Narrative Opinion Summary
In a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that the attorney violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to appear in court for a scheduled DUI trial. The attorney confirmed the trial date with his client but was also scheduled for another trial in a different county on the same day, without seeking a continuance. His absence did not prejudice the client due to a mistrial caused by a trial error; however, he also failed to attend a subsequent sentencing hearing. The Board determined violations of MRPC 1.3 for lack of diligence, MRPC 1.4 for inadequate client communication, and MRPC 8.4(d) and (g) for conduct prejudicial to justice and reflecting poorly on his fitness to practice law. The attorney did not contest these findings and offered a personal apology, while also implementing office procedural improvements. The court agreed with the Board's recommendation and publicly censured the attorney, ordering publication of the censure and assessing costs to him.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Duty of Diligence under MRPC 1.3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Attorney Gilman failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence by not appearing for a scheduled trial, thereby violating MRPC 1.3.
Reasoning: The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found Gilman violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct: MRPC 1.3 for lack of diligence.
Client Communication under MRPC 1.4subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney inadequately communicated with his client regarding the scheduling conflict and his failure to appear at the trial.
Reasoning: The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found Gilman violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct: MRPC 1.4 for inadequate client communication.
Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under MRPC 8.4(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Gilman's failure to appear in court and communicate directly with the judge was deemed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Reasoning: The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found Gilman violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct: MRPC 8.4(d) for conduct prejudicial to justice.
Fitness to Practice Law under MRPC 8.4(g)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney's actions reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law, violating MRPC 8.4(g).
Reasoning: The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found Gilman violated several Model Rules of Professional Conduct: MRPC 8.4(g) for conduct reflecting poorly on his fitness to practice law.
Mitigation of Disciplinary Sanctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In mitigation, Gilman computerized his office and proposed new procedures to prevent future occurrences of similar issues.
Reasoning: In mitigation, Gilman had computerized his office and proposed new procedures to prevent future issues.
Public Censure as Disciplinary Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court adopted the recommendation for public censure and ordered the censure to be published in the Kansas Reports.
Reasoning: The court adopted the panel's recommendations, publicly censuring Gilman and ordering publication of the censure in the Kansas Reports.