Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,062 In The Matter of STEVEN RAY WIECHMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed January 22, 2010. One-year suspension.

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

John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Steven Ray Wiechman, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Steven Ray Wiechman, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1974.

On December 3, 2008, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). On January 9, 2009, the respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint. On June 2, 2009, a hearing was held before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, where the respondent appeared in person and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that the respondent violated KRPC 1.8(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 483) (conflict of interest) and KRPC 8.4(g) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (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:

1

"FINDINGS OF FACT

....

"2.

In approximately 2000, the Respondent represented [D.C.] in a bankruptcy

proceeding. [D.C.] was satisfied with the Respondent's representation regarding the bankruptcy.

"3.

Thereafter, from time to time, the Respondent came into the restaurant where

[D.C.] is employed. [D.C.] is and has been employed by [a restaurant] as a professional server.

"4.

In 2006 and 2007, [D.C.] was injured in two separate car accidents. As a result

of the accidents, [D.C.] suffers ongoing pain.

"5.

Because the Respondent previously represented her and because she saw him in

the restaurant from time to time, in April, 2007, when [D.C.] needed an attorney, she sought out the Respondent. [D.C.] met with and retained the Respondent to represent her.

"6.

During their first meeting, [D.C.] and the Respondent also initially met with an

insurance adjuster. After the insurance adjuster left the office, the Respondent and [D.C.] were alone in his office. At that time, the Respondent told [D.C.] how attracted he had always been to her.

"7.

The Respondent told [D.C.] that he had noticed how much pain she was [in] and

offered to give [D.C.] some all-natural joint and muscle pain lotion and some all-natural pain relievers. [D.C.] accepted the Respondent's offer.

"8.

The Respondent retrieved the lotion and the pain relievers and returned to his

office. The Respondent offered to rub some of the lotion on [D.C.'s] back for her. [D.C.] reluctantly agreed. [Footnote: [D.C.'s] account of what occurred next was completely at odds with the Respondent's account. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses and other evidence presented to the Hearing Panel, the Hearing Panel finds that [D.C.'s] testimony is credible. The Hearing Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent's testimony in this regard lacks credibility.]

"9.

Standing behind [D.C.], the Respondent raised the back of [D.C.'s] shirt and

rubbed lotion on [her] upper back. While rubbing lotion on [her] back, the Respondent grabbed [D.C.] around her waist and pulled her torso toward the Respondent's body. As a result, [D.C.'s] backside was pressed up against his groin.

2

"10.

After the Respondent completed rubbing the all-natural joint and muscle pain

lotion on [D.C.'s] back, the Respondent began talking with [her] regarding a program called Fortune High Tech. Fortune High Tech is a pyramid marketing scheme. The Respondent encouraged [D.C.] to buy into the program by paying him $300 to join up as a manager.

"11.

[D.C.] told the Respondent that she would think about it. At the end of their

meeting, the Respondent hugged [D.C.] and kissed her on the lips.

"12.

Later, [D.C.] received a telephone call that the employment contract was ready

for her to sign. On May 8, 2007, [D.C.] returned to the Respondent's office to sign the contract, officially retaining the Respondent to represent her interests in the two automobile accidents.

"13.

During this second meeting, the Respondent and [D.C.] were again alone in his

office. [D.C.] signed the contract and attempted to quickly leave the Respondent's office. The Respondent, again, began discussing the Fortune High Tech program with [D.C.]. The Respondent, again, attempted to persuade [D.C.] to buy into the program. [D.C.] told the Respondent that she was not sure about the program. When [D.C.] stood to leave, the Respondent told her that she could not leave without giving him a hug. The Respondent again hugged and kissed [D.C.].

"14.

Following the second meeting, the Respondent called [D.C.] and asked [her] if

she would watch a video about Fortune High Tech. [D.C.] agreed to meet with the Respondent and watch the video. Because she did not want to be alone with the Respondent and because she thought that it would cut the meeting short, she brought her two-year old grandson with her to the meeting. The Respondent and his wife met [D.C.] and her grandson at [a restaurant] in Topeka, Kansas.

"15.

During the meeting, the Respondent took [D.C.'s] grandson and went for a walk

so that [D.C.] could watch the video without being interrupted. After she watched the video, [D.C.] told the Respondent and his wife that she needed to think about it.

"16.

The Respondent called [D.C.] following their third meeting and asked her what

she thought about the Fortune High Tech program. [D.C.] told the Respondent that she was discussing it with her kids because she was not sure about joining the program. At the time the Respondent called [D.C.], she was on her way out to dinner with her daughter and her two grandsons. The Respondent offered to meet [D.C.] and her family at the restaurant. [D.C.] agreed. At the restaurant, the Respondent and his wife again discussed the Fortune High Tech program with

3

[D.C.]. During that conversation, [D.C.] was pressured to join by the Respondent when he told her she would only have to pay $100.00 instead of $300.00. The Respondent told [D.C.] that he would pay the other $200.00 and then take the $200.00 from the settlement of the automobile accident cases. [D.C.] wrote out a $100.00 check to Mrs. Wiechman.

"17.

Fortune High Tech has an unlimited number of levels. After becoming a

manager, a participant can become a field trainer. In order to receive compensation, the participants down-line must purchase at least three products on a monthly basis. Thus, in order for the Respondent to make any money from [D.C.'s] participation, [D.C.] would have to purchase at least three products on a monthly basis.

"18.

After [D.C.] joined the program, Mrs. Wiechman began repeatedly calling [her]

to encourage her to participate in conference calls regarding Fortune High Tech. The conference calls were to take place at 9:00 p.m. Because [D.C.] wakes up at 4:00 a.m. to get ready for work, she was not available for conference calls at 9:00 p.m.

"19.

Over time, Mrs. Wiechman grew upset with [D.C.] for not participating in the

conference calls. Eventually, [D.C.] stopped answering her telephone when the Respondent or Mrs. Wiechman called.

"20.

After [D.C.] retained the Respondent to represent her interests related to the two

automobile accidents, she was contacted by the insurance companies about the accidents. The insurance companies were unaware that the Respondent was representing her interests. [Footnote: [D.C.] received a copy of a letter that the Respondent purportedly sent to [D.C.'s] insurance company informing it that he would be representing [D.C.]. However, the record is void of any reference to any correspondence from the Respondent to the insurance companies of the other drivers in the two accidents.]

"21.

On January 7, 2008, [D.C.] terminated the Respondent's representation. On

January 8, 2008, [D.C.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary Administrator's office.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1.

At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC

1.8 and KRPC 8.4(g). As a result, the Hearing Panel concludes, as a matter of law, that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.8(a) and KRPC 8.4(g), as detailed below.

4

"2.

KRPC 1.8(a) provides:

'(a)

A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly

acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:

(1)

the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the

interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client; and

(2)

the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking

and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and

(3)

the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the

client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.' The Respondent violated KRPC 1.8(a) when he entered into a business transaction

Download In re Wiechman.pdf

Kansas Law