 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Wiles12/6/2002
R>
"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to provide competent and diligent representation to his client. Additionally, the Respondent violated his duty to safeguard his client's property.
"Mental State. The Respondent negligently violated his duties.
"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's negligence, Ms. Painter lost her cause of action.
"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following aggravating factors present:
"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The Respondent has previously been informally admonished on two occasions.
"Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 1985. At the time he committed the misconduct, the Respondent had been practicing law for fourteen years. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law.
"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances present:
"Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. There is no evidence that the Respondent's misconduct was motivated by dishonesty or selfishness.
"Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences of Misconduct. After the check to Ms. Painter was returned because of insufficient funds, the Respondent immediately forwarded certified funds to Ms. Painter.
"The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by his Cooperation and his Full Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. The Respondent fully acknowledged his wrongdoing by stipulating to the facts and violations.
"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly examined and considered Standard 4.43. That standard provides that 'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.' Id. In this case, the Respondent failed to timely obtain service of process on the defendants in the personal injury case and, as a result, Ms. Painter lost her cause of action.
"According to the written stipulation, the Disciplinary Administrator recommends that the Respondent be censured by the Kansas Supreme Court and that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports. Also according to the written stipulation, the Respondent does not object to the Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation. As a result, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that Respondent be censured by the Kansas Supreme Court. Additionally, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Kansas Supreme Court publish the censure in the Kansas Reports."
A finding of attorney misconduct requires proof "by clear and convincing evidence." Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 259). The panel's findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and, with the conclusions of law, are adopted as the findings of this court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent Stanley L. Wiles be and he is hereby disciplined by published censure in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 224) for his violations of the KRPC.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of the proceeding be assesse
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|