The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday suspended Republican state Rep. Carl Maughan from practicing law for a year because of violating rules of professional conduct.
Maughan faced a suspension after being accused of misconduct while representing a client in a deadly 2016 crash in Wichita that claimed two lives.
The court also required the Colwich lawmaker to undergo a hearing before his petition for reinstatement will be considered by the Supreme Court.
It’s the latest legal trouble that has beset Maughan, who has been charged in Shawnee County with driving under the influence stemming from a police traffic stop last March.
Maughan could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
Maughan has indicated that he is not running for reelection, although his name remains on the ballot.
There are three candidates – former state Rep. Steve Huebert, Jesse McCurry and Darren Pugh – running in the Republican primary for his seat.
Maughan had been accused of having a conflict of interest in the court case because he represented the two occupants of a vehicle involved in the crash who accused each other of being at the wheel when it occurred.
The court found that he violated parts of the professional conduct code that barred him from representing a client if it involved a concurrent conflict of interest and prohibiting him from entering into a business transaction that is adverse to a client.
Maughan was accused of misconduct while representing Bret Blevins in the deadly crash while also serving as the longtime attorney for his girlfriend, Tammy Akers, who also was in the vehicle at the time of the crash.
Blevins and Akers were the sole occupants of a Cadillac Escalade which sped through a residential neighborhood, ran a stop sign, and crashed into a van, killing two people.
Court records show that Blevins’ blood tested positive for methamphetamine and had an alcohol content of around 0.124.
Akers and her husband paid Maughan $30,000 to represent Blevins in the case. Akers also testified as a witness in the case.
The Kansas Court of Appeals found Maughan’s representation in the case “hinged on him serving two masters whose interests were clearly adverse to each other.”
Akers was “not merely an uninterested bystander witness,” the court of appeals ruled.
“If Blevins was not driving the car, she was. She had every incentive for the state to
prosecute Blevins for the accident and for the jury to convict him,” the court ruled.
“Tammy was the key witness and a potential suspect, whom Maughan had represented for many years and in several cases. She was also the one paying his bill.”
Blevins claimed he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his criminal jury trial because of his attorney’s conflicts of interest.
A jury convicted Blevins of several crimes arising from the crash. He appealed his convictions, and another panel of the appeals court sent the case back to the district court for a hearing on his claim of ineffective counsel.
The district court denied Blevins’ claim, finding no conflict and, if a conflict existed, Blevins waived it. Blevins challenged the district court’s findings and the appeals court agreed.
The Kansas Court of Appeals said it did not appear that Maughan investigated Aker’s
involvement in the crash.
The court said Maughan also did not hire an accident reconstructionist, DNA expert or medical expert, despite Blevins’ requests that he do so.
Maughan admitted he and Blevins discussed hiring experts, but Maughan decided against enlisting their help, according to court records.
“Given the vacillating testimony from the witnesses to the crash, and the DNA evidence which potentially implicated (Akers), these experts could have provided valuable testimony to support Blevins’ defense that (she) was driving,” the appeals court ruled.
“We find Blevins’ attorney had several conflicts of interest which adversely affected his representation and which Blevins did not waive,” the appeals court found.
Blevins pleaded guilty to multiple involuntary manslaughter charges in December 2023, and he was sentenced in March to a little more than years in prison, including the more than seven years he has already served, according to the Wichita Eagle.
In its final report, a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys said that Maughan was dealing with multiple professional and personal struggles that contributed to his misconduct.
The report said Maughan had lost his longtime legal assistant and eventually his only associate attorney, leaving him as a solo practitioner by the time of trial.
Further, his case load was significantly increased due to his agreeing to accept around 200 appeal matters from the State Board of Indigent Defense services.
Also, his wife was deployed overseas for one year during this time, leaving him to care for their two children on his own while at the same time he was running for a district judge position, building a new house and moving his family to a new home.
Court records show that Maughan had been previously disciplined on two occasions, once in 2007 and again in 2010. He was placed on diversion in both cases and those matters were later dismissed.
The hearing panel originally recommended that the Maughan be suspended for six months and the suspension be stayed with the lawmaker being placed on probation for 12 months.
Maughan did not appear before the Supreme Court when it held oral arguments in his case.
He called the court clerk about 15 minutes before the hearing was set to start on May 10 and notified officials that he was having car trouble about an hour away from Topeka.
The disciplinary administrator withdrew the recommendation, saying Maughan failed to comply with a Supreme Court rule requiring lawyers seeking probation to file an affidavit describing their compliance with each condition of the proposed probation plan to date.
The Supreme Court found that the affidavit – due at least 14 days before oral argument – had not been filed with the court and served to the disciplinary administrator.
