In re Stover
Kansas Supreme Court
278 Kan. 835, 104 P.3d 394 (2005)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Kathy A. Stover was at one time licensed to practice law in Kansas and Missouri. Stover resided in Wisconsin, where she was not licensed to practice law, and allowed her Kansas license to be suspended for failure to pay the inactive registration fee. Stover offered to serve as a business manager and attorney to musician Michael Jahnz. Jahnz asked Stover to represent him in a dispute he had with a roofing contractor for his personal home in Kansas. Stover proceeded to draft letters, conduct phone conversations, and make demands to the contractor as Jahnz’s attorney. Stover then began harassing Jahnz and his family, which led to him terminating their professional relationship and filing suit in Wisconsin state court for slander, breaches of right to privacy, legal malpractice, and other claims. Stover did not comply with the order of the Wisconsin court and was found to have committed perjury. The court held Stover in contempt, and she was subsequently jailed. Following the Wisconsin court’s decision in favor of Jahnz, the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator was notified of Stover’s conduct. The administrator filed a formal complaint against Stover for the illegal practice of law. Stover was apparently hospitalized at the time and never filed a response. Nevertheless, a panel held a hearing regarding the complaint and found that Stover had violated several provisions of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
