In re Heaven

Supreme Court of Kansas

In re Heaven

849 P.2d 136, 252 Kan. 274, 1992 Kan. LEXIS 211

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 29, 1992

DocketNo. 66,231

StatusPublished

This text of 849 P.2d 136 (In re Heaven) 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 Heaven, 849 P.2d 136, 252 Kan. 274, 1992 Kan. LEXIS 211 (kan 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

On July 12, 1991, this court placed respondent on one-year conditional probation with specific conditions of supervision. In re Heaven, 249 Kan. 224, 813 P.2d 928 (1991).

On November 4, 1992, the Disciplinary Administrator filed his report and recommendation to this court, in which he recommended that respondent, due to noncompliance with this court’s order of July 12, 1991, be suspended from the practice of law subject to readmission under Supreme Court Rule 219 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 180). The Disciplinary Administrator further recommended that the three-year eligibility requirement of Rule 219 be waived so that respondent may apply for readmission any time she desires to so proceed.

On November 19, 1992, respondent filed her reply to the Disciplinary Administrator’s report, in which she stated that she was in full compliance with the court’s order of July 12, 1991, and asked the court to release her from probation.

The court finds that respondent was placed on probation for one year “during which time she is not to engage in the private practice of law except when supervised by a person admitted to the practice of law in Kansas . . . .” 249 Kan. at 225.

The court further finds that respondent has not practiced law subsequent to being placed on probation and, therefore, is in compliance with this court’s order of July 12, 1991.

Therefore, this court, having reviewed the files and recommendations of the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that respondent JoElaine Heaven should be discharged from probation.

[275]*275Dated this 29th day of December, 1992.

It Is Therefore Ordered that respondent is discharged from probation and from any further obligation in this matter and that this proceeding is closed.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports and that the costs herein be assessed to the respondent.

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

On July 12, 1991, this court placed respondent on one-year conditional probation with specific conditions of supervision. In re Heaven, 249 Kan. 224, 813 P.2d 928 (1991).

On November 4, 1992, the Disciplinary Administrator filed his report and recommendation to this court, in which he recommended that respondent, due to noncompliance with this court’s order of July 12, 1991, be suspended from the practice of law subject to readmission under Supreme Court Rule 219 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 180). The Disciplinary Administrator further recommended that the three-year eligibility requirement of Rule 219 be waived so that respondent may apply for readmission any time she desires to so proceed.

On November 19, 1992, respondent filed her reply to the Disciplinary Administrator’s report, in which she stated that she was in full compliance with the court’s order of July 12, 1991, and asked the court to release her from probation.

The court finds that respondent was placed on probation for one year “during which time she is not to engage in the private practice of law except when supervised by a person admitted to the practice of law in Kansas . . . .” 249 Kan. at 225.

The court further finds that respondent has not practiced law subsequent to being placed on probation and, therefore, is in compliance with this court’s order of July 12, 1991.

Therefore, this court, having reviewed the files and recommendations of the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that respondent JoElaine Heaven should be discharged from probation.

[275]*275Dated this 29th day of December, 1992.

It Is Therefore Ordered that respondent is discharged from probation and from any further obligation in this matter and that this proceeding is closed.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports and that the costs herein be assessed to the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

849 P.2d 136, 252 Kan. 274, 1992 Kan. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-heaven-kan-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack