 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IN RE GRIGGS12/9/1994
This is an uncontested attorney disciplinary matter. The original proceedings in discipline were filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Ross B. Griggs, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. Two separate complaints were filed, cases No. B5729 and No. 5757, which were set separately for hearing before the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. Respondent failed to appear at either hearing. Both cases were heard by this court on the same day. Respondent stated that he is in the oil and gas business. Although no longer engaged in the private practice of law, he requests that he retain his license to practice. Respondent suggests public censure. We reject the suggestion and impose indefinite suspension.
The essential facts, as determined by the panel, are not in dispute. Griggs has admitted the allegations in both complaints. He states that his answer should be considered to be an admission under Supreme Court Rule 212(d) (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 180).
Case No. B5729 — Ronald D. Mousel
In April of 1990, Ronald D. Mousel, a Nebraska attorney, contacted Griggs to employ him in an effort to collect a Nebraska judgment. Griggs agreed to represent Mousel in the collection of the judgment.
On January 29, 1991, Griggs sent Mousel a letter asking Mousel to send Griggs an authenticated copy of the Nebraska judgment. On February 5, 1991, Mousel responded to Griggs' request for information. An authenticated copy of the judgment was provided
to Griggs, and the information requested by Griggs' correspondence to Mousel was also provided.
From March 14, 1991, through February 12, 1992, Mousel wrote Griggs seven times inquiring about the status of the case. Mousel pointed out to Griggs that the judgment would become dormant if it were not executed upon.
The Disciplinary Panel's Final Report
The following pertinent findings and recommendations were made by the panel:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
. . . .
"5. Basically the Respondent did nothing further on the case after February of 1991.
"6. Although the Disciplinary Administrator's Office wrote the Respondent a number of times and attempted to contact him a number of times, the Respondent failed to provide any response to the Complaint and would not return phone calls. He also did not provide a response to the letter of the Disciplinary Administrator's letter of February 16, 1993. He also never responded to any written requests from Karl R. Swartz, the investigator in this matter."
"MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES"
"The Respondent was informally admonished in June of 1989 in . . . No. B4566.
"The Respondent was issued an Order of Suspension from the Supreme Court of Kansas on November 4, 1993, for failing to pay his attorney registration fee for 1993."
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"In reaching its decision the Hearing Panel finds the following law is applicable to matters before the Panel.
"1. MRPC 1.1 [1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 258] [competence] provides as follows: `A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.'
"2. MRPC 1.3 [1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 263] [diligence] provides as follows: `A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.'
"3. MRPC 1.4 [1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 267] [communication] provides as fo
Page 1 2 3 Kansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|