IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 86,220
In the Matter of TERRI STROH TWEEDLY,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 20, 2001. Indefinite suspension.
Alexander M. Walczak, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Terri Stroh Tweedly, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Disciplinary Administrator's office against Terri Stroh Tweedly, of Overland Park, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas.
A formal complaint was filed against respondent on July 11, 2000, alleging violations of KRPC 1.3 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 310) (diligence), 1.4 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 320) (communication), 1.15(b) (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 360) (safekeeping of property), 1.16(a)(3) (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371) (failure to withdraw), 1.16(d) (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371) ( failure to withdraw without adverse effect on clients' interest), 3.2 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 382) (expediting litigation), 8.1(b) (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (failure to respond), and Supreme Court Rule 207 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 237) (failure to aid).
A formal hearing was held before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on September 12, 2000. Respondent's facsimile request to continue the hearing for 6 weeks to the presiding officer on September 8, 2000, contending she was not mentally or emotionally prepared for the hearing and that she did not have funds to hire counsel, was denied. The office of the Disciplinary Administrator appeared by and through Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator. The respondent failed to appear.
Exhibits were admitted and testimony was received. Thereupon, after reviewing the exhibits and hearing the testimony presented, the hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence the following facts:
"1. Terri Stroh Tweedly, (hereinafter 'the Respondent') is an attorney at law, Kansas Registration No. 16258. Her last registration address with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts of Kansas is [in] Overland Park, Kansas, . . . The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas on October 1, 1993.
"Case No. DA7521: M.L. Complaint
"2. On December 10, 1998, M.L. retained the Respondent to file and prosecute a termination of parental rights case. At that time, the natural father of the child was incarcerated. M.L. paid the Respondent a retainer of $500.00. The Respondent prepared and filed a motion for termination of parental rights, Wyandotte County District Court case number 98D4165. After filing the initial pleadings, the Respondent failed to keep appointments, failed to return telephone calls, and failed to obtain service on the incarcerated defendant.
"3. After communication with the Respondent became difficult, M.L. asked the Respondent to provide an accounting of the retainer, to return the unused portion of the retainer, to formally withdraw from the representation, and to return her file. The Respondent failed to comply with M.L.'s requests or to otherwise communicate with her.
"4. On June 30, 1999, M.L. hired Howard E. Bodney to complete the termination of parental rights case. At that time, Mr. Bodney requested that the Respondent forward the retainer paid to M.L. and M.L.'s file to his attention. On one occasion, the Respondent contacted Mr. Bodney. However, the Respondent failed to comply with his requests.
"5. On March 31, 1999, M.L. made a formal complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office, regarding the Respondent's representation in the termination of parental rights case. Thereafter, on November 19, 1999, Mr. Bodney also filed a formal complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"Case No. DA7739: Schudel Complaint
"6. On December 7, 1998, David Schudel made a formal complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office regarding the Respondent. In that complaint, Mr. Schudel complained that the Respondent failed to provide diligent representation and failed to maintain adequate communication. Thereafter, the Respondent contacted Mr. Schudel and offered to continue to represent Mr. Schudel if he would withdraw his complaint. Mr. Schudel agreed.
"7. On April 1, 1999, the Respondent represented Mr. Schudel, via telephone, at a Nevada child support hearing. At that time, the Nevada authorities requested certain documentation from Mr. Schudel. The documentation was to establish how much child support Mr. Schudel had paid to date. Mr. Schudel provided the documentation to the Respondent. After the Nevada authorities received the documentation, the Nevada authorities were to make a settlement offer to Mr. Schudel to settle the child support issue. Apparently, the Respondent did not forward the documentation to the Nevada authorities.
"8. The Respondent failed to keep Mr. Schudel advised of the status of the Nevada court proceedings and failed to return telephone calls to Mr. Schudel. When attempting to purchase an automobile, Mr. Schudel learned that there was a lien against him regarding the child support liability. However, Mr. Schudel had heard nothing from the Respondent or from the authorities in Nevada regarding the settlement amount.
"9. On November 18, 1999, Mr. Schudel forwarded a second letter of complaint. In Mr. Schudel's second letter of complaint to the Disciplinary Administrator's office. Mr. Schudel requested that the Respondent return his file to allow him to complete the child support matter. To date, the Respondent has failed to return Mr. Schudel's file.
"Case No. DA 7773: Dryden Complaint
"10. On July 6, 1999, Steve Dryden retained the Respondent to file and prosecute a motion to modify child support. Mr. Dryden paid the Respondent a retainer of $1,000.00. After filing the motion, the Respondent failed to return numerous telephone calls. On October 5, 1999, the Respondent contacted Mr. Dryden and told him that the hearing scheduled for October 6, 1999, would have to be canceled because she had not received certain paperwork from opposing counsel. On October 19, 1999, the Respondent again called Mr. Dryden to notify him that she had to cancel the hearing scheduled for October 20, 1999, because she still had not received the necessary documentation.
"11. At that time Mr. Dryden and the Respondent agreed that a court hearing would be not scheduled until they had received the paperwork from opposing counsel. Because he had not heard from the Respondent for a period of time, Mr. Dryden sent the Respondent a letter on November 2, 1999. The Respondent did not respond to Mr. Dryden's letter.
"12. Then, on November 18, 1999, because he had still not heard from the Respondent, Mr. Dryden sent the Respondent a second letter. In that letter, Mr. Dryden requested that the Respondent prepare and file a motion to withdraw, forward a check to him for the remaining retainer funds, and return his complete file. Mr. Dryden informed the Respondent that he would pick up those items from the Respondent's office on November 29, 1999. Additionally, Mr. Dryden informed the Respondent that, if those items were not available, then he would forward a letter of complaint to the bar authorities.
"13. On November 29, 1999, Mr. Dryden went to the Respondent's office to pick up the unearned fees and his complete file. At that time, the Respondent was not in her office. The office receptionist did not have any materials prepared for Mr. Dryden.
"14. Unbeknownst to Mr. Dryden, a hearing was scheduled for December 8, 1999. The hearing was not held, because the Respondent had contacted opposing counsel and the court and canceled the hearing because her mother was ill. The Respondent failed to inform Mr. Dryden that the hearing had been scheduled and canceled.
"15. Without forwarding Mr. Dryden's file or a check for the remaining retainer funds, on December 11. 1999, the Respondent sent Mr. Dryden a copy of a motion to withdraw.
"16. On December 21, 1999, Mr. Dryden contacted the court and learned that a hearing date of January 31, 2000, had been previously scheduled.
"17. On December 23, 1999, Mr. Dryden forwarded his letter of complaint to the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"Case No. DA7778: Rivers Complaint
"18. On September 21, 1999, Steve Rivers retained the Respondent to defend him in an action for divorce. At that time, Mr. Rivers provided the Respondent with a retainer in the amount of $500.00.
"19. The Respondent repeatedly assured Mr. Rivers that she would be preparing and filing responsive pleadings. On occasion, the Respondent showed Mr. Rivers drafts of pleadings. However, the Respondent never filed any pleadings in behalf of Mr. Rivers.
"20. Mr. Rivers made numerous attempts to contact the Respondent. At the hearing on the matter, Mr. Rivers estimated that he telephoned the Respondent on approximately 30 to 40 occasions. However, the Respondent failed to return a vast majority of the telephone calls and failed to respond to written correspondence.
"21. On December 28, 1999, Mr. Rivers made a formal complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office about the Respondent's inaction with regard to his case.
"22. On February 7, 2000, the divorce case proceeded to hearing. At that hearing, the Respondent failed to appear and Mr. Rivers appeared pro se. The Respondent did not withdraw from the representation, nor did she return any unused retainer funds.
"Case No. DA 7780: Fraser Complaint
"23. The Respondent began representing Melinda Fraser in 1997. During the course of that representation, Ms. Fraser paid the Respondent approximately $1,500.00 for services rendered. Ms. Fraser was pleased with much of the representation by the Respondent.
"24. The Respondent failed to remain in contact with Ms. Fraser. Therefore, on January 11, 2000, Ms. Fraser informed the Respondent that her services were no longer required. Ms. Fraser requested that the Respondent return Ms. Fraser's file and provide a final accounting of the funds paid to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to return Ms. Fraser's file and failed to provide a final accounting. Thereafter, Ms. Fraser retained new counsel. Ms. Fraser's new attorney sent a letter to the Respondent requesting the transfer of Ms. Fraser's file. The Respondent did not respond to Ms. Fraser's new attorney_s request for the file.
"25. On January 5, 2000, Ms. Fraser forwarded a letter of complaint to the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"Case No. DA 7796: Kistler Complaint
"26. In the fall of 1998, Laurie Kistler retained the Respondent to represent her in a post-divorce matter. At that time, Ms. Kistler paid the Respondent a retainer of $1, 000.00.
"27. At the time the post-divorce matter was instituted, Ms. Kistler, her former husband, and their children were all residents of Johnson County. However, the original divorce case had occurred in St. Louis County, Missouri. The Johnson County, Kansas, District Court determined that the post-divorce matter should be handled by the courts in St. Louis County, Missouri. Because she is licensed to practice law in Missouri, as well as in Kansas, the Respondent assured Ms. Kistler that she would file the appropriate pleadings in St. Louis County, Missouri.
"28. Thereafter, the Respondent failed to maintain adequate communication with Ms. Kistler. Additionally, the Respondent told Ms. Kistler that she had filed pleadings in behalf of Ms. Kistler in St. Louis County, Missouri. However, the Respondent did not do so.
"29. After communicating with the Respondent became difficult, Ms. Kistler dismissed the Respondent as her attorney and requested that the Respondent return all of her files. Additionally, Ms. Kistler hired new counsel to pursue the post-divorce action in St. Louis County, Missouri. Ms. Kistler and her new attorney sent the Respondent written correspondence asking for the return of Ms. Kistler's file. The Respondent did not comply with these requests.
"30. On January 21, 2000, Ms. Kistler forwarded a formal complaint, regarding the Respondent's misconduct, to the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"31. During the course of the investigation of this matter, J. Nicholas Badgerow presented the Respondent with a subpoena for Ms. Kistler's file. The Respondent did provide a portion of Ms. Kistler's file pursuant to the subpoena.
"Case No. 7820: Worley Complaint
"32. In January, 1999, Larry M. Worley retained the Respondent to terminate child support. Mr. Worley paid the Respondent a $500.00 retainer. Thereafter, on numerous occasions. Mr. Worley attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone. The Respondent failed to return Mr. Worley's many telephone calls.
"33. After a number of hearings had been continued, a hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2000.
"34. Because the Respondent had not heard from the Respondent for a period of time, on February 8, 2000, Mr. Worley filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office concerning the Respondent's misconduct.
"35. Thereafter, on February 16, 2000, the Respondent appeared at the hearing, one hour late. Because the parties agreed to terminate the child support, the matter was again continued to allow the Respondent to prepare a document setting forth the agreement. The Respondent failed to prepare the appropriate paperwork.
"36. At the time of the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the matter was not resolved. Mr. Worley still needs to have the agreement of the parties formally drawn up to terminate child support. A court hearing is scheduled for September, 2000.
"37. On July 7, 1999, Harry William Otto retained the Respondent to file a divorce case in his behalf. Mr. Otto paid the Respondent $1,152.00. Two weeks after the Respondent was retained, Mr. Otto reconciled with his wife and notified the Respondent that he wished to discontinue the divorce proceedings. It appears from the record that the Respondent did not file any pleadings in behalf of Mr. Otto.
"38. Thereafter, in September, 1999, Mr. Otto requested that the Respondent prepare an accounting of the retainer and that any unused fees be returned to Mr. Otto. The Respondent assured Mr. Otto that she would be forwarding the accounting and the refund. However, the Respondent failed to provide the accounting and return the unused portion of the retainer.
"39. Mr. Otto called the Respondent's office on several occasions again requesting an accounting of the retainer and a return of unearned fees. The Respondent failed to return Mr. Otto's telephone calls. Mr. Otto was unable to personally speak with the Respondent until November 24, 1999. At that time, the Respondent again assured Mr. Otto that she would be forwarding the accounting and refund to Mr. Otto. The accounting and refund was not forthcoming. Thereafter, Mr. Otto telephoned the Respondent on five additional occasions. These attempts to contact the Respondent were fruitless.
"40. On January 31, 2000, Mr. Otto filed a written complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office regarding the Respondent.
"41. As of the date of the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent had not forwarded an accounting and refund of the unused retainer funds to Mr. Otto.
"Case No. DA 7836: Burger Complaint
"42. On January 22, 1999, Donna L. Burger retained the Respondent to provide representation in a modification of child support and collection of child support in arrears. At that time, Ms. Burger provided the Respondent with a $500.00 retainer. In Ms. Burger's behalf, and in an attempt to reach a settlement agreement, the Respondent wrote three letters to Ms. Burger's ex-husband's attorney. Because attempts to settle the matter were unsuccessful, Ms. Burger and the Respondent decided to proceed to a contested hearing.
"43. Thereafter, Ms. Burger placed over 50 telephone calls to the Respondent. The Respondent did not return the telephone calls. On November 22, 1999, the Respondent finally returned Ms. Burger's telephone calls. At that time, the Respondent told Ms. Burger that she was taking Ms. Burger's file with her over the Thanksgiving holiday, and would send via facsimile, certain documents on November 29, 1999.
"44. The telephone call from the Respondent on November 22, 1999, was the last contact Ms. Burger had with the Respondent.
"45. Ms. Burger sent via facsimile two letters terminating the Respondent's employment, requesting a billing statement, and requesting the return of her file. The Respondent never filed a motion to withdraw from the representation of Ms. Burger. Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide a billing statement, a refund, or Ms. Burger's file.
"46. On February 19, 2000, Ms. Burger filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"47. After filing her complaint, Ms. Burger hired new counsel. Ms. Burger's divorce case is still pending.
"Case No. DA 7862: Ivy Complaint
"48. In June or July, 1999, Douglas A. Ivy retained the Respondent to provide representation in a divorce case. At that time, Mr. Ivy provided the Respondent with a retainer of $1,100.00. (Mr. Ivy charged the retainer to his credit card, and continues, to date, to pay on the balance.) Shortly after she was hired, the Respondent filed a motion in behalf of Mr. Ivy. Subsequent to filing that motion, the Respondent took no additional action in Mr. Ivy's divorce case.
"49. Mr. Ivy began to experience great difficulty contacting the Respondent. Mr. Ivy telephoned the Respondent over 100 times, wrote the Respondent a note and a letter, and visited the Respondent's office, in attempts to contact the Respondent. The Respondent made no attempts to contact Mr. Ivy.
"50. At the hearing on the divorce, the Respondent failed to appear. As a result, Mr. Ivy represented himself in the formal proceedings.
"51. Mr. Ivy made no requests for a refund of unearned fees and the return of his file, because he was unable to contact the Respondent.
"52. On March 9, 2000, Mr. Ivy forwarded a letter of complaint to the Disciplinary Administrator's office.
"Case No. DA 7867: Gerred Complaint
"53. On August 5, 1999, James Gerred retained the Respondent to provide representation in a paternity case and to obtain the return of his passport, which had been impounded by the State Department. At that time, Mr. Gerred paid the Respondent a retainer of $1,000.00.
"54. After being retained, the Respondent reported to Mr. Gerred that she had prepared certain documents in his behalf. Mr. Gerred traveled to the Respondent's office and signed the documents. Four months later, the Respondent filed the documents with the court. However, the Respondent never provided copies of the documents to Mr. Gerred. The Respondent did nothing else to resolve the paternity case or to obtain the return of Mr. Gerred's passport.
"55. Mr. Gerred attempted to contact the Respondent on a number of occasions. The Respondent infrequently returned Mr. Gerred's telephone calls. After speaking to the Respondent for a brief time, in February, 2000, the Respondent assured Mr. Gerred that she would immediately return the call. Mr. Gerred never heard from the Respondent again.
"56. After communication with the Respondent became impossible, Mr. Gerred requested that the Respondent return his retainer. The Respondent never provided Mr. Gerred with a refund of unearned fees. Additionally, the Respondent never filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Gerred.
"57. On March 18, 2000, Mr. Gerred sent a letter to the Disciplinary Administrator's office complaining of the representation provided by the Respondent.
"58. Mr. Gerred was able to obtain the return of his passport and resolve the paternity case with the assistance of new counsel.
"Case No. DA 7896: Morgan Complaint
"59. In November, 1998, Linda R. Morgan retained the Respondent to provide representation in an action for divorce. Ms. Morgan paid the Respondent a retainer of $1,250.00. Although the divorce action was promptly filed, the Respondent failed to obtain service on Ms. Morgan's ex-husband until February 16, 1999.
"60. After the action was completed, the parties were ordered to prepare proposed journal entries. The Respondent failed to provide the court with a proposed journal entry in behalf of Ms. Morgan. The court signed the journal entry prepared by Ms. Morgan's ex-husband's attorney. As a result, the child support commenced on a date later than originally set, and a debt that Ms. Morgan's ex-husband was ordered to pay became the responsibility of Ms. Morgan.
"61. On many occasions, Ms. Morgan requested that the Respondent provide her with an accounting of the retainer funds. The Respondent failed to provide such an accounting to Ms. Morgan.
"62. From July, 1999, to April 2000, the Respondent failed to return over 100 telephone calls from Ms. Morgan.
"63. On April 12, 2000, the Disciplinary Administrator's office received Ms. Morgan's letter of complaint regarding the Respondent.
"Investigations
"64. Patricia A. Bennett was appointed to investigate the M.L. complaint. During the course of her investigation, from May, 1999, through December, 1999, Ms. Bennett sent the Respondent four or five letters. In each letter, Ms. Bennett requested that the Respondent respond to the initial complaint in writing. At one point, the Respondent left a voice mail message for Ms. Bennett. Other than the one voice mail message, the Respondent did not contact Ms. Bennett regarding the investigation. Additionally, the Respondent did not respond in writing to the initial complaint as requested by Ms. Bennett.
"65. J. Nicholas Badgerow was appointed to investigate the remaining eleven complaints. The Respondent and Mr. Badgerow scheduled a meeting to discuss the pending complaints on February 10, 2000. One hour before the meeting, the Respondent called, canceled the meeting, and rescheduled the meeting for February 14, 2000.
"66. On February 14, 2000, the Respondent called, canceled the meeting, and rescheduled the meeting for February 18, 2000.
"67. On February 18, 2000, the Respondent called, canceled the meeting, and rescheduled the meeting for February 25, 2000.
"68. On February 25, 2000, the Respondent appeared in person at Mr. Badgerow's office to discuss the pending complaints. At that meeting, Mr. Badgerow served the Respondent with a subpoena. The subpoena commanded the Respondent to provide Ms. Kistler's file forthwith.
"69. At the time of the meeting, the following complaints were pending and were discussed by Mr. Badgerow and the Respondent:
"Case No. DA7739, David Schudel;
"Case No. DA 7773, Steve Dryden;
"Case No. DA 7778, Steve Rivers;
"Case No. DA 7796, Laurie Kistler;
"Case No. DA7820, Larry M. Worley; and
"Case No. DA 7822, Harry William Otto.
"70. Also, during that meeting, Mr. Badgerow and the Respondent discussed the difficulties that the Respondent had been experiencing. The Respondent indicated that her parents had had some health problems, that she was an only child, and that her parents depend upon her to assist them. Additionally, the Respondent indicated that she had a bout of the flu. The Respondent stated that she took a leave of absence without telling anyone, from October 1, 1999, through January 19, 2000. The Respondent did not provide any explanation regarding her inaction prior to October 1, 1999, or after January 19, 2000.
"71. During the meeting, Mr. Badgerow did not observe anything that would lead him to believe that the Respondent suffered from a chemical dependency or from a mental illness that was impairing her ability to practice law. However, because the acts and omissions described in the various complaints he was investigating were consistent with a person who was suffering from chemical dependence or from a mental illness, Mr. Badgerow offered the assistance of the Impaired Lawyer's Committee. Additionally, Mr. Badgerow expressed his belief that her friends and other peers in the legal community would help her if she needed assistance. The Respondent did not seek the assistance that Mr. Badgerow offered.
"72. The Respondent assured Mr. Badgerow that her problems were behind her and that she was able to resume practicing law. Additionally, the Respondent assured Mr. Badgerow that she would be preparing billing statements for the complainants and forwarding any unused retainers during the following weekend. Mr. Badgerow took the Respondent at her word, and telephoned complainants to let them know refunds would be forthcoming.
"73. Later that day, pursuant to the subpoena, the Respondent returned to Mr. Badgerow's office and provided him with Ms. Kistler's file.
"74. Mr. Badgerow, on many occasions, requested that the Respondent respond to each complaint in writing. The Respondent did not timely respond to any of Mr. Badgerow's requests. The Respondent provided written responses to only three of the initial complaints.
"75. On February 24, 2000, the Respondent forwarded to Mr. Badgerow an untimely response to Mr. Dryden's letter of complaint. In her written response, the Respondent detailed the medical difficulties her mother experienced. Additionally, the Respondent indicated that she would be 'furnishing Mr. Dryden with a billing statement in the near future.' Also, the Respondent agreed with Mr. Dryden that she did not use all of the retainer. The Respondent assured Mr. Badgerow that she would make an appropriate refund. See Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibit 11. To date, the Respondent has not provided Mr. Dryden with a billing statement or refund.
"76. Also, on February 24, 2000, the Respondent forwarded to Mr. Badgerow an untimely response to Mr. Rivers' letter of complaint. The Respondent's response to Mr. Rivers' letter of complaint included the same explanations for her dilatory conduct. The Respondent acknowledged that Mr. Rivers had to represent himself in the divorce proceeding. Again, the Respondent indicated that she would be providing a billing statement to Mr. Rivers. The Respondent never provided the billing statement to Mr. Rivers.
"77. Additionally, on February 24, 2000, the Respondent forwarded to Mr. Badgerow an untimely written response to Ms. Fraser's letter of complaint. Although, the Respondent admitted that Ms. Fraser was unable to contact the Respondent over the holidays, she did not admit to any other wrongdoing. The Respondent did not acknowledge that Ms. Fraser requested the return of her file and a final accounting. The Respondent, again, assured Mr. Badgerow that she would be providing a final accounting to Ms. Fraser in the 'near future.' The Respondent never provided the final accounting.
"78. Although requested to do so by Mr. Badgerow and the Disciplinary Administrator's office, the Respondent failed to respond in writing to the following complaints:
"Case No. DA7521, M.L.;
"Case No. DA 7739, David Schudel;
"Case No. DA 7796, Laurie Kistler;
"Case No. DA7820, Larry M. Worley;
"Case No. DA 7822, Harry William Otto;
"Case No. DA7836, Donna L. Burger;
"Case No. DA7862, Douglas A. Ivy;
"Case No. DA7867, James Gerred; and
"Case No. DA7896, Linda R. Morgan.
"79. Several complaints were filed after the Respondent met with Mr. Badgerow. Those complaints include Case No. DA7836, Donna L. Burger; Case No. DA7862, Douglas A. Ivy; Case No. DA7867, James Gerred; and Case No. DA7896, Linda R. Morgan.
"80. Because the Disciplinary Administrator's office continued to receive complaints regarding the Respondent, Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, contacted the Honorable Patrick D. McAnany. Mr. Hazlett requested that Judge McAnany invoke the provisions of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 221 with regard to the Respondent. See Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibit 30. After reviewing an affidavit provided by Mr. Badgerow, Judge McAnany agreed to invoke Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 221. See Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibits 31 and 32.
"81. Judge McAnany contacted attorney Joseph R. Horgan for assistance. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 00-5, Judge McAnany instructed Mr. Horgan to go to the Respondent's office, with the assistance of the Sheriff's department, and seize all client files and mail. See Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibit 32. On May 26, 2000, Mr. Horgan, with the assistance of the Sheriff's department, executed Judge McAnany's order.
"82. After seizing the client files and mail, Mr. Horgan screened each file, looking for time-sensitive matters and looking for complainants' files. Mr. Horgan was able to find five of the complainants' files: Ivy (DA7862), Burger (DA7836), Gerred (DA7867), Worley (DA7820), and Morgan (DA7896). Overall, Mr. Horgan took possession of approximately 60 to 70 client files.
"83. Finally, Mr. Horgan attempted to contact each of the clients listed on the files to notify them that if they needed their files, the files were in his possession. Mr. Horgan discovered that, in many of the files, a journal entry had not been prepared. In those cases, Mr. Horgan attempted to let the clients know that they needed to seek alternative counsel. On occasion, Mr. Horgan contacted the opposing counsel and requested that they prepare a journal entry to complete the case. Mr. Horgan was able to get in touch with approximately 25 clients.
"84. Pursuant to the order of Judge McAnany, at the time of the hearing on the Formal Complaint, Mr. Horgan still had possession of the Respondent's clients' files.
"Formal Proceedings
"85. On July 11, 2000, Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, filed a Formal Complaint in the above-captioned case. Also on July 11, 2000, Mr. Walczak filed a Notice of Hearing, setting the hearing on the Formal Complaint in the above-captioned case for September 12 and 13, 2000.
"86. The Formal Complaint and Notice of Hearing were sent to the Respondent, via