Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Docking

869 P.2d 237 (1994)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...

In re Docking

Kansas Supreme Court

869 P.2d 237 (1994)

Facts

Kent Docking (defendant) had practiced law for one year when he agreed to represent three Korean nationals who were facing felony criminal charges for aggravated kidnapping. Docking did not speak Korean and used an interpreter only occasionally. Docking also did not ask any other attorney to associate with him on the case. Docking never informed the clients about his possible conflict of interest in representing all three, gave them incorrect advice about making a plea deal, failed to fully investigate the case, failed to file a potentially successful motion to suppress one client’s incriminating statement, gave the clients inaccurate advice about their rights to appeal, and did not try to protect his clients from deportation. As a result of Docking’s representation, all three clients entered pleas of guilty that they did not intend to make. The trial court would not let the clients withdraw the mistaken pleas, and all three were sentenced to between five and 20 years in prison. The clients filed motions claiming that Docking’s inexperienced representation had denied them their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Docking testified on behalf of the clients, admitting his mistakes and inexperience. The court found that Docking’s representation had denied the clients a fair trial and vacated the criminal sentences. The prosecution declined to retry the case, and the clients were released after spending two and a half years in prison. A formal complaint was filed against Docking for several violations of the rules of professional responsibility, including handling a matter that he knew or should have known he was not competent to handle. Docking stipulated to the underlying facts and agreed with the recommendation that he should receive a public censure, i.e., reprimand. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation in order to make a final decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Concurrence (Abbott, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership