In re Kupka

458 P.3d 242

In the MATTER OF Laurel R. KUPKA, Respondent.

No. 122,053

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed February 28, 2020

Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Danielle M. Hall, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

N. Trey Pettlon, of Law Offices of Pettlon & Ginie, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Laurel R. Kupka, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

PER CURIAM:

This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Laurel R. Kupka, of Shawnee, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2011.

On May 16, 2019, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). The respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint on May 30, 2019. The parties entered into a written stipulation on August 12, 2019. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on August 13, 2019, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 295) (competence); 1.3 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 298) (diligence); 1.4(a) and (b) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 299) (communication); 4.1(a) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 361) (truthfulness in statements to others); 8.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law).

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court:

"Findings of Fact

....

"7. Payne & Jones, Chartered, hired the respondent as an associate in August 2011. For the first three years of her employment, the respondent handled the limited action dockets in Johnson County and Wyandotte County, served as the city prosecutor for the City of Mission, Kansas, handled litigation matters, and assisted other members of the firm with insurance defense litigation. In June of 2015, another associate left the firm and the respondent took over that attorney's domestic law practice. At that time, respondent had never worked on any family law matters with the exception of researching particular issues for one of the partners. While trying to learn this new area of the law, respondent was engaged and planning her wedding in 2015 and was of the impression that Payne & Jones was not amenable to her taking time off from work to plan and organize her wedding matters. The respondent took no time off the week of her wedding and had a very short honeymoon and ‘was back at [her] desk after that.’ The departure of the other associates also meant that the Mission Municipal Court dockets became her responsibility which involved hour long dockets in the morning a few times a week and also at night a few days a week.

"8. During respondent's employment with Payne & Jones, the respondent was not assigned a supervising attorney. Instead, a litigation partner was ‘more or less’ assigned to help the respondent. That litigation partner did not have a domestic practice and would not have been able to assist respondent insofar as her domestic practice. Although the respondent was assigned ‘mentors,’ meetings with such mentors were routinely cancelled for business reasons. As a result, respondent's meeting with the ‘mentors’ occurred sporadically.

"9. In the fall of 2017, the respondent notified the firm that she was expecting her first child. Although respondent expected that her practice would wind down a little bit and that she would be able to take fewer cases at that time, that did not happen. Instead, respondent's workload grew rapidly. A partner's unexpected health issue resulted in the transfer of additional files to the respondent. Additionally, both her litigation paralegal and her family law paralegal experienced extended absences due to family issues. During their absences, respondent did not have any dedicated administrative assistance and spent time trying to keep up with the administrative work that was piling up. The respondent struggled to get organized but files were everywhere, papers were everywhere and notes were everywhere. According to the respondent it overwhelmed her to the point that she would ‘sit there and stare at it and just be paralyzed.’ The respondent came to realize that at this time, she was battling severe depression and anxiety.

"Representation of V.T. in Eviction Matter

"10. In August 2017, V.T. retained the firm to represent her in an eviction matter. The firm assigned the respondent to handle V.T.'s eviction case.

"11. The respondent told V.T. that she filed a petition for unlawful detainer. The respondent also told V.T. that she appeared in court on the petition for unlawful detainer. The respondent's statements to her client were false.

"12. The respondent's billing records for a different client establish that the respondent participated in a mediation the day that the respondent indicated that she appeared in court on the petition for unlawful detainer.

"13. In February 2018, toward the end of the respondent's pregnancy, V.T. contacted the firm, expressed her displeasure with the respondent's delay on her case, and informed the firm that she would be hiring a different attorney to handle the eviction matter.

"14. Members of the firm reviewed the respondent's file regarding her representation of V.T. In the file was a petition for unlawful detainer which purported to have been filed in Jackson County, Missouri. The case number on the petition did not match the court records. To make it appear as though it had been filed, the respondent cut and pasted a filed-stamp from a different case onto the petition for unlawful detainer.

"15. Members of the firm's management confronted the respondent regarding her representation of V.T. The respondent admitted that she did not file the petition for unlawful detainer, did not appear in court on behalf of V.T., and cut a filed-stamp from another pleading and pasted it on the petition for unlawful detainer. The firm's management asked the respondent if there were other matters that she was handling that had similar problems. The respondent told the firm's management that the V.T. case was the ‘worst one.’ After members of the firm investigated V.T.'s complaint against the respondent, they reviewed all of the respondent's files. Members of the firm spent many hour reviewing the respondent's work, completing work undertaken by the respondent, and correcting the respondent's misconduct. In some of the cases, the firm did not collect fees and in one case, the firm paid a client $3,000.

"Representation of B.R.D. in Garnishment

"16. In 2012, the firm assigned the respondent to provide representation to a corporate client, B.R.D. in a garnishment matter.

"17. The respondent informed her client and her supervising attorney that judgment had been entered in favor of her client and against the garnishee for failure to respond to the garnishment. The respondent's statements were false.

"18. The respondent provided her supervising attorney with a judgment which purported to have been filed by the court on April 14, 2015. However, the court never entered judgment in that case. The respondent falsified the judge's signature and court's filed-stamp on the judgment.

"Representation of B.H. in Post-Divorce Matter

"19. In 2015, the respondent was assigned by the firm to represent B.H. in a post-divorce matter. On October 19, 2015, the respondent entered her appearance on behalf of B.H. According to the court file, the entry of appearance was the last action taken by the respondent.

"20. The respondent's file included filed-stamped interrogatories to garnishee. The respondent cut and pasted the filed-stamp onto the interrogatories to garnishee as the interrogatories to garnishee were never filed.

"21. The respondent's file also included a garnishment application and order, which purported to have been issued by the court clerk on October 26, 2015, and returned on November 25, 2015. The respondent cut and pasted the clerk's signature from a garnishment application and order in another case.

"22. During the period the respondent represented B.H., she told her supervising attorney that she made multiple court appearances on behalf of B.H. in the post-divorce matter. The respondent's statements to her supervising attorney were false.

"Other Cases

"23. In addition to the three cases detailed above, in 15 other cases, the respondent engaged in misconduct. In those same cases, the respondent made misrepresentations to clients and supervisors, she failed to adequately communicate with her clients, and she failed to timely complete tasks. Specifically:

a. The respondent told F.B., a client, that she filed a name-change case when she had not filed the case. The respondent told F.B. that the delay in completing the case was caused by the court.

b. The respondent advised H.C., a client, on multiple occasions that a case had been filed on behalf of H.C. when the case had not been filed.

c. The respondent failed to respond to J.G.'s requests for information.

d. The respondent failed to perform work for J&D, a business client, but informed J&D that the matter was moving forward.

e. The respondent failed to timely respond to email messages sent by and telephone calls from her client, P.J.

f. The respondent informed her client, A.L., that an expungement case had been filed on behalf of A.L., when the case had not been filed.

g. The respondent advised her client, D.V., that pleadings were filed in a tenant dispute matter when the pleadings had not been filed. The respondent also advised D.V. of

...