Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Mitchell
Citations: 260 Kan. 560; 919 P.2d 360; 1996 Kan. LEXIS 111Docket: No. 75,939
Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; July 12, 1996; Kansas; State Supreme Court
An original disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against Robert L. Mitchell, an attorney from Wichita, Kansas, by the Disciplinary Administrator's office. The complaint alleges violations of Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.1 (competence), MRPC 1.3 (diligence), and MRPC 1.4 (communication). During a formal hearing on September 19, 1995, Mitchell appeared with counsel and stipulated to the facts, admitting to the violations. The case involves Mitchell's representation of Velincia Johnson in a repossession case. Johnson paid a $150 retainer but was not informed when Mitchell attempted to cash the check prematurely, leading to insufficient funds in her account. Despite receiving a money order from Johnson, Mitchell later denied any payment and failed to act on her behalf, resulting in a default judgment against her without her knowledge. Following this, Johnson retained another attorney to file a motion to set aside the judgment. The panel unanimously determined that Mitchell's conduct breached the stated MRPC rules and recommended a two-year suspension from practice, which would be stayed upon placement on supervised probation. The panel noted that Mitchell's issues stem from his admitted alcoholism and past drug use. He began treatment for alcoholism in June 1995. Both the Disciplinary Administrator's office and Mitchell's legal representatives supported a supervised probation plan, with a deadline for submission set for October 1, 1995. However, on May 24, 1996, the Disciplinary Administrator’s office revised its recommendation from supervised probation to a definite period of suspension. The Disciplinary Administrator’s office recommended action based on the respondent’s violations following a panel hearing. The respondent, Robert L. Mitchell, violated his parole from a 1994 DUI conviction by consuming alcohol on December 19, 1995, leading to his incarceration in the Sedgwick County Detention facility. Released on January 17, 1996, with an order to enter a residential treatment facility, Mitchell failed to return to treatment for two days, citing domestic issues. Upon confrontation by Judge Janet Arndt, he refused to submit to an alcohol and drug test. Subsequently, he was ordered to serve the remainder of his DUI sentence and was jailed from February 7, 1996, until April 25, 1996. Due to his incarceration, the Wichita Bar Association had to manage his client files to ensure proper legal representation for his clients. The Disciplinary Administrator’s office noted that Mitchell's actions, including the violation of probation and ongoing alcohol dependency, along with four additional complaints pending investigation, warranted more severe action than the previously recommended supervised probation. They concluded that a one-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate, effective from July 12, 1996. Additionally, Mitchell must comply with Supreme Court Rule 218(a) during his suspension and with Rule 219 for reinstatement thereafter. The costs of the proceedings are to be borne by Mitchell, and the order will be published in the official Kansas Reports.