Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,536 In the Matter of WILLIAM MICHAEL GENTRY, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 26, 2010. Indefinite suspension.

Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Frank D. Diehl, deputy disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

William Michael Gentry, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, William Michael Gentry, of Kansas City, Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1993. The respondent's license to practice law in the state of Kansas has been administratively suspended since October 13, 2005, for failure to comply with the annual requirements to maintain his license.

On June 10, 2009, 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 did not file an answer to the formal complaint. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on September 23, 2009, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 507) (safekeeping property); 8.1(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R.
1

Annot. 321) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). 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 ....

"2.

On October 13, 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the

Respondent's license to practice law because the Respondent failed to comply with the annual requirements to maintain his license. The Respondent's license has not been reinstated to date.

"3.

Randall Davis was involved in a car accident with Jodi Arrellin. At the

time, Mr. Davis was not covered by insurance. Ms. Arrellin sued Mr. Davis in small claims court and obtained a judgment in the amount of $1,800.00, plus costs and interest. As a result, Mr. Davis' driver's license was suspended. Until the judgment is satisfied, Mr. Davis is not eligible for a Kansas driver's license.

"4.

Jeanette Day, Mr. Davis' mother, contacted the Respondent to see if the

Respondent could assist them in obtaining the reinstatement of Mr. Davis' driver's license.

"5.

The Respondent agreed to assist them. The Respondent contacted Ms.

Arrellin to determine whether she was willing to take an amount less than the judgment entered or whether she was willing to enter into a payment plan. Ms. Arrellin refused both propositions.

"6.

Based upon Ms. Arrellin's position, the Respondent instructed Ms. Day

to save her money and when she had some money saved, he would try again. The Respondent agreed to serve as a 'bank' for Ms. Day. From time to time, Ms. Day would forward a sum of money to the Respondent. The Respondent was to hold the money in

2

trust so that once Ms. Day had accumulated enough money, the Respondent would again try to negotiate with Ms. Arrellin. Over time, Ms. Day accumulated $980.00 in the 'bank.'

"7.

Subsequently, Mr. Davis was charged with a probation violation in

Smithville, Missouri. The Respondent agreed to assist Mr. Davis with the probation violation matter. The Respondent did not discuss the matter of a fee with Mr. Davis or Ms. Day.

"8.

Later, Ms. Day attempted to contact the Respondent to see if he had any

luck getting Ms. Arrellin to agree to accept a sum less than the judgment or to accept a payment plan. The Respondent did not return Ms. Day's telephone calls. Eventually, Ms. Day became frustrated with the Respondent's lack of communication and she demanded the return of the money in the 'bank.' [Footnote: It should be noted that the Respondent's license to practice law in Kansas was suspended on October 13, 2005 and the Respondent would have been unable to continue to assist in negotiating the settlement of Mr. Davis' case.]

"9.

The Respondent told Ms. Day that he was busy right then but that he

would get the money together and put it into the mail to Ms. Day. The Respondent never provided the funds that he was to be holding in trust for Ms. Day.

"10.

At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent testified that he used the

money Ms. Day paid to fund the representation he provided to Mr. Davis during the probation violation proceeding. The Respondent testified that while he believed he had earned the $980.00, he agreed to reimburse the Client Protection Fund.

"11.

Ms. Day filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary

Administrator's office. Additionally, Ms. Day filed a request with the Client Protection Fund for reimbursement for the $980.00 that the Respondent should have held in trust for her. The Client Protection Fund paid Ms. Day $980.00.

"12.

Initially, the Disciplinary Administrator's office attempted to handle the

disciplinary complaint informally. The Disciplinary Administrator forwarded a letter to

3

the Respondent requesting a response to the initial complaint. The Respondent failed to provide a response to the initial complaint.

"13.

As a result, the Disciplinary Administrator's office docketed the case for

investigation. The complaint was forwarded to the Wyandotte County Ethics and Grievance Committee. H. Reed Walker was assigned to investigate the case.

"14.

On November 10, 2008, Mr. Walker wrote to the Respondent requesting

a response to the initial complaint. The Respondent failed to provide a written response to the initial complaint or otherwise respond to Mr. Walker's letter.

"15.

On December 22, 2008, Mr. Walker again wrote to the Respondent

requesting that the Respondent provide a written response to the initial complaint. The Respondent, again, failed to provide such a response.

"16.

Because the Respondent had not provided a written response to the initial

complaint or otherwise responded, Mr. Walker called the Respondent. The Respondent assured Mr. Walker that he would provide a written response to the initial complaint by the end of the week. The Respondent never provided a written response to the initial complaint.

"17.

On June 10, 2009, the Disciplinary Administrator filed a Formal

Complaint in this case. The Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Formal Complaint. "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1.

Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter

of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15, KRPC 8.1(b), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, as detailed below.

"2.

Lawyers must keep the property of their clients safe. See KRPC 1.15(b).

In this case, the Respondent failed to properly safeguard Ms. Day's money when he failed to deposit the $980.00 into his client trust account and maintain it in his client trust account until Ms. Davis requested distribution. The Respondent also violated KRPC

4

1.15(b) when he apparently converted Ms. Day's money to his own use. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b).

"3.

Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) and

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provide the requirements in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority, . . .' KRPC 8.1(b).

'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information he or she may have affecting such matters.' Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).

The Respondent knew that he was required to forward a written response to the initial complaint

Download In re Gentry.pdf

Kansas Law