This is my ex-wife's first attorney...courtesy of the Virginia State Bar

January 5, 2006

James Bryan Pattison, 727 North 6th Street, Sterling, Kansas 67579

VSB Docket Number 06-000-2064

On December 29, 2005, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
suspended the law license of James Bryan Pattison, in response to a
one-year suspension of his license to practice law in Kansas. Kansas
disciplinary authorities found he had committed misconduct in his
romantic involvement with the mother of children for whom he served as
guardian ad litem, by wrongfully communicating with a represented
party, and by failing to appear in court on several petitions involving
children in need of care. Mr. Pattison has been ordered to appear
before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board on January 27, 2006,
to show cause why the same sanction should not be imposed in Virginia.

More from the Kansas Supreme Court:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 93,922

In the Matter of JAMES BRYAN PATTISON,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 21, 2005.
One-year suspension.

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

James Bryan Pattison, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original uncontested proceeding in discipline
filed by the Disciplinary Administrator's office against James Bryan
Pattison, of Hutchinson, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in
Kansas.

The formal complaint filed against respondent alleges numerous
violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). A
hearing before the panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of
Attorneys was held on November 16, 2004. Respondent appeared in person,
pro se. The hearing panel granted the Disciplinary Administrator's
motion to dismiss the allegation in Count II of the formal complaint.
The panel heard evidence that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2004 Kan.
Ct. R. Annot. 354); KRPC 1.7 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 391); 4.2 (2004
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 462), and KRPC 8.4 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 485).
The panel found, by clear and convincing evidence:


Count I
"2. On July 24, 2002, the Barton County Attorney's office filed four
Child in Need of Care (CINC) cases regarding T.A.D., T.J.D., M.I.M.,
and M.C.M. K.D. is the mother of the four children. T.D. is the father
of T.A.D. and T.J.D. M.M. is the father of M.I.M. and M.C.M.

"3. The Court appointed the Respondent to serve as Guardian ad Litem
for the four children.

"4. The Barton County Attorney's office filed four CINC cases alleging
that M.M. was abusing T.A.D. and T.J.D. by hitting them with a belt,
that the emotional and physical needs of the children were not being
met, and that K.D. was unable to protect her children.

"5. On July 26, 2002, the Court held the temporary custody hearing. At
that time, the Respondent, as the Guardian ad Litem, and the parents
stipulated that the children were in need of care. The Court placed the
children in the custody of SRS and recommended that the children be
placed outside the home.

"6. On September 3, 2002, K.D. underwent a parenting and psychological
evaluation at the Center for Counseling and Consultation by Gail
Sullivan. K.D. submitted to psychological tests. . . . The written
report of the evaluation was placed in the 'social file' of the CINC
cases. While the 'social file' is confidential, as Guardian ad Litem
the Respondent had access to the written report of the evaluation.

"7. Early in the case, Linda J. Knak, Assistant Barton County Attorney,
began suspecting that the Respondent was involved personally or
romantically with K.D. because he advocated K.D.'s position at the
hearings held in the CINC cases, because Ms. Knak observed the
Respondent and K.D. together in the hallway before and after hearings
held in the CINC cases, and because the Respondent made recommendations
in the CINC cases that were inconsistent with what other Guardians ad
Litem made in cases involving similar facts.

"8. Throughout the time when the CINC cases were pending, and while the
Respondent was acting as the Guardian ad Litem, the Respondent
communicated with K.D. regarding the case, without first obtaining the
consent of Don Reif, K.D.'s counsel. At some point, K.D. asked the
Respondent to see a copy of the complaint documents. The Respondent
provided the documents to K.D.

"9. By the end of 2002, the Respondent had developed an infatuation
with K.D. Despite the Respondent's feelings regarding K.D., he failed
to withdraw from his representation as Guardian ad Litem.

"10. Prior to a hearing held in the CINC cases in January, 2003, Ms.
Knak approached the Respondent and suggested that he needed to withdraw
from the case. The Respondent agreed. During the hearing, however, the
Respondent did not withdraw from the case. Rather, the Respondent asked
Magistrate Judge Marty Clark whether he believed that the Respondent
needed to withdraw. At that time, Magistrate Judge Clark was aware that
there were 'rumors that the Respondent and K.D. were involved
personally or romantically.' The Respondent neither admitted nor denied
that he was involved with K.D. at that time. Magistrate Judge Clark
told the Respondent that he did not need to withdraw.

"11. During one evening in February, 2003, the Respondent went to a
home of a friend of K.D.'s and assisted K.D. with babysitting seven
children, including K.D.'s four children. The Respondent and K.D.
watched a movie together. At some point during the evening, M.M. came
to the house. A disagreement arose. The Respondent and K.D. took her
four children and left the home. K.D. and the children spent the night
in a motel.

"12. On March 4, 2003, Ms. Knak again approached the Respondent and
told him that he needed to withdraw. Ms. Knak told the Respondent that
if he did not withdraw that she would file a motion and seek to have
him removed. The Respondent smiled and told Ms. Knak that 'it was
time.' That same day, the Respondent approached the bench after
Magistrate Judge Clark completed an unrelated matter and moved the
court to allow him to withdraw from his representation as the Guardian
ad Litem for the four boys. From what the Respondent told Magistrate
Judge Clark, the judge believed that the Respondent had become
romantically involved with K.D. Magistrate Judge Clark allowed the
Respondent to withdraw.

"13. On March 19, 2003, Ms. Knak filed a complaint with the
Disciplinary Administrator's office. John Gatz, the Chairman of the KBA
Ethics and Grievance Committee assigned Brock McPherson to investigate
the complaint. During the course of the investigation, Mr. McPherson
requested, on several occasions, that the Respondent call his office
and schedule a personal interview. The Respondent never called Mr.
McPherson's office to schedule a personal interview.

"14. Since that time, the children have been returned to the home of
the mother and the CINC cases have been concluded. K.D. and the four
boys reside with the Respondent in Wichita, Kansas."


Count III
"15. The District Court of Barton County, Kansas, appointed the
Respondent to serve as counsel for the father in a CINC case involving
O.W.S. The court scheduled the formal hearing for November 5, 2002. The
Respondent was provided with proper notice of the hearing. Without
explanation, the Respondent failed to appear at the formal hearing. As
a result, the court removed the Respondent [as] counsel for the father.


"16. The District Court of Barton County, Kansas, also appointed the
Respondent to serve as the Guardian ad Litem in a CINC case involving
H.W. The court scheduled a review hearing for March 4, 2003. The
Respondent was provided with proper notice of the hearing. Without
explanation, the Respondent failed to appear at the review hearing. The
court, then, removed the Respondent as Guardian ad Litem.

"17. The District Court of Ellsworth County, Kansas, appointed the
Respondent to represent Rodney G. Barnes in case number 02CR98. The
Court scheduled a pretrial conference for April 7, 2003, in Mr. Barnes'
case. The Respondent was provided with notice of the hearing. The
Respondent failed to appear at the pretrial conference. During the
hearing, Mr. Barnes informed the court that he had had no contact with
the Respondent since the arraignment held on December 19, 2002, that
the Respondent never informed him that the case was scheduled for a
jury trial, and that he had tried unsuccessfully to contact the
Respondent."

The panel made the following conclusions of law:

"1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a
matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.7, KRPC
4.2, and KRPC 8.4, as detailed below.

"2. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. In this case, the Respondent
failed to provide diligent representation to the father in In re
O.W.S., the child in In re H.W., and Mr. Barnes when he failed to
appear in court at scheduled hearings. Because the Respondent failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the father
in In re O.W.S., the child in In re H.W., and Mr. Barnes, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3.

"3. KRPC 1.7(b) provides:

'A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that
client may be materially limited . . . by the lawyer's own interests,
unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be
adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation . . . . '

In this case, the Respondent's own interests limited his ability to
represent the children in In re T.A.D., T.J.D., M.I.M., and M.C.M. When
the Respondent became personally and romantically involved with K.D.,
the Respondent developed a clear conflict of interest between his
duties to his wards and her personal feelings for K.D. Additionally,
the Respondent could not have reasonably believed that his
representation of the children would not be adversely affected.
Finally, the Respondent did not (and could not have) obtained the
consent of his wards. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent
violated KRPC 1.7(b).

"4. The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from
communicating with represented parties. See KRPC 4.2. That rule
specifically provides, as follows:

'In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the
subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the
consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.'

The Respondent communicated with K.D. regarding the CINC cases when he
knew K.D. was represented by Mr. Reif, without first obtaining Mr.
Reif's consent. The Respondent engaged in this behavior throughout the
pendency of the CINC cases. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that
the Respondent violated KRPC 4.2.

"5. KRPC 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

.. . . .

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;

.. . . .

(g) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's
fitness to practice law.

The Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) and KRPC 8.4(g), as detailed below:


"a. The Respondent engaged in conduct that was 'prejudicial to the
administration of justice,' when he failed to report that M.M. violated
the restraining order by having contact with K.D., T.A.D., and T.J.D.
Additionally, the Respondent prejudiced justice when he failed to
withdraw after he became 'infatuated' with K.D. Accordingly, the
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d).

"b. Becoming personally and romantically involved with K.D., while
serving [as] the Guardian ad Litem for her children in the CINC cases,
adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. As
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC
8.4(g)."

The panel then recommended as follows:

"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards').
Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty
violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury
caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or
mitigating factors.

"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to
provide diligent communication. The Respondent also violated his duty
to his clients to refrain from engaging in conflicts of interest.
Finally, the Respondent violated his duty to the legal system to
refrain from communicating with individuals in the legal system.

"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties.

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent
caused potential injury to the legal system and to the children
involved in the CINC cases.

"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of
discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for
discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following
aggravating factors present:

"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The Respondent has been previously
disciplined on one occasion. On March 8, 2000, the Fourth District,
Section I Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar publicly reprimanded
the Respondent for having violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(3),
and DR 7-102(A)(7).

"Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct was motivated by a selfish
interest - engaging in a personal or romantic relationship with K.D.

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct when he repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled court
hearings. The Respondent also engaged in a pattern of misconduct when
he continually and consistently, over a period of several months,
engaged in conduct that was in conflict with the interests of his
clients. Finally, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct
when he repeatedly communicated with a represented party without the
consent of adverse counsel.

"Vulnerability of Victim. The Respondent's four wards were vulnerable
to his misconduct. Additionally, as a young mother with four children,
K.D. was vulnerable to the Respondent's misconduct. The Respondent took
advantage of the vulnerability of K.D. and her four young children.

"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In
reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this
case, found the following mitigating circumstances present:

"Personal or Emotional Problems. Shortly before engaging in the
misconduct, the Respondent went through a difficult divorce after
having an affair with a student he taught at the junior college. This
was a troublesome time for the Respondent.

"Remorse. At the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent
expressed genuine remorse for failing to appear at scheduled court
hearings.

"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has
thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards:

'Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a client of
interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of
that conflict, and causes injury or potentially injury to a client.
Standard 4.32.

'Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in
communication with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer
knows that such communication is improper, and causes injury or
potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential
interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.' Standard 6.32.

"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards
listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas
for a period of one year. The Hearing Panel further recommends that the
Respondent be required to undergo a hearing, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct.
R. 219 [2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 312], prior to being allowed to resume
the practice of law."

The court, having considered the record herein and the reports of the
hearing panel, concurs in the findings, conclusions, and, in part, the
recommendation of the panel. These findings of fact establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, 1.7,
4.2, and 8.4, and support the panel's conclusions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that James Bryan Pattison be suspended from the
practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of 1 year,
effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court
Rule 203(a)(2) (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 237).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent forthwith comply with Supreme
Court Rule 218 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 301), that the costs of these
proceedings be assessed to the respondent, and that this opinion be
published in the official Kansas Reports.

LARSON, S.J., assigned.1

1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Edward Larson was assigned to hear case
No. 93,922 pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by
K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on the court resulting from Justice
Gernon's death.

END

| Keyword | Name » SupCt - CtApp | Docket | Date |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 93,922

In the Matter of JAMES BRYAN PATTISON,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 21, 2005.
One-year suspension.

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

James Bryan Pattison, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original uncontested proceeding in discipline
filed by the Disciplinary Administrator's office against James Bryan
Pattison, of Hutchinson, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in
Kansas.

The formal complaint filed against respondent alleges numerous
violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). A
hearing before the panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of
Attorneys was held on November 16, 2004. Respondent appeared in person,
pro se. The hearing panel granted the Disciplinary Administrator's
motion to dismiss the allegation in Count II of the formal complaint.
The panel heard evidence that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2004 Kan.
Ct. R. Annot. 354); KRPC 1.7 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 391); 4.2 (2004
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 462), and KRPC 8.4 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 485).
The panel found, by clear and convincing evidence:


Count I
"2. On July 24, 2002, the Barton County Attorney's office filed four
Child in Need of Care (CINC) cases regarding T.A.D., T.J.D., M.I.M.,
and M.C.M. K.D. is the mother of the four children. T.D. is the father
of T.A.D. and T.J.D. M.M. is the father of M.I.M. and M.C.M.

"3. The Court appointed the Respondent to serve as Guardian ad Litem
for the four children.

"4. The Barton County Attorney's office filed four CINC cases alleging
that M.M. was abusing T.A.D. and T.J.D. by hitting them with a belt,
that the emotional and physical needs of the children were not being
met, and that K.D. was unable to protect her children.

"5. On July 26, 2002, the Court held the temporary custody hearing. At
that time, the Respondent, as the Guardian ad Litem, and the parents
stipulated that the children were in need of care. The Court placed the
children in the custody of SRS and recommended that the children be
placed outside the home.

"6. On September 3, 2002, K.D. underwent a parenting and psychological
evaluation at the Center for Counseling and Consultation by Gail
Sullivan. K.D. submitted to psychological tests. . . . The written
report of the evaluation was placed in the 'social file' of the CINC
cases. While the 'social file' is confidential, as Guardian ad Litem
the Respondent had access to the written report of the evaluation.

"7. Early in the case, Linda J. Knak, Assistant Barton County Attorney,
began suspecting that the Respondent was involved personally or
romantically with K.D. because he advocated K.D.'s position at the
hearings held in the CINC cases, because Ms. Knak observed the
Respondent and K.D. together in the hallway before and after hearings
held in the CINC cases, and because the Respondent made recommendations
in the CINC cases that were inconsistent with what other Guardians ad
Litem made in cases involving similar facts.

"8. Throughout the time when the CINC cases were pending, and while the
Respondent was acting as the Guardian ad Litem, the Respondent
communicated with K.D. regarding the case, without first obtaining the
consent of Don Reif, K.D.'s counsel. At some point, K.D. asked the
Respondent to see a copy of the complaint documents. The Respondent
provided the documents to K.D.

"9. By the end of 2002, the Respondent had developed an infatuation
with K.D. Despite the Respondent's feelings regarding K.D., he failed
to withdraw from his representation as Guardian ad Litem.

"10. Prior to a hearing held in the CINC cases in January, 2003, Ms.
Knak approached the Respondent and suggested that he needed to withdraw
from the case. The Respondent agreed. During the hearing, however, the
Respondent did not withdraw from the case. Rather, the Respondent asked
Magistrate Judge Marty Clark whether he believed that the Respondent
needed to withdraw. At that time, Magistrate Judge Clark was aware that
there were 'rumors that the Respondent and K.D. were involved
personally or romantically.' The Respondent neither admitted nor denied
that he was involved with K.D. at that time. Magistrate Judge Clark
told the Respondent that he did not need to withdraw.

"11. During one evening in February, 2003, the Respondent went to a
home of a friend of K.D.'s and assisted K.D. with babysitting seven
children, including K.D.'s four children. The Respondent and K.D.
watched a movie together. At some point during the evening, M.M. came
to the house. A disagreement arose. The Respondent and K.D. took her
four children and left the home. K.D. and the children spent the night
in a motel.

"12. On March 4, 2003, Ms. Knak again approached the Respondent and
told him that he needed to withdraw. Ms. Knak told the Respondent that
if he did not withdraw that she would file a motion and seek to have
him removed. The Respondent smiled and told Ms. Knak that 'it was
time.' That same day, the Respondent approached the bench after
Magistrate Judge Clark completed an unrelated matter and moved the
court to allow him to withdraw from his representation as the Guardian
ad Litem for the four boys. From what the Respondent told Magistrate
Judge Clark, the judge believed that the Respondent had become
romantically involved with K.D. Magistrate Judge Clark allowed the
Respondent to withdraw.

"13. On March 19, 2003, Ms. Knak filed a complaint with the
Disciplinary Administrator's office. John Gatz, the Chairman of the KBA
Ethics and Grievance Committee assigned Brock McPherson to investigate
the complaint. During the course of the investigation, Mr. McPherson
requested, on several occasions, that the Respondent call his office
and schedule a personal interview. The Respondent never called Mr.
McPherson's office to schedule a personal interview.

"14. Since that time, the children have been returned to the home of
the mother and the CINC cases have been concluded. K.D. and the four
boys reside with the Respondent in Wichita, Kansas."


Count III
"15. The District Court of Barton County, Kansas, appointed the
Respondent to serve as counsel for the father in a CINC case involving
O.W.S. The court scheduled the formal hearing for November 5, 2002. The
Respondent was provided with proper notice of the hearing. Without
explanation, the Respondent failed to appear at the formal hearing. As
a result, the court removed the Respondent [as] counsel for the father.


"16. The District Court of Barton County, Kansas, also appointed the
Respondent to serve as the Guardian ad Litem in a CINC case involving
H.W. The court scheduled a review hearing for March 4, 2003. The
Respondent was provided with proper notice of the hearing. Without
explanation, the Respondent failed to appear at the review hearing. The
court, then, removed the Respondent as Guardian ad Litem.

"17. The District Court of Ellsworth County, Kansas, appointed the
Respondent to represent Rodney G. Barnes in case number 02CR98. The
Court scheduled a pretrial conference for April 7, 2003, in Mr. Barnes'
case. The Respondent was provided with notice of the hearing. The
Respondent failed to appear at the pretrial conference. During the
hearing, Mr. Barnes informed the court that he had had no contact with
the Respondent since the arraignment held on December 19, 2002, that
the Respondent never informed him that the case was scheduled for a
jury trial, and that he had tried unsuccessfully to contact the
Respondent."

The panel made the following conclusions of law:

"1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a
matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.7, KRPC
4.2, and KRPC 8.4, as detailed below.

"2. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. In this case, the Respondent
failed to provide diligent representation to the father in In re
O.W.S., the child in In re H.W., and Mr. Barnes when he failed to
appear in court at scheduled hearings. Because the Respondent failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the father
in In re O.W.S., the child in In re H.W., and Mr. Barnes, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3.

"3. KRPC 1.7(b) provides:

'A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that
client may be materially limited . . . by the lawyer's own interests,
unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be
adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation . . . . '

In this case, the Respondent's own interests limited his ability to
represent the children in In re T.A.D., T.J.D., M.I.M., and M.C.M. When
the Respondent became personally and romantically involved with K.D.,
the Respondent developed a clear conflict of interest between his
duties to his wards and her personal feelings for K.D. Additionally,
the Respondent could not have reasonably believed that his
representation of the children would not be adversely affected.
Finally, the Respondent did not (and could not have) obtained the
consent of his wards. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent
violated KRPC 1.7(b).

"4. The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from
communicating with represented parties. See KRPC 4.2. That rule
specifically provides, as follows:

'In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the
subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the
consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.'

The Respondent communicated with K.D. regarding the CINC cases when he
knew K.D. was represented by Mr. Reif, without first obtaining Mr.
Reif's consent. The Respondent engaged in this behavior throughout the
pendency of the CINC cases. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that
the Respondent violated KRPC 4.2.

"5. KRPC 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

.. . . .

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;

.. . . .

(g) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's
fitness to practice law.

The Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) and KRPC 8.4(g), as detailed below:


"a. The Respondent engaged in conduct that was 'prejudicial to the
administration of justice,' when he failed to report that M.M. violated
the restraining order by having contact with K.D., T.A.D., and T.J.D.
Additionally, the Respondent prejudiced justice when he failed to
withdraw after he became 'infatuated' with K.D. Accordingly, the
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d).

"b. Becoming personally and romantically involved with K.D., while
serving [as] the Guardian ad Litem for her children in the CINC cases,
adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. As
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC
8.4(g)."

The panel then recommended as follows:

"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards').
Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty
violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury
caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or
mitigating factors.

"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to
provide diligent communication. The Respondent also violated his duty
to his clients to refrain from engaging in conflicts of interest.
Finally, the Respondent violated his duty to the legal system to
refrain from communicating with individuals in the legal system.

"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties.

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent
caused potential injury to the legal system and to the children
involved in the CINC cases.

"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of
discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for
discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following
aggravating factors present:

"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The Respondent has been previously
disciplined on one occasion. On March 8, 2000, the Fourth District,
Section I Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar publicly reprimanded
the Respondent for having violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(3),
and DR 7-102(A)(7).

"Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct was motivated by a selfish
interest - engaging in a personal or romantic relationship with K.D.

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct when he repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled court
hearings. The Respondent also engaged in a pattern of misconduct when
he continually and consistently, over a period of several months,
engaged in conduct that was in conflict with the interests of his
clients. Finally, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct
when he repeatedly communicated with a represented party without the
consent of adverse counsel.

"Vulnerability of Victim. The Respondent's four wards were vulnerable
to his misconduct. Additionally, as a young mother with four children,
K.D. was vulnerable to the Respondent's misconduct. The Respondent took
advantage of the vulnerability of K.D. and her four young children.

"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In
reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this
case, found the following mitigating circumstances present:

"Personal or Emotional Problems. Shortly before engaging in the
misconduct, the Respondent went through a difficult divorce after
having an affair with a student he taught at the junior college. This
was a troublesome time for the Respondent.

"Remorse. At the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent
expressed genuine remorse for failing to appear at scheduled court
hearings.

"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has
thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards:

'Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a client of
interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of
that conflict, and causes injury or potentially injury to a client.
Standard 4.32.

'Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in
communication with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer
knows that such communication is improper, and causes injury or
potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential
interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding.' Standard 6.32.

"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards
listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas
for a period of one year. The Hearing Panel further recommends that the
Respondent be required to undergo a hearing, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct.
R. 219 [2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 312], prior to being allowed to resume
the practice of law."

The court, having considered the record herein and the reports of the
hearing panel, concurs in the findings, conclusions, and, in part, the
recommendation of the panel. These findings of fact establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, 1.7,
4.2, and 8.4, and support the panel's conclusions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that James Bryan Pattison be suspended from the
practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of 1 year,
effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court
Rule 203(a)(2) (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 237).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent forthwith comply with Supreme
Court Rule 218 (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 301), that the costs of these
proceedings be assessed to the respondent, and that this opinion be
published in the official Kansas Reports.

LARSON, S.J., assigned.1

1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Edward Larson was assigned to hear case
No. 93,922 pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by
K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on the court resulting from Justice
Gernon's death.

END


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keyword | Name » SupCt - CtApp | Docket | Date |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to: WebMaster, .
Updated: October 21, 2005.
URL: http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supc...1021/93922.htm.