Kline Not Guilty of Contempt But Only Idiocy

[Big Unit]

I'm guessing most of you have already read about the Kansas Supreme Ct.'s decision granting the requests for medical record privacy by the clinics whose records were subpeonaed by Kline. What you may not have gone far enough to read yet were the comments in the 17-page opinion regarding just how close Kline came to being cited for criminal contempt of court. In fact, it looks to me like the Supreme Ct. decided to let him off the hook out of respect for the separation of powers or some other sense of propriety. This is what Justice Carol Beier said starting at the bottom of p.15:

"Kline's initial responses were troubling. He admitted that he attached sealed court records to a brief he knew would be unsealed; that he did so knowingly because, in his sole estimation, he believed it to be necessary to further his arguments; that he held a press conference on this criminal matter merely because he determined that petitioners had painted his previous actions in an unflattering light; and that he later permitted his staff to provide electronic copies of the sealed transcript to anyone who requested them. IN ESSENCE, Kline has told this court that HE DID WHAT HE DID SIMPLY BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT HE KNEW BEST HOW HE SHOULD BEHAVE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS COURT HAD ORDERED, AND THAT HIS PRIORITIES SHOULD TRUMP WHATEVER PRIORITIES THIS COURT HAD SET. FURTHERMORE ... KLINE'S STATED REASON FOR HOLDING THE CONFERENCE ... DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AMONG THE PERMISSIBLE REASONS FOR AN ATTORNEY IN HIS POSITION TO ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS UNDER Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6. <2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 473>. THIS TOO IS TROUBLING. ...

... We conclude that, despite the attorney general's initial defiant tone, he sould not be held in contempt at this time." (Emphasis added).

I wonder if the attorney general has been reported to the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation of violating Rule 3.6 as mentioned above. He may not have been determined to have been guilty of criminal contempt, but violation of the rules that govern the conduct of all attorneys practicing law in Kansas is a different inquiry.

[atommom]

1. Personally, I don't think they should have let him off the hook.

He has shown contempt for the court, and for the laws of the state he works in. He does not deserve any special consideration.

[Mabus]

2. Good catch

Let's hope he does it again, real soon. You know how the Disciplinary committee doesn't like repeat offenders especially when they keep violating the same code. On the other hand, maybe they are waiting for Kline's license to expire AGAIN.