TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In Matter of Ruther

In the Matter of Scott L. Ruther, Respondent

In Matter of Ruther, 220 P.3d 369 (Kan. 2009)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 1, 2009
Docket
No. Bar Docket 12373
Citations
220 P.3d 369289 Kan. 11302009 Kan. LEXIS 1185

Opinion

In a letter signed on November 20, 2009, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Scott L. Ruther of Lenexa, Kansas, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 353).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a panel hearing was pending on a complaint in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 211 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321). The complaint concerns allegations of misconduct that Ruther violated Rules 1.1 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 410) (competence), 1.4 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 443) (lack of reasonable communication), 5.5 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 580) (unauthorized practice of law while his law license was suspended), 8.1 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) (failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process), and 8.4(c) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.

Additionally, two complaints were pending that alleged Ruther engaged in similar professional misconduct.

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Scott L. Ruther be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Scott L. Ruther from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

*1131 Dated this 1st day of December, 2009.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the official Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Mondragon, 220 P.3d 369 (Kan. 2009) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list