Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; July 9, 1993; Kansas; State Supreme Court
An original disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against attorney Gregory B. King by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, involving two consolidated complaints (case Nos. B5312 and B5232). The Kansas Board for the Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing, with unchallenged facts presented by the hearing panel.
Key findings include:
1. Gregory B. King met with complainant Marlin A. Ferguson on July 24, 1991, discussing legal representation for the estates of Ferguson's deceased grandparents. Ferguson paid $100 for an initial consultation and agreed to a total retainer of $750, with $650 due by July 31, 1991.
2. On September 20, 1991, Ferguson's fiancée contacted King about the remaining retainer payment. Ferguson sent a registered letter on September 24, 1991, with the will of Allison Hanna and a $650 check, which was incorrectly deposited into King's office account rather than a trust account, leading to subsequent account freeze due to an IRS lien.
3. At this time, King had accepted a position with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and informed Ferguson he could only wind up his existing cases.
4. King failed to take action on the probate matter after receiving the retainer and did not keep Ferguson informed about the case's status. Ferguson found King's office closed on October 28, 1991, and subsequent attempts to contact him were unsuccessful.
5. On November 11, 1991, Ferguson visited King's home, where King provided no explanation for failing to file the probate petition and issued a post-dated check for $650, misleading Ferguson about the filing deadlines for the will.
6. Ferguson, as the primary beneficiary but not an heir at law, was adversely affected by King's inaction, leading to another attorney eventually taking over the probate, with the will being admitted despite delays.
7. King's post-dated check was not honored by the bank, but he later provided a cashier's check for $650 on December 26, 1991, after multiple unsuccessful contact attempts by Ferguson and his fiancée.
The hearing panel's findings highlight King’s negligence and failure to fulfill his professional obligations, leading to disciplinary action.
Respondent acknowledges violations of several Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), specifically rules regarding competence, diligence, communication, safekeeping property, declining or terminating representation, and expediting litigation. The panel confirms that clear and convincing evidence supports these violations.
The matter involves members of the Kansas City Chapter of the International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. (PRIDE), who believed they faced discrimination in hiring and promotions. In November 1986, PRIDE officers consulted attorney Elmer Jackson regarding potential litigation against the City and the local firefighters' union. They paid a retainer of $2,000 to Jackson prior to their first meeting with him and the respondent, where a fee arrangement of $100 per hour was established.
Jackson and Gregory King, who shared office space and had an agreement to split fees equally, collaborated on the case until their partnership ended due to a fee dispute in mid-1988. Following this split, Jackson advised PRIDE to choose between the two for representation, and they opted for King, who then received all relevant files from Jackson.
PRIDE's discrimination charge was filed with the EEOC on June 14, 1988, and was subsequently amended by King to include class action allegations. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on December 30, 1989. On March 30, 1990, King filed a federal complaint on behalf of PRIDE, naming the organization as the plaintiff and seeking monetary and equitable relief against the City and the union. Both defendants were served and responded in a timely manner.
In April and May 1990, the defendants issued written discovery requests, to which King sought extensions, eventually filing responses after the due dates. The federal court established deadlines for expert identification, discovery, and dispositive motions, with a discovery conference set for September 26, 1990. In August 1990, the union moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that PRIDE lacked standing to claim certain monetary damages, with the City joining this motion in September.
On September 26, 1990, a discovery conference set deadlines for the plaintiff: expert identification by October 19, 1990, and discovery completion by January 21, 1991. Witness and exhibit lists were due January 31, 1991, with dispositive motions due by February 25, 1991. The plaintiff was granted until October 15, 1990, to certify the complaint as a class action, despite defense objections. On October 16, 1990, PRIDE provided a $1,000 check to King for expert witness fees and litigation costs. PRIDE had previously supplied a list of potential expert witnesses, but King failed to designate any by the October 19 deadline.
On that date, the federal district court granted defendants' partial summary judgment, dismissing all monetary relief claims due to plaintiff's failure to respond to motions. PRIDE discovered these motions through a newspaper article, prompting a meeting with King on October 29, 1990, where he assured them of his capability but failed to produce requested documents and did not inform them of the recent defense motion. On October 24, 1990, defendants filed to strike the class action allegations due to the missed certification deadline, and King sought extensions to respond, ultimately claiming no prejudice to the defendants.
By November 19, 1990, the defendants had identified their expert witnesses, highlighting the plaintiff's failure to do so. A pretrial conference on January 22, 1991, resulted in extended deadlines for discovery, witness and exhibit lists, and dispositive motions. However, King never filed any witness or exhibit lists. On May 29, 1991, PRIDE expressed growing dissatisfaction with King, requesting updates on the litigation status amid concerns of potential case dismissal reported by the union's president.
On May 30, 1991, the union filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, citing several grounds for dismissal, including the plaintiff's failure to file timely with the EEOC, absence of expert or statistical evidence, lack of authority by the union, no deposition testimony on hiring or promotion practices, and failure to produce relevant data or test scores. Subsequently, the City of Kansas City filed a similar motion on June 14, 1991. The plaintiff, King, did not respond to a prior letter from PRIDE regarding the summary judgment motion and failed to inform them of its filing. PRIDE discovered the motions on July 3, 1991, and met with King on July 8, 1991, where options for the plaintiff were discussed, including potential dismissal of the case. King did not provide PRIDE with necessary documents, prompting them to incur costs for photocopying the case file. On July 19, 1991, King filed a motion for dismissal without prejudice or for an extension to respond to the summary judgment motions. The defendants sought a dismissal with prejudice or a ruling on their motions. The court heard oral arguments on August 26, 1991, denying the plaintiff's dismissal without prejudice but granting King's withdrawal as counsel and allowing the plaintiff time to find new representation.
PRIDE subsequently retained Bryan Nelson on September 27, 1991, who advised that they could not succeed at trial. Settlement negotiations failed, leading to the court dismissing the case with prejudice on February 2, 1992, due to lack of prosecution. King did not provide PRIDE with an itemized statement for his services or account for the $1,000 received for expenses, which included an unpaid bill of $2,809.90 to Metropolitan Court Reporters. King's conduct was admitted to violate multiple rules of professional conduct, and the panel found clear and convincing evidence of those violations.
Respondent has dedicated most of his professional career to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), currently serving as the director of the Fair Housing Enforcement Division. His role includes managing a team of investigators addressing housing complaints across several states and lecturing on housing discrimination law. Although he graduated from law school in 1978, he does not require a legal license for his HUD position. His private practice began in 1984 but faced challenges, particularly after a fee dispute with a colleague in 1988. Respondent acknowledged overextending himself and was overwhelmed by a class action case, PRIDE, especially after a 1989 Supreme Court decision complicated its prospects. He failed to communicate the case's difficulties to his client until years later. Despite no prior disciplinary record and a commendable history of public service, including leadership roles in community organizations, respondent's actions resulted in financial losses for PRIDE and complications for his client, Ferguson. A panel found his conduct bordering on self-dealing and recommended a one-year suspension and repayment of $2,000 to PRIDE, while one member suggested public censure. Respondent did not contest the findings but supported the minority's recommendation. The court upheld the panel’s recommendations, clarifying that respondent is not required to pay outstanding court reporter fees due to ongoing litigation. Consequently, Gregory B. King is ordered to serve a one-year suspension from practicing law and to reimburse PRIDE. The order will be published in official records, with costs assessed to the respondent.
