Home  >  Kansas  >  Rucker files motion to reconsider probable cause finding in attorney ethics case

Rucker files motion to reconsider probable cause finding in attorney ethics case

By   /   January 25, 2010  /   3 Comments

Phill Kline and his two deputies, Eric Rucker and Stephen Maxwell, are all facing attorney ethics complaints from the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys.

On Monday Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Kansas Judiciary, released the 7 page response from Eric Rucker to the complaint filed against him. 

Rucker’s attorney released a separate motion to reconsider along with compelling evidence from an investigative report from the Disciplinary Administrator’s own investigators. 

See Rucker’s reply and motion to reconsider below:


Eric Rucker’s Reponse to Attorney Ethics Complaint before Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys


Rucker’s attorney released this motion to reconsider:


Motion to Reconsider Probable Cause Finding in Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys Case Against Eric Rucker

This motion describes the 22,087 pages of evidence collected as part of an investigation by the Disciplinary Administrator.

Included in the 22,087 pages was an “Investigative Report” by the Disciplinary Administrator’s own investigators.  The Disciplinary Administrator received this report May 22, 2008, and was attached to Rucker’s motion.

The motion quoted the Investigative Report:  “We believe the record supports the notion the Respondent Kline did not seek the identities of adult women,” which was a matter the investigators specifically looked at.

The Supreme Court tasked District Court Judge David King to conduct an investigation of the same matter.  King issued his report on Jan 10, 2008.   In the “King Report” King found that Kline’s “purpose [of the hotel guest subpoenas] was to attempt to use the registration records to obtain the identity of WHCS patient’s [sic] who were minor’s [sic].”

According to the motion, “in the Sedgwick County case State v. Tiller, the Court made factual findings that rejected the allegations that adult identities were sought.”  Judge Owens heard extensive testimony on this matter and issued his “Owens Opinion” in Feb. 2009.

The motion to reconsider concluded by asking four questions:

  1. Who were the members of the Review Committee making probable cause findings in this matter?
  2. Was the Investigative Report submitted to the Review Committee for their consideration?
  3. Was the King Report submitted to the Review Committee for their consideration?
  4. Was the Owens Opinon submitted to the Review Committee for their consideration?

The Investigative Report also said:

“After review the substantial documentation in this case, it is the opinion of these investigators that there is not probable cause to prove that Phill Kline violated any of the rules of ethics.”

This Investigative Report by the Disciplinary Administrator’s own investigators was not cited in the recent complaint against Phill Kline.


 This article will be update with additional analysis at a late time.


Contact: Earl F Glynn, earl@kansaswatchdog.org

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Earl Glynn