Leavenworth Attorney’s petition for reinstatement granted with condition by the Supreme Court of Kansas

On December 2, 2022, The Supreme Court of Kansas Granted the Petition for reinstatement upon compliance with the requirements of Leavenworth Attorney, Curtin N. Holmes over the case of Unauthorized practice of Law. The case is entitled “In the Matter of Curtis N. Holmes” with Case No. 118-310.

The charges cited Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (communication), 1.16(a)(1) (withdrawing from representation), KRPC 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law); 8.1 (false statement in connection with disciplinary matter), 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 262) (notification of clients upon suspension).

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here. 

In May 2018, the respondent was suspended for 1 year after Holmes continued to practice Law despite already being suspended for not paying his annual registration fee. In May 2019, he filed a petition for reinstatement but failed to have so because according to the hearing panel, he had not met his burden of proving the factors in supreme CourtRule 232(e)(4) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R.at295) weighed in favor of reinstatement.  According to the court, to establish that the respondent is eligible for reinstatement, he has the burden of proof to establish that the petitioner is fit to practice law. The Court discussed in length if the Respondent has all the factors that can establish this burden of proof. 

The Order states:

‘The petitioner’s current moral fitness does not appear to be at issue in this reinstatement matter. The evidence showed the petitioner has a supportive family, engages with his church, and has no criminal history. There was no evidence presented that the petitioner has engaged in conduct since his suspension which would indicate he is morally unfit.’

The Order continues:

‘The Petitioner’s Consciousness of the Wrongful Nature of the Petitioner’s Misconduct and the Disrepute the Misconduct Brought the Profession. The petitioner characterized the underlying misconduct that resulted in his suspension as ‘ mistakes of omission. ‘ Specifically, he testified that he was angry that a late fee was assessed against him and thus neglected to pay the fee. Further, he said that he engaged in willful ignorance by waiting several days to pick up certified mail from the Supreme Court that he suspected might be notified of his administrative suspension. Finally, the petitioner testified that he was not fully forthcoming with the disciplinary administrator’s office and the Supreme Court regarding his conduct during disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner’s characterization of his misconduct is evidenced that he is not conscious of the wrongful nature of his misconduct and the disrepute his misconduct brought to the profession. Instead, the petitioner showed that he does not genuinely appreciate the severity of his misconduct and the negative effect it had on the profession, his former clients, the legal system, and the public. Further, the petitioner generally minimized his disciplinary history, including his misconduct that resulted in three separate informal admonitions since his suspension. The petitioner testified during the hearing that one of the informal admonitions he received ‘ was so minor and it was essentially forgotten.’

The Order further states:

‘The disciplinary administrator presented evidence that the petitioner resolved complaints with the disciplinary administrator’s office via three separate informal admonitions on July 23, 2020, July 24, 2020, and January 8, 2021. There was no evidence of any unresolved disciplinary complaints against the petitioner. As a result, the hearing panel concludes there is clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has resolved all other complaints against him as required by this factor.’

With all these foregoing facts and analysis of the court, it decided that the respondent can be reinstated with compliance of the following requirements:

The Disposition states:

“It Is THEREFORE ORDERED that Holmes pay all required reinstatement and registration fees to the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) and complete continuing legal education requirements. See Supreme Court Rule 812 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 618), as amended effective July 1, 2022 (outlining CLE requirements following reinstatement). Upon completion of these requirements, Curtis Holmes is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas. The court directs that once OJA receives proof of Holmes’ completion of these conditions, it adds Holmes’ name to the roster of attorneys actively engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.”

As of today, Mr. Holmes is listed on the website of the law firm Law at Holmes Law Office, LLC as a practicing attorney. His info can be found on LinkedIn. Holmes practices in Leavenworth, Kansas. He has been licensed in Kansas.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.