In re Lindberg

In re Lindberg · Supreme Court of the State of Kansas · May 14, 2021 · No. No. 123,423

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court imposed an indefinite suspension on Brent E. Lindberg for felony methamphetamine possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to answer a disciplinary complaint. The court considered the respondent's criminal conduct, violations of diversion and probation conditions, inconsistent testimony, substance-abuse treatment, and other aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Holdings

  1. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and the evidence in this case supported the hearing panel's conclusions of law.
  2. Lindberg violated KRPC 8.4(b) by committing felony methamphetamine possession and misdemeanor drug-paraphernalia offenses that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer.
  3. Lindberg violated Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to file an answer to the formal complaint within the required period.
  4. Because Lindberg did not file exceptions after receiving the hearing panel's final report, the report was deemed admitted in its entirety.
  5. Lindberg's failure to appear for his Supreme Court disciplinary hearing constituted an additional violation under Supreme Court Rule 212(e)(5).
  6. Indefinite suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate discipline, effective upon filing of the opinion, with compliance with Supreme Court Rule 218 and a Rule 219 reinstatement hearing required before reinstatement.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence established that Lindberg violated KRPC 8.4(b) by committing criminal acts that adversely reflected on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
  2. Whether Lindberg violated Supreme Court Rule 211(b) by failing to answer the formal disciplinary complaint.
  3. Whether the hearing panel's report was deemed admitted because Lindberg failed to file exceptions.
  4. Whether Lindberg's failure to appear before the Supreme Court constituted an additional disciplinary violation under Supreme Court Rule 212(e)(5).
  5. What discipline should be imposed for the violations.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (3)

  • In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 375 (2011)(followed)
  • In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009)(followed)
  • In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 (2008)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…