Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorney
attorneyrespondent

Related Cases

Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 655 A.2d 1354, 63 USLW 2641
View Case »
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
View Case »
Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626
View Case »
In re Tsoutsouris, 748 N.E.2d 856
View Case »
Felty v. Hartweg, 169 Ill.App.3d 406, 523 N.E.2d 555, 119 Ill.Dec. 799
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State v. Stakes, 227 Kan. 711, 608 P.2d 997

Facts

Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr. was the city attorney for Lansing, Kansas, and charged the city an excessive fee of $81,000 for legal services related to the Fawn Valley Subdivision project. The fee was drawn from temporary notes issued for the project, and while the city council was aware of the fee arrangement, the panel found that the fee was far beyond what was reasonable for the services provided. The panel dismissed a separate conflict of interest complaint against Stakes but focused on the excessive fee issue.

The formal complaint encompassed two separate complaints filed with the Board. The first matter involved alleged conflict of interest arising from certain dealings between American Roofing & Heating Co., Inc., and the City of Lansing, Kansas.

Issue

Did Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr. violate disciplinary rules by charging an excessive fee for legal services while acting as city attorney?

Did Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr. violate disciplinary rules by charging an excessive fee for legal services while acting as city attorney?

Rule

The court applied the disciplinary rule DR 2-106, which prohibits attorneys from charging illegal or clearly excessive fees, and established that the reasonableness of a fee must be determined based on the circumstances of each case.

The allegations of this complaint are that Wilbur S. Stakes acted unprofessionally in that he violated the provisions of DR 2-106(A).

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including the stipulations of fact and testimonies, and concluded that the $81,000 fee was excessive compared to the services rendered. The court noted that the fee was not approved by the city council and that Stakes had provided inconsistent explanations regarding the nature of the services for which he was charging. The court emphasized that the fee was paid from public funds and thus required a higher standard of scrutiny.

The evidence in this case does clearly establish that the notes and intended bonds were to be issued as general obligations of the City and were to be paid for by assessments within a benefit district.

Conclusion

The court upheld the panel's recommendation for indefinite suspension, concluding that Stakes' actions constituted a clear violation of the disciplinary rules regarding excessive fees.

It is therefore by the court considered, ordered and adjudged that Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr., be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period.

Who won?

The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys prevailed, as the court agreed with their findings and recommendations for indefinite suspension due to the violation of disciplinary rules.

The panel was unable to agree as to a recommendation concerning the discipline to be imposed. The record was then presented to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, two members not participating, which adopted the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended that the respondent be punished by indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

You must be