Opinion
No. 56,213
Opinion filed February 18, 1984.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT — Disciplinary Proceeding — Indefinite Suspension.
Opinion filed February 18, 1984. Indefinite suspension.
Roger N. Walter, disciplinary counsel, argued the cause.
There was no appearance by respondent.
On February 16, 1983, Arno Windscheffel, disciplinary administrator, filed a formal complaint against respondent Patrick Linden, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Kansas, alleging that respondent had failed to account to a client for funds belonging to the client.
Respondent had failed or refused to respond to inquiries from the disciplinary administrator and failed or refused to appear before a duly constituted panel of the Board for Discipline of Attorneys although notified to do so. Following the hearing before the panel, respondent was again notified that he could submit evidence, if any he had, in opposition to the complaint. Respondent again failed or refused to respond. On October 20, 1983, the panel filed its report with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts but respondent failed to respond or take exceptions to the report. Respondent was then notified that he should appear before this court at 9:30 a.m. on January 13, 1984, but failed to do so. The hearing panel made the following findings of fact:
"Based on the evidence presented, the panel unanimously finds that the respondent has violated [the] Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, DR 6-101(A)(3) [,230 Kan. cxxii] and Canon 9, DR 9-102(B)(4) [,230 Kan. cxxviii]. With regard to the violation of Canon 6, the evidence is clear that the respondent failed to properly complete and close the Estate of Ethel Elizabeth Kelly. While there may have been extenuating circumstances which would account for the delay, the evidence remains uncontroverted due to the respondent's refusal, failure or neglect to appear and testify or present other evidence at this hearing.
"The evidence established that the respondent did in fact receive three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) to be held as earnest money. Notwithstanding written demands and requests, the evidence established that the respondent failed, refused, or neglected to repay said amount to the Estate of Ethel Elizabeth Kelly until such time that a formal complaint was filed against the respondent with the office of the Disciplinary Administrator. The repayment was approximately four years after the date that the money was deposited with the respondent.
"DR 9-102(B)(4) does not distinguish between the amounts of money which a lawyer holds for and on behalf of his client. The only issue is that the lawyer must return property, upon request, which belongs to his client. Above all else, this particular rule should be the one most easily understood and adhered to by a practicing attorney."
The panel then recommended to this court that the respondent be disciplined by indefinite suspension pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (230 Kan. xcix).
The Court, being fully informed, adopts and concurs in the report of the Board for Discipline of Attorneys.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that Patrick Linden be and he is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas and the costs herein are assessed to the respondent.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be published in the official Kansas Reports.
Effective this 18th day of February, 1984.