In re Dinkel (

333 P.3d 155, 300 Kan. 660, 2014 Kan. LEXIS 494

• Court: Supreme Court of Kansas
• Decided: September 3, 2014
• Docket: 111568
• Status: Published

Opinion

In a letter dated August 26, 2014, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Richard Dean Dinkel, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 396).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, review was pending before the Kansas Supreme Court on the final hearing report in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 212 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375). The hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct when he failed to respond to information from a disciplinary authority; Rule 8.4(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) when he was convicted of two felonies and two misdemeanors involving dishonesty, trustworthiness, or fitness; Rule 8.4(c) when he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty; and Rule 211(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356) by failing to file an answer to the formal complaint.

This court, having examined the files of the office of tire Disciplinary Administrator, finds the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Richard Dean Dinkel 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 Richard Dean Dinkel from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts remove the case of Richard Dean Dinkel from the September 12, 2014, docket.

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2014.

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 the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 218 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 406).