You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Black

Citations: 249 Kan. 211; 814 P.2d 447; 1991 Kan. LEXIS 133Docket: No. 66,149

Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; July 12, 1991; Kansas; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney, Carl S. Black, the court addressed allegations of professional misconduct related to his handling of a divorce case. Black, who had previously been subject to disciplinary action, faced charges of incompetence, lack of diligence, and inadequate communication under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4). Despite Black's self-representation and testimony regarding mitigating factors, including a knee surgery affecting his practice, the disciplinary panel recommended public censure. The court confirmed the panel's findings, citing Black's ongoing challenges and prior disciplinary history as aggravating factors. Recognizing his efforts to seek therapy and improve his practice management, the court imposed a one-year probation with conditions, deferring immediate discipline. Black was required to continue psychotherapy, cooperate with the disciplinary administrator, adhere to all professional conduct rules, and cover the costs of the proceedings. Failure to comply could result in additional disciplinary actions. The decision was published in the Kansas Reports to ensure transparency and accountability.

Legal Issues Addressed

Communication under MRPC 1.4

Application: Black's neglect to respond to client inquiries regarding the status of a divorce proceeding was found to violate MRPC 1.4.

Reasoning: The disciplinary panel found that Black violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct:... MRPC 1.4 (communication).

Competence under MRPC 1.1

Application: The court found that Carl S. Black failed to demonstrate the requisite level of competence in handling a divorce case, leading to a violation of MRPC 1.1.

Reasoning: The disciplinary panel found that Black violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct: MRPC 1.1 (competence)...

Costs of Disciplinary Proceedings

Application: The court held Black responsible for the costs incurred during the disciplinary proceedings.

Reasoning: The order is to be published in the Kansas Reports, and Black is responsible for the costs incurred during these proceedings.

Diligence under MRPC 1.3

Application: The failure to prepare a journal entry in a timely manner for a client's divorce case constituted a lack of diligence, resulting in a breach of MRPC 1.3.

Reasoning: The disciplinary panel found that Black violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct:... MRPC 1.3 (diligence)...

Probation Conditions and Compliance

Application: Black was placed on probation with conditions, including psychotherapy and cooperation with the disciplinary administrator, with non-compliance potentially resulting in further disciplinary action.

Reasoning: The court determined that the sincerity and effectiveness of Carl S. Black's improvement efforts would only be revealed over time. Consequently, the imposition of discipline was suspended for one year, during which Black was placed on probation with specific conditions...

Public Censure under Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3)

Application: Due to prior disciplinary issues and current violations, the court accepted the panel's recommendation for a public censure.

Reasoning: The court found clear evidence of violations of MRPC 1.1, MRPC 1.3, and MRPC 1.4, leading to a decision for public censure by the Supreme Court under Rule 203(a)(3).