## Facts

- R. Keith Mountain, a Kansas attorney, was retained by Rodney and Carol Mosier to handle the proposed adoption of the unborn child of Angela Searles; the Mosiers paid $250 toward a $500 fee and provided additional money intended to benefit the birth family.
- Mountain communicated with the Mosiers through a public health worker and the birth mother’s grandmother, then engaged directly with Angela Searles and her grandmother regarding the adoption.
- The disciplinary findings determined that Mountain held himself out as representing the Mosiers in the adoption while also representing himself to the birth mother as her attorney.
- After contact with the birth mother, Mountain proposed shifting the placement away from the Mosiers and toward another adoptive couple, suggesting the birth mother could receive $5,000 if she chose a different couple.
- Mountain advised the Mosiers that fetal tests showed abnormalities and urged them not to proceed; medical testimony indicated the test results were normal and had not been discussed with Mountain.
- The child was born healthy and was adopted by the second couple; Mountain charged that couple $17,000 in connection with the adoption, with $5,000 paid to the birth mother and no clear accounting for the remainder.
- The panel found additional financial improprieties and inconsistent explanations by Mountain, including conduct suggesting misuse or misapplication of funds and misleading statements about his role when the Mosiers retained new counsel.
- The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint; after a panel hearing, the panel recommended disbarment, and Mountain did not appear in the Supreme Court proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported findings that the attorney committed professional misconduct in an adoption placement.
2. Whether the attorney violated conflict-of-interest rules by purporting to represent prospective adoptive parents, the birth mother, and another adoptive couple in the same matter.
3. Whether misrepresentations regarding qualifications, fetal health, and the attorney’s role constituted dishonesty warranting discipline.
4. Whether the fee charged and handling of funds in connection with the adoption constituted improper financial conduct, including an excessive fee and failure to account.
5. What sanction was appropriate to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court accepted the panel’s essential findings as supported by substantial, clear, and convincing evidence.
- The Court found multiple violations of the Kansas Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility, including conflicts of interest, dishonesty, and improper handling of money.
- The Court determined that the attorney’s conduct in connection with arranging the adoption, including financial benefit tied to placement, was incompatible with professional obligations.
- The Court ordered disbarment and directed that the attorney’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not undertake representation where divided loyalties prevent the exercise of independent professional judgment, including representing multiple parties with directly adverse interests in the same transaction.
- Misrepresentation to clients or others about material facts relevant to representation, including medical information affecting client decisions, constitutes professional misconduct.
- Attorneys must handle money connected to representation with candor and accountability and may not charge or collect fees that are improper or excessive under professional standards.
- In determining discipline, a court may consider the cumulative effect of misconduct and impose the sanction necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court disbarred Mountain after finding clear and convincing evidence that, in an adoption matter, he engaged in conflicting representations, made material misrepresentations, and pursued improper financial gain without adequate accountability, rendering him unfit to practice law.


In re Mountain, 239 Kan. 412, 721 P.2d 264 (1986)