In re Arkell (

377 P.3d 414, 304 Kan. 754, 2016 Kan. LEXIS 318
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 7, 2016
DocketBar Docket 22161
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 377 P.3d 414 (In re Arkell () is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Arkell (, 377 P.3d 414, 304 Kan. 754, 2016 Kan. LEXIS 318 (kan 2016).

Opinion

In a letter signed June 30, 2016, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Daniel J. Arkell, an attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 390).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, five complaints had been docketed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation. The complaints alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 442) (competence); 1.7 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (conflicts of interest); 3.3 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 601) (candor to the tribunal); 4.4 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 632) (transaction with persons other than clients); and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (g) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disci-plinaiy Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Daniel J. Arkell be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Daniel J. Arkell from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re D.H.
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
377 P.3d 414, 304 Kan. 754, 2016 Kan. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arkell-kan-2016.