Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court considered an uncontested disciplinary proceeding against Joan M. Hawkins. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Hawkins violated multiple Kansas professional-conduct rules and court rules, including duties of diligence, safekeeping client property, terminating representation, cooperating with disciplinary authorities, answering the formal complaint, and withdrawing after suspension, and imposed disbarment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the respondent violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Kansas Supreme Court Rules charged in the formal complaint.
- Whether the charged misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence despite the respondent's failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
- What discipline should be imposed for the proven violations.
Holdings
- The court held that the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Hawkins violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.15(a) and (b), KRPC 1.16(d), KRPC 8.1(b), Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b), Rule 211(b), and Rule 218(a)(4).
- The court held that Hawkins should be disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas.
Key quotations
“With no exceptions before us, the panel's findings of fact are deemed admitted.” (at 17)
“Furthermore, the evidence before the panel establishes by clear and convincing evidence the charged misconduct” (at 17)
“As a result, we hold that respondent is to be disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Kansas.” (at 18)
Factual background
Hawkins represented a criminal defendant in a proceeding to withdraw guilty pleas but failed to file a required post-hearing brief or take further action, and she failed to file a motion to withdraw after her license was suspended. In a divorce matter, she pursued an already-paid equalization claim, filed an improper lien against opposing counsel's client's property, and failed to complete work concerning jointly held stock. She commingled personal funds with client funds in her attorney trust account, delayed returning client funds, failed to respond to three disciplinary complaints, failed to cooperate with the investigation, and failed to answer the formal disciplinary complaint. Hawkins had prior discipline, including an 18-month suspension.
Procedural history
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint on August 30, 2018. Hawkins did not answer, appear at the panel hearing, file exceptions to the panel's final hearing report, or appear before the Supreme Court. The panel deemed the allegations proven and unanimously recommended disbarment. The Supreme Court deemed the panel's factual findings admitted, independently determined that the charged misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence, adopted the panel's findings and conclusions, and ordered disbarment.