In Re Mountain
721 P.2d 264, 239 Kan. 412, 1986 Kan. LEXIS 363 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates their duty of loyalty and engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit by representing clients in an adoption while simultaneously engineering the adoption of the same child by another, more lucrative party through misrepresentation.
Facts:
- Rodney and Carol Mosier retained attorney R. Keith Mountain to represent them in the adoption of a child to be born to Angela Searles.
- The Mosiers paid Mountain a fee and also provided him with $300 to be given to the birth mother's grandmother, Edna Searles, for financial assistance.
- Mountain began communicating with Edna Searles, leading her to believe he was her attorney and convincing her that the Mosiers were not financially stable enough to adopt the child.
- Mountain suggested to Edna Searles that another couple could adopt the child and that she would receive $5,000 under this new arrangement.
- Mountain then falsely informed Carol Mosier that medical tests indicated the fetus had abnormalities and that the adoption would become 'messy,' thereby persuading the Mosiers to abandon the adoption.
- While still formally representing the Mosiers, Mountain had already made arrangements with another couple to adopt the baby for a total payment of $17,000 to his trust account.
- After Angela Searles gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Mountain completed the adoption with the second couple.
- Mountain paid Edna Searles a total of $5,000 from the funds received from the second couple.
Procedural Posture:
- A formal disciplinary complaint was filed against attorney R. Keith Mountain by the state disciplinary administrator.
- Mountain filed an answer denying he had violated any ethical duty.
- A hearing was conducted before a disciplinary panel.
- The disciplinary panel issued a final report containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation that Mountain be disbarred.
- Mountain took exceptions to the panel's report, appealing the matter 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 violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing adoptive parents while simultaneously arranging for the child to be adopted by a different couple for a significantly higher fee, deceiving the original clients with false information to induce them to withdraw, and charging an excessive fee?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court (Per Curiam)
Yes. The attorney's conduct violates multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court affirmed the disciplinary panel's findings that the attorney's actions constituted representing clients with conflicting interests, engaging in dishonesty and misrepresentation by lying to his clients about the fetus's health, failing to carry out his contract of employment with his original clients, acting as a 'procurer of a baby for adoption,' charging a clearly excessive fee, and improperly handling his client trust account. The court found that these severe ethical breaches warranted disbarment.
Analysis:
This case serves as a stark example of a severe breach of an attorney's fiduciary duties of loyalty and honesty. The court's decision to disbar the attorney underscores that engaging in self-dealing and conflicts of interest for financial gain, particularly in the sensitive area of adoption law, is among the most serious forms of professional misconduct. The ruling reinforces the principle that an attorney cannot treat an adoption as a commercial transaction or act as a 'baby broker,' and that such conduct will result in the ultimate professional sanction.
