## Facts

- Ruth Fulton, an elderly California resident, owned 320 acres of family land in Butler County, Kansas, and decided to sell it in 1974.
- Lowell Lygrisse agreed to buy the land and suggested that Kansas attorney John Callahan handle the transaction for both buyer and seller.
- Callahan prepared the sale documents based on terms supplied by Lygrisse and did not consult Fulton about the deal structure or risk.
- The arrangement allowed Lygrisse to pay in installments but did not give Fulton a mortgage or other effective lien securing the unpaid balance.
- Fulton signed the documents believing Callahan was acting for her benefit and protecting her interests in the transaction.
- After the sale, Callahan acted as Lygrisse’s personal attorney.
- Lygrisse failed to make the final payment to Fulton.
- Believing she had a secured interest, Fulton repeatedly contacted Callahan seeking to start foreclosure proceedings.
- Callahan repeatedly told Fulton to give Lygrisse more time rather than taking steps to protect Fulton’s position or advising her to obtain separate counsel.
- The following year, Fulton traveled to Kansas to confront Callahan about foreclosing; Callahan then told her he could not represent her because of a conflict based on his representation of Lygrisse.
- Callahan later informed Fulton that she did not have a mortgage, only a promissory note.
- Fulton retained another attorney and filed a malpractice action against Callahan; Callahan filed bankruptcy and received a discharge, and Fulton was never paid the final installment.
- A complaint was filed with Kansas disciplinary authorities; a disciplinary panel found multiple violations and recommended indefinite suspension.
- Callahan appealed in an original disciplinary proceeding before the Kansas Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Callahan violated professional-responsibility rules by handling the land sale for both buyer and seller without full disclosure and informed consent, given his relationship with the buyer.
2. Whether Callahan’s drafting of documents that left Fulton unsecured, combined with his later conduct and communications after default, constituted dishonesty or deceit warranting attorney discipline.
3. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and resulting harm.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court, in an original disciplinary proceeding, agreed that Callahan committed professional misconduct in connection with the Fulton–Lygrisse transaction and its aftermath.
- The court rejected Callahan’s claim that he was merely a neutral scrivener, finding that Fulton relied on him as her lawyer in a transaction involving adverse interests.
- The court determined that Callahan’s undisclosed conflict and his conduct relating to the transaction and Fulton’s later efforts to protect herself amounted to misconduct, including deceit and dishonesty.
- The court imposed indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer who undertakes to represent multiple parties in a transaction must make full disclosure of conflicts and may proceed only with informed consent.
- A prior or ongoing attorney-client relationship with one party is a conflict that must be clearly disclosed before the lawyer can act for both sides.
- A lawyer cannot avoid professional duties by labeling the work “document preparation” when a client reasonably relies on the lawyer for advice and protection.
- Misleading a client about the existence of security or delaying action while favoring another client can constitute dishonesty and deceit, not just poor judgment.
- In attorney discipline, the court’s goal is protection of the public and the integrity of the profession; serious conflict-based misconduct causing financial harm can justify indefinite suspension.

## Conclusion

State v. Callahan is an attorney-discipline case in which the Kansas Supreme Court indefinitely suspended John Callahan for handling a Kansas farm sale for both buyer and seller without full conflict disclosure, drafting documents that left the elderly seller effectively unsecured, and later giving advice and reassurances that protected the buyer while delaying the seller’s attempts to enforce payment, conduct the court treated as deceitful and dishonest.


State v. Callahan, 652 P.2d 708 (1982)