Kansas attorney disciplinary case touches on baseball, murder, religion — and ethics

TOPEKA — Three members of the Kansas Supreme Court claimed in a Friday dissent that the majority’s decision to punish an attorney for taking an aggressive approach in a client’s divorce and child-custody case could discourage vigorous advocacy central to administration of justice.

Justice Caleb Stegall, who wrote the dissent joined by Justices Melissa Standridge and K.J. Wall, asserted the attorney misconduct case laid bare a pattern in which investigators erred by twisting the state’s ethics code into a tool for enforcing civility. The dissenting justices said the case illustrated the “chilling effect on what may be explosive or uncomfortable allegations made on behalf of unpopular people or causes.”

The drama centered on attorney Eric M. Gamble, who became entangled in a 2019-2020 family law case that played out in Kansas and Utah courts. It involved a mother who wanted to move the couple’s children to Kansas and potentially Mexico despite the father’s reservations. It revealed the mother’s large extended family was part of a break-away Mormon sect that migrated to Mexico in the 1800s. And, alarmingly, it touched on the 2019 murder by drug cartels of nine members of the wife’s family in Mexico.

The mother, identified in court documents as S.G., was represented by her sister in Wyandotte County District Court at the same time Gamble was hired to represent the father, otherwise known as D.G. The mother’s attorney filed the ethics complaint against Gamble.

The state Supreme Court majority concluded Gamble’s conduct violated the state’s rules of professional ethics. The majority agreed with a recommendation to suspend his law license for six months, but the penalty was converted to a 12-month probation. The Supreme Court anchored its decision to a statement signed by Gamble outlining his transgressions.

“The parties agree these facts, and the others jointly presented, establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s actions demonstrate ethical misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” the Supreme Court majority said. “While the dissent objects vociferously that the facts presented in the parties’ agreement are a ‘vacant lot,’ the respondent (Gamble) himself stipulated, for whatever reason, that his actions were objectionable, unnecessary, inappropriate” and “prejudicial to the administration of justice and unethical.”

In the majority opinion, justices said lack of boundaries on aggression in courthouse litigation would “recapitulate a nonviolent form of absolute war, where maximum ends justify maximum means.” They went on to say the practice of law, much like adherence to the law, began with respectful conduct. They argued rules of conduct represented the soil from which justice and civil society grew.

“Because a scorched-earth strategy risks damaging the very framework of justice within which litigation operates, prudent counsel should opt for it, if at all, only as a last resort,” the majority opinion said.

This case represented the fourth time Gamble had been disciplined by the state for ethical lapses since granted a license to practice law more than 15 years ago. In the past, Gamble’s behavior led to a diversion, an informal admonition and a six-month suspension.

In this case, the written statement of facts by Gamble and the complainants said he made unnecessary remarks about the mother’s legal counsel. He had demanded an expedited hearing on a motion, but didn’t call a witness or offer exhibits to establish contentions made in writing. He included in court filings irrelevant information about the mother and alleged S.G.’s counsel of “forum shopping” in Kansas.

Stegall, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, said the case outlined a pattern in which administrators of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys “wielded the code as a sword rather than a shield.”

Stegall included in his dissent comments from Gamble to the court that explained why he signed the stipulation of facts that noted his violation of the state’s ethical code of conduct.

“I chose to agree to the stipulation, to a violation in this case, because I thought it was the best thing to do for not only myself, my family, my practice, my clients that I represent,” Gamble said. “I believe I caused … highly intense emotions, by having to state facts, make arguments, and it put a lot of pressure on people. I didn’t do it to be mean or to be spiteful because I thought those facts were relevant to advocating my client’s position. I think I went a little too far.”

Stegall said in the dissent joined by the two appointees of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly that the case shouldn’t have been forwarded by the disciplinary panel to the Supreme Court.

“Beyond that, after a thorough review of the record, I have never seen such a blatantly unfair and illogical prosecution in a disciplinary matter,” Stegall said. “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that once again our ethics rules are being used to chill and discourage the kind of vigorous advocacy that our system of justice needs to ensure the rights of all litigants in our courts of law are protected.”

Stegall pointed to the 1992 Tom Hanks’ character in “A League of Their Own,” in which Hanks portrayed the manager of a professional baseball team in a league for women. In the film, Hanks declared: “There’s no crying in baseball.”

“It is a message the Kansas bar and bench, and our disciplinary administrator’s office, should consider,” Stegall wrote. “Litigation, not unlike baseball, is an intense activity. Stressful. Demanding. Pitches thrown high-and-tight. Bang-bang plays. But no crying. And, if ordinary litigation is regular season baseball, custody disputes between warring parents are like a game seven in October between bitter rivals. A lesson today’s case poignantly illustrates.”

(The original version of this story incorrectly stated the 4-3 division on the Kansas Supreme Court.)