Kansas lawyer’s disciplinary case touches on baseball, murder, religion and morality

Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall wrote a spirited dissent in a legal ethics case filed against a Kansas attorney accused of excessive advocacy on behalf of a father dealing with a divorce and child custody dispute. The majority ordered that the attorney’s license be suspended for six months, but this suspension was commuted to 12 months probation. (Thad Allton for Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — Three members of the Kansas Supreme Court argued in a dissenting decision Friday that the majority’s decision to penalize an attorney for taking an aggressive approach in his client’s divorce and custody case could deter strong advocacy that is central to the administration of justice.

Judge Caleb Stegall, who wrote the dissent joined by Judges Melissa Standridge and KJ Wall, argued that the attorney misconduct case showed that investigators made a mistake by turning the state’s ethics code into a tool for fostering civility. The dissenting justices said the case demonstrated the “chilling effect on explosive or offensive allegations made on behalf of unpopular individuals or causes.”

The drama followed attorney Eric M. Gamble, who was involved in a 2019-2020 family law case in Kansas and Utah courts. It involved a mother who wanted to move the couple’s children to Kansas and possibly Mexico, despite the father’s reservations. It turns out that the mother’s large extended family was part of a separatist Mormon sect that immigrated to Mexico in the 1800s. And worryingly, he cited the 2019 murder of his wife by nine members of drug cartels in Mexico.

The mother, identified in court documents as SG, was represented by her sister in Wyandotte County District Court, and Gamble was retained to represent the father, also known as DG. The mother’s attorney filed an ethics complaint against Gamble.

The state Supreme Court majority concluded that Gamble’s conduct violated the state’s rules of professional ethics. The majority accepted the recommendation to suspend his law license for six months, but the sentence was commuted to 12 months probation. The Supreme Court based its decision on a statement signed by Gamble outlining his violations.

“The parties agree that these facts and others jointly presented establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions demonstrated ethical misconduct prejudicial to the course of justice,” the Supreme Court majority said. “While the opposition vociferously objects that the facts presented in the parties’ agreement are ’empty space,’ the defendant (Gamble) himself has stated that, for whatever reason, his actions are objectionable, unnecessary, improper” and “prejudicial to the administration.” unjust and unethical.

In the majority opinion, the six justices said that no limits on aggression in court cases would “epitomize a form of absolute nonviolent warfare in which maximum ends justify maximum means.” They said that practicing law, just like obeying the law, begins with respectful behavior. They argued that the code of conduct represented the land from which justice and civil society were born.

“Since the scorched earth strategy risks undermining the framework of justice within which the case operates, prudent counsel should opt for it only as a last resort, if at all possible,” the majority opinion said.

The case represented the fourth time Gamble was disciplined by the state for ethical lapses since he was licensed to practice law more than 15 years ago. In the past, Gamble’s behavior has led to distraction, an unofficial caution and a six-month suspension.

In this case, in the written statement made by Gamble and the complainants, it was stated that the mother made unnecessary statements about her legal counsel. He had requested an expedited hearing on a motion but did not call a witness or present evidence to substantiate the allegations made in writing. He included irrelevant information about the mother in court filings and claimed that SG was a “forum shopping” attorney in Kansas.

Stegall, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, said the case outlines a pattern in which administrators of the Kansas Lawyers Disciplinary Board “use the code as a sword rather than a shield.”

Stegall explained why he signed the facts requirement into Gamble’s dissenting comments to the court, stating that he violated the state’s code of conduct.

“I chose to plead guilty to a violation in this case simply because I felt it was the best thing to do for myself, my family, my practice and the clients I represent,” Gamble said. “I believe that by having to state facts, make arguments… I caused some pretty intense emotions, and that put a lot of pressure on people. I did not do this to be malicious or spiteful because I thought these facts were relevant to defending my client’s position. “I think I went a little too far.”

Stegall, in a dissenting opinion joined by two Democratic Government appointees, said Laura Kelly’s case should not be sent to the Supreme Court by the disciplinary board.

“Beyond that, after a thorough review of the record, I have never seen such a blatantly unfair and unreasonable investigation of discipline,” Stegall said. “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, once again, our ethics rules are being used to deter and deter the vigorous advocacy that our justice system needs to ensure the protection of the rights of all litigants in our courts.”

Stegall drew attention to the character played by Tom Hanks in 1992 in “A League of Their Own,” in which Hanks played the manager of a professional baseball team in the women’s league. In the film, Hanks declared: “There’s no crying in baseball.”

“This is a message that the Kansas bar association and board, as well as our disciplinary administrator’s office, should heed,” Stegall wrote. “Litigation, unlike baseball, is an intense activity. Stressful. Sue. Pitches thrown high and tight. Bang-bang is playing. But no crying. And if the run-of-the-mill case is regular-season baseball, custody disputes between warring parents resemble Game 7 between bitter rivals in October. A lesson from today’s case clearly illustrates this.”