The Kansas Supreme Court has issued a public censure against attorney David L. Miller for violating client confidentiality rules while representing two clients involved in a criminal drug case. The court's decision, filed on July 2, 2026, comes after a disciplinary hearing revealed that Miller disclosed the identity of a confidential informant to one of his clients, potentially putting the informant at risk. This ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidentiality and the consequences of failing to do so in legal practice.
The case stems from Miller's representation of two clients, G.M. and D.S., in separate but related matters. G.M. was a confidential informant for the Wichita Police Department, while D.S. faced criminal charges related to drug distribution. The court's ruling affects not only Miller but also highlights the broader implications for attorneys regarding their ethical obligations to protect client information.
Background
David L. Miller, a Wichita attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas in 2016, found himself in a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA). The ODA filed a complaint against Miller on November 21, 2024, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC), specifically concerning client confidentiality, conflict of interest, and misconduct involving dishonesty.
The dispute arose when Miller represented D.S. in a criminal case involving drug charges. During this time, G.M., who was concerned about potential criminal charges related to his work as a confidential informant, sought Miller's legal advice. Miller learned that G.M. had conducted a controlled buy of drugs from D.S., raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest. Despite these concerns, Miller accepted G.M. as a client and continued to represent both individuals.
As the case progressed, Miller engaged in conversations with both clients, during which he inadvertently disclosed G.M.'s identity as a confidential informant to D.S. This disclosure led to G.M. feeling threatened and unsafe, prompting him to file a complaint against Miller with the ODA.
The Ruling
The Kansas Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the hearing panel's findings that Miller violated KRPC 1.6, which mandates that attorneys maintain client confidentiality. The court noted, "Respondent has acknowledged from the beginning of the complaint process that he inadvertently disclosed G.M.'s name to D.S. during his conversation with D.S. relating to a possible conflict if G.M. was the C.I. in D.S.'s pending case."
However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to support allegations of a conflict of interest under KRPC 1.7 or misconduct under KRPC 8.4(c). The ruling stated, "Although the panel recognizes the potentially problematic nature of the situation, the panel does not find clear and convincing evidence established that representation of both clients was directly adverse." This distinction is crucial as it underscores the court's focus on the specifics of the case rather than a blanket ruling against Miller.
Impact
The ruling serves as a reminder to attorneys about the critical importance of maintaining client confidentiality, especially in cases involving sensitive information like that of confidential informants. By issuing a public censure, the Kansas Supreme Court has reinforced the expectation that attorneys must adhere to ethical standards to protect their clients' interests.
The decision may also have broader implications for the legal community, as it highlights the potential risks associated with representing multiple clients whose interests may intersect. Attorneys are reminded to carefully assess their obligations and the potential for conflicts before taking on cases that could compromise client confidentiality.
What's Next
While Miller has received a public censure, it remains unclear whether he will appeal the decision or if any related cases are pending. The censure serves as a formal acknowledgment of his violation of professional conduct rules, but further actions or consequences have not been specified in the court's opinion.