Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court considered an attorney discipline proceeding involving Stephen M. Stark's representation of the City of Newton in litigation concerning a real estate purchase and a most-favored-nation clause. The court found violations of duties of diligence and communication, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and imposed a two-year suspension that was suspended subject to two years of probation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence established that Stark violated KRPC 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
- Whether the evidence established that Stark violated KRPC 1.4(a) by failing to keep his client reasonably informed and respond to reasonable requests for information.
- Whether the evidence established that Stark violated KRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for the established violations.
Holdings
- The evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Stark violated KRPC 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the City of Newton.
- The evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Stark violated KRPC 1.4(a) by failing to keep the City of Newton reasonably informed about the status of the litigation and by failing to respond promptly to reasonable requests for information.
- The evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Stark violated KRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- A two-year suspension was imposed, but its execution was stayed, and Stark was placed on probation for two years subject to specified practice-supervision, communication, billing, treatment, cooperation, and restitution conditions.
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.” (at 18)
“Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” (at 18)
“We are not bound by the recommendations of either the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel.” (at 19)
Factual background
Stark represented the City of Newton in litigation concerning the price owed under a most-favored-nation clause in a real-estate option agreement. He failed to communicate with the city attorney for extended periods, failed to inform the client about significant litigation events, and filed a summary-judgment motion referring to an unsigned and unattached affidavit. His conduct contributed to the need to obtain substitute counsel, continue the trial, reopen discovery, and amend the pretrial order.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging violations of KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4(a), and KRPC 8.4(d). Stark answered and entered into a written stipulation. After a hearing, the disciplinary panel found the violations and recommended a two-year suspension stayed during two years of probation. The Supreme Court adopted the panel's conclusions, imposed the stayed two-year suspension and probation, added a reasonable-efforts restitution condition, and assessed costs against Stark.