Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 103,300

In the Matter of PAUL P. HASTY, JR., Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 15, 2010. Published censure.

Kimberly L. Knoll, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

Edward M. Boyle, of McCormick, Adam & McDonald, P.A. of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Paul P. Hasty, Jr., 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, Paul P. Hasty, Jr., of Overland Park, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1976 and in Missouri in 1985.

On July 16, 2007, the respondent reported himself to the Missouri disciplinary authorities regarding his representation in a case. On August 9, 2007, counsel for respondent forwarded the same report to the Disciplinary Administrator in Kansas. After investigation, the Missouri Disciplinary Hearing Panel concluded that respondent violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. The Missouri Supreme Court reprimanded respondent on November 13, 2008, as a result of the violations. On March 12, 2009, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator in Kansas filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct
1

(KRPC). The respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint on March 26, 2009. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on June 2, 2009, where the respondent appeared in person and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 426) (diligence) and 1.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 443) (communication). 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 July 16, 2007, the Respondent reported himself to the Missouri

disciplinary authorities for his action related to his representation of Allstate Insurance Company in Deer v. Aldridge. Later, on August 9, 2007, an attorney representing the Respondent forwarded the letter to the Disciplinary Administrator's office. The Respondent's letter to the Missouri disciplinary authorities provided as follows:

'I was retained by Allstate Insurance Company with regard to a matter that Allstate had litigated in Greene County, Missouri, Deer v. Aldridge. Judgment had been entered on the case at the time I was retained and the issue was whether Allstate's claim file should be made available to a party requesting the file. I gave Allstate my opinion with regard to the matter and the issue of production of the file was addressed. My file was then closed. With the closing of the file, it was sent to the storage facility that we use for closed files.

'Some time later, suit was filed against Allstate. The file was retrieved from storage and re-opened. Apparently, it was later sent back to the storage facility. It was misplaced.

'Written discovery was received on this case, and was either held by the file clerk or routed to the closed file in storage and there was not a

2

timely response. We later discovered that the file was missing. It was located as a closed file. I set about responding to discovery, including objections. The objections were untimely because of the delay. They actually crossed in the mail with discovery motions which arrived while I was on vacation. The Court granted the discovery motions. The Court overruled my request to object out of time.

'Additional discovery was served, and there was deposition testimony taken. As a result of the deposition testimony, it was my belief that the case would settle. I did not take steps to respond to the additional discovery and it was not sent to Allstate. I also did not keep Allstate advised concerning the motions filed with regard to the discovery or the Court's orders.

'It became apparent that the case was not going to settle. I advised Allstate of the discovery issues and the problems that had been created. Allstate has retained substitute counsel and I have withdrawn from the case, and I understand Allstate is taking steps to ask the Court to set aside its orders with regard to discovery because Allstate did not know that the Court had entered orders. My withdrawal was forwarded to the Court today.

'I am sending this report to you because it is my understanding that it is my obligation to report that I did not properly attend to this file for this client and did not keep the client timely advised of events.'

"3.

On March 14, 2008, a Missouri disciplinary committee filed Information

against the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Missouri disciplinary authorities entered into a factual stipulation. The stipulation provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'Dale Deer and Terri Deer filed a lawsuit in Johnson County, Missouri as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred September 15, 2000. The Deer's [sic] sued Paul Jason Aldridge for

3

injuries which were sustained by Dale Deer as a result of that accident. That case was Case Number CV402-9CC.

'Prior to the filing of that lawsuit Dale Deer and Terri Deer had offered to settle their claims against Mr. Aldridge for the sum of $24,000.00. Mr. Aldridge was insured by the Allstate Insurance Company and $40,000.00 was the limit of his applicable insurance. Allstate Insurance Company did not settle the claim and the lawsuit was filed. In that lawsuit Plaintiffs were represented by attorney Andrew J. Gelbach and defendant Aldridge was represented by Richard Modin. On January 11, 2005, pursuant to a contract to limit recovery given pursuant to

Download In re Hasty.pdf

Kansas Law