled hearings, and did not return the unearned fee despite repeated requests. The misconduct caused actual injury and was accompanied by aggravating factors including prior discipline, selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, the client's vulnerability, substantial experience, and failure to make restitution, while depression, cooperation, acknowledgment, and good character were mitigating factors.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging violations of KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.16(d). After a hearing, the disciplinary panel found clear violations and recommended a one-year suspension, with all but 90 days suspended and three years of supervised probation. The respondent filed no exceptions, so the panel's factual findings were deemed admitted. The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel's conclusions of law but imposed the jointly recommended sanction of a one-year suspension immediately suspended and three years of supervised probation.