Kansas Lawyer Suspended for Conflict, Violating Court Order

A Kansas attorney who was romantically involved with a client but failed to take the steps required by professional ethics rules to continue representing her despite that conflict of interest has been suspended for two years by the state’s top court.

The Kansas Supreme Court rejected the six-month suspension recommended by the state disciplinary hearing panel, noting in its March 6 opinion that “despite the overwhelming evidence, respondent has refused to accept responsibility” for several rule violations.

Daniel Vincent Saville of Wichita began representing A.R. in 2006 in a driving under the influence of alcohol case. Soon after, he began a sexual relationship with her that continued “on-and-off” until 2015, the court said, citing the report from the panel’s hearing.

During this time, Saville represented A.R. in at least 10 separate legal matters and helped her financially “on a number of different occasions,” including paying her $25,000 bond in an aggravated battery case, the court said.

A.R. also filed a protection from stalking case against the attorney in 2009 and again in 2011, additional proof of his “significant conflict of interest in representing A.R.,” it said.

In 2015, Saville accused A.R. of stealing several items from him, including rings. During the trial for felony theft, the lawyer violated a sequestration order to talk with a witness about her testimony, the court said.

His violation of that order was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, it said.

Although Kansas has an ethics rule prohibiting sexual relationships after an attorney-client relationship is formed, the rule came into effect after Saville and A.R. began theirs so it doesn’t apply here, the court noted.

But aggravating factors do apply, it said, including past convictions of two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia; that the conflict spanned many years and Saville’s substantial experience practicing law.

While Saville didn’t acknowledge the wrongful nature of contacting the sequestered witness, the hearing panel concluded that defending that allegation doesn’t negate his cooperation, the court said.

The case is In re Saville, 2020 BL 84255, Kan., No. 121,050, 3/6/20.