In Re Stanley

237 P.3d 667, 291 Kan. 52, 2010 Kan. LEXIS 613
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedAugust 23, 2010
DocketBar Docket 13143
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 P.3d 667 (In Re Stanley) 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 Stanley, 237 P.3d 667, 291 Kan. 52, 2010 Kan. LEXIS 613 (kan 2010).

Opinion

In a letter signed August 18, 2010, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent James F. Stanley, 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 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 353).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a panel hearing was pending on two complaints in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 211 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321). The complaints alleged that respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 410) (competence); 1.3 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 426 (diligence); 1.4 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 443) (communication); 1.5(d) and (e) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 460) (fees); 1.8(a) and (j) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 483) (conflict of interest, acquiring interest in cause of action); 8.4 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (misconduct); and Supreme Court Rule 207 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303) (failure to cooperate with Disciplinary Administrator).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the 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 James F. Stanley be and 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 James F. Stanley 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 *53 respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361).

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2010.

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

Related

In Re Stanley
237 P.3d 667 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 P.3d 667, 291 Kan. 52, 2010 Kan. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stanley-kan-2010.