JEFFERSON CITY (St. Louis Record) — Kansas attorney David E. Herron II has been reciprocally suspended following an Oct. 29 Missouri Supreme Court order over allegations stemming from his representation of two clients as a public defender in drug cases.
The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Herron, of Overland Park, Kansas, with no application for reinstatement to be entertained for six months from the date of the court's order.
The court's order following Herron's suspension by the Kansas Supreme Court in May over allegations he violating professional conduct rules regarding confidentiality of information, candor toward a tribunal and other misconduct, according to the Missouri order. The Missouri Supreme Court also ordered Herron to pay costs.
The Kansas Supreme Court reinstated Herron in September.
He received a 60-day suspension following a 55-page order issued by the Kansas high court in May over allegations stemming from his representation of two clients in criminal drug cases. Herron allegedly informed police that one client told him she had been faking urine tests by sneaking clean urine with her during testing to evade positive results, according to the Kansas Supreme Court's order.
In the other client's matter, Herron allegedly lied to the court about whether the opposing counsel had been willing to reargue an issue in the case following a bench warrant, according tot the order.
Herron ultimately was fired from his position in the public defender's office, which subsequently filed a disciplinary complaint against him.
A hearing panel found Herron lied to a district court and it listed aggravating factors that included submitting of false evidence during the disciplinary proceedings before recommending Herron be suspended 30 days.
In its order, the state Supreme Court found Herron lacked "any selfish motive" in the allegations against him and prompted them to not impose "one of our most severe sanctions."
"A minority of the court would have imposed a longer period of suspension," the Kansas Supreme Court's order noted. "This court unanimously rejects respondent's contention that he should not be held liable for the costs herein incurred."