Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No.  102,125

In the Matter of PHILLIP KENT WEBER,
Respondent.


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline.  Opinion filed October 9, 2009.  Indefinite suspension.

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

No appearance by the respondent.

Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Phillip Kent Weber, of Overland Park, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Missouri in 1994 and in Kansas in 1995.  The respondent's license to practice law in the state of Kansas has been administratively suspended since October 8, 2008, for failure to pay the annual attorney registration fee, failure to fulfill the minimum continuing legal education requirements, failure to pay the annual continuing legal education fee, and failure to pay the noncompliance continuing legal education fee.

On February 22, 2005, the Missouri Supreme Court entered the following disbarment order:

"The Chief Disciplinary Counsel having filed an information advising this Court of its findings, after investigation that there is probable cause to believe Respondent, Phillip Kent Weber, is guilty of professional misconduct and having filed with said Information, pursuant to Rule 5.13, a Notice of Default, notifying the Court that Respondent, Phillip Kent Weber, failed to timely file an answer within the time required and, therefore, pursuant to Rule 5.13, Respondent is in default; and

"It appearing Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and should be disciplined;

"Now, therefore, it is ordered by the Court that the said Phillip Kent Weber, be, and he is hereby disbarred, that his right and license to practice law in the State of Missouri is canceled and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys in this State."

After learning that the respondent had been disbarred by the Missouri Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Administrator docketed a complaint against the respondent.  On three different dates (August 16, 2006, June 10, 2008, and September 22, 2008), the Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the respondent at the last address provided to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts requesting respondent provide a written response to the docketed complaint; respondent failed to respond to any of the letters.  On November 14, 2008, the Disciplinary Administrator forwarded a copy of the formal complaint and notice of hearing to the respondent via certified mail.   Again respondent failed to respond.  An investigator for the Disciplinary Administrator learned that the respondent's address was a UPS mail box for which respondent had ceased making rental payments.  After conducting research on the respondent's employment, the investigator located respondent at his place of employment and personally served him with a copy of the formal complaint and notice of hearing.  Thus, the respondent received actual notice of the hearing.  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 January 15, 2009.  The respondent did not appear.  Upon conclusion of the hearing, in its conclusions of law, the panel noted:

"2. The Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the Formal Complaint.  It is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a Respondent fails to appear only if proper service was obtained.  Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary proceedings.  That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows:

'(a) Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in any disciplinary proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary Administrator, either by personal service or by certified mail to the address shown on the attorney's most recent registration, or at his or her last known office address.

. . . .

'(c) Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be deemed complete upon mailing whether or not the same is actually received.'

In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by sending a copy of the Formal Complaint and the Notice of Hearing, via certified United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address shown on the Respondent

Download 102125.pdf

Kansas Law