In Re Docking
1994 Kan. LEXIS 31, 869 P.2d 237, 254 Kan. 921 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the rules of professional conduct by handling a legal matter they know or should know they are not competent to handle without associating with a competent lawyer, and by representing multiple clients with conflicting interests without full disclosure and consent.
Facts:
- In 1985, Kent Owen Docking was admitted to the Kansas bar.
- One year later, Docking was retained to represent three Korean nationals who were each charged with two counts of aggravated kidnapping.
- Docking represented all three defendants simultaneously, meeting with them sometimes with and sometimes without an interpreter.
- The defendants pleaded guilty to amended charges of kidnapping.
- A subsequent judicial review found that Docking had no felony trial experience, had not associated with a competent lawyer, and failed to explain the potential conflicts of interest to his clients or obtain their waiver.
- The review also found Docking failed to properly investigate the case, did not ensure simultaneous translation during proceedings, and gave erroneous legal advice regarding the ability to withdraw pleas and the right to appeal.
- Docking also failed to advise his clients, who were illegal aliens, to request that the court recommend against deportation at their sentencing hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Three defendants retained Kent Owen Docking after being charged with aggravated kidnapping in state trial court.
- The defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to imprisonment.
- Docking's motion to withdraw the pleas was denied, but a subsequent motion to modify the sentences was granted.
- The defendants later filed K.S.A. 60-1507 motions in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by Docking.
- After a hearing, the trial court judge found Docking's assistance was ineffective, vacated the sentences, and set aside the guilty pleas.
- The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Docking with the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys.
- The hearing panel, based on stipulated facts, found Docking violated several disciplinary rules and recommended public censure to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's representation of multiple criminal defendants in a serious felony case, undertaken without adequate experience, proper investigation, or management of conflicts of interest, constitute professional misconduct warranting public censure?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney's inexperienced and incompetent representation of multiple criminal defendants with conflicting interests violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants public censure. The court adopted the findings of the hearing panel, which were based on stipulated facts showing Docking violated multiple disciplinary rules. Specifically, Docking violated DR 5-105(A) and (B) by representing clients with conflicting interests and DR 6-101(A)(1) by handling a legal matter he was not competent to handle. In determining the sanction, the court considered mitigating factors under ABA standards, including Docking's inexperience and his absence of a prior disciplinary record, and concluded that public censure was the appropriate discipline.
Concurring - Abbott, J.
Yes, but this holding should be narrowly construed. While concurring in the result, the opinion should not be interpreted to establish a general rule that recent law school graduates are incompetent to handle felony cases, nor that an attorney must always associate with co-counsel who speaks the client's primary language. Competence is case-specific, and effective communication can be achieved through a qualified interpreter. This case represents an exception due to the severity of the crime and unique facts, not the rule for all inexperienced attorneys.
Analysis:
This case serves as a foundational warning to new attorneys about the ethical duties of competence and loyalty. It underscores that inexperience is not an excuse for incompetent representation and imposes an affirmative duty on attorneys to either decline cases beyond their expertise or associate with experienced counsel. The decision also reinforces the high-risk nature of multiple representation in criminal cases, emphasizing the necessity of fully disclosing potential conflicts and obtaining informed consent. The concurrence provides a crucial limiting principle, ensuring the ruling doesn't create a prohibitive barrier for new lawyers seeking experience in criminal law.
