In a recent ruling on December 1, the Kansas Supreme Court found that a part-time lawyer did not violate disciplinary rules despite accusations of posting copied material on her website along with statements that raised ethical concerns. While acknowledging certain discrepancies, the court concluded that the lawyer’s actions did not amount to false or misleading communication.
Background
The subject of the ruling, Tarishawn D.D. Morton faced allegations related to her website content and statements. The court’s findings revealed that Morton had incorporated material from another lawyer’s website, displayed bar association logos despite her lapsed membership, and made assertions about her experience in the legal field.
Ethics Evaluation
Censure for Admissions Applications
While the Kansas Supreme Court did not identify ethics violations concerning Morton’s website content, it did criticize her for false statements or omissions in her admissions applications to both the Kansas and Colorado bars. The court found discrepancies in Morton’s disclosure of her professional history, leading to the censure.
Website Content Scrutiny
The court addressed specific issues with Morton’s website, such as using material from another lawyer, bar association logos, and statements about her experience. The copied material included summaries of caselaw, insights into Kansas domestic relations law, and details about the criminal trial process.
Statements About Experience
Despite assertions like “experience counts” and claims of being an “experienced legal counsel,” the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that these statements were not demonstrably false under the given circumstances. Morton’s law practice during evenings and weekends did not automatically render her claims misleading.
Use of Copied Material and Bar Association Logos
The court clarified that while copying material could potentially violate ethical bans, there was no conclusive evidence that Morton’s actions were intentional. Moreover, the inclusion of bar association logos was deemed not to be a material misrepresentation.
Practice Areas Listing
Morton’s website listed her practice areas as “criminal defense” and “personal injury,” specifying various case types within these categories. The court found no issue with this, stating that Morton was communicating the kinds of cases she was willing to accept and not claiming to be a specialist in a particular field.
Censure Reasons
The censure imposed on Morton was related to her failure to disclose a previous job termination in her 2016 application to the Kansas bar and falsely claiming voluntary resignation in her 2019 application to the Colorado bar. The court also noted that she should have updated her pending Colorado application to include information about the disciplinary complaint in Kansas.
Response from Morton
As of now, Tarishawn, D.D. Morton has not responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
