Saturday, June 30, 2007

No Substantial Purpose

A lawyer representing a for-profit entity wrote and distributed a letter that accused opposing counsel of a conflict of interest. As a result, opposing counsel  decided to cease representing his client and complained to disciplinary counsel. The lawyer who wrote the letter violated Kansas Rule 4.4 by publishing a letter for no substantial purpose but to embarass opposing counsel. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the rule is not void for vagueness and that an objective standard, rather than the subjective view of the lawyer charged with a violation, controls. Further, the rule is violated when the conduct is directed to counsel rather than the opposing client. The court imposed a censure. (Mike Frisch)

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Substantial Purpose:


Post a comment