## Facts

- A Kansas attorney, admitted in 1985, was retained in 1986 to represent three Korean nationals charged with two counts each of aggravated kidnapping; he received a separate fee from each.
- The attorney did not speak Korean and used an interpreter only intermittently, including meetings conducted without an interpreter despite the clients’ limited English proficiency.
- After a preliminary hearing, the defendants were bound over for trial and later pleaded guilty to amended kidnapping charges (Class B felonies).
- The attorney moved to withdraw the pleas, asserting communication problems and misunderstanding of plea terms; the trial court denied the motions and imposed prison sentences later reduced on modification.
- The defendants later filed postconviction motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; after an evidentiary hearing, the court vacated the sentences and the State declined retrial, resulting in the defendants’ release after roughly two and one-half years.
- In an original disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary administrator charged the attorney with multiple professional-rule violations tied to (1) representing all three co-defendants despite conflicts and (2) undertaking a serious felony defense he was not competent to handle without adequate preparation or association with experienced counsel.
- The attorney stipulated to the material facts and agreed with the hearing panel’s recommended sanction of public censure.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney violated conflict-of-interest rules by representing three co-defendants with differing interests without effective informed consent after full disclosure.
2. Whether the attorney violated the competence rule by handling a serious felony matter he knew or should have known he was not competent to handle without adequate preparation or association with competent counsel.
3. What discipline was appropriate in light of the violations and mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court found violations of DR 5-105(A), DR 5-105(B) (conflicts in multiple representation), and DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a matter the lawyer is not competent to handle).
- The court adopted the hearing panel’s recommendation and ordered public censure.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer must decline or discontinue multiple representation when independent professional judgment is likely to be adversely affected or when clients’ interests differ, unless proper consent is obtained after full disclosure. (DR 5-105(A), (B))
- A lawyer may not handle a legal matter the lawyer knows or should know the lawyer is not competent to handle, absent adequate preparation or association with competent counsel. (DR 6-101(A)(1))
- In determining sanction, the court may consider mitigating factors such as cooperation in the disciplinary process, stipulations to misconduct, candor, and lack of intentional wrongdoing, while still prioritizing protection of the public and the integrity of the profession.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court publicly censured an attorney who jointly represented three criminal co-defendants despite apparent conflicts and who undertook a serious felony defense without the competence and preparation required by the disciplinary rules, emphasizing the duties of loyalty and competent representation in high-stakes criminal matters.


In re Docking, 254 Kan. 921, 869 P.2d 237 (Kan. 1994)