In re Batt

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 108,524

In the Matter of ROGER BATT,
Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed January 11, 2013. Disbarment.

Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and was on the formal
complaint for the petitioner.

No appearance by respondent.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Roger Batt, of Wichita, an attorney
admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1991.

On February 9, 2012, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct (KRPC). A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas
Board for Discipline of Attorneys on May 15, 2012, where the respondent appeared pro
se. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication);
1.16(a)(3) and (d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (termination of representation); 3.2
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 552) (expediting litigation); 8.4(d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.
618) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 314) (failure to cooperate in
disciplinary investigation).
2


Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court:

"FINDINGS OF FACT
. . . .
"DA10397

"6. [M.B.], an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility, retained the
Respondent to represent him in relation to his brother's probate case. The administrator of
the estate asserted that Mr. [B.] was financially obligated to the estate. The issue was how
the administrator offset the financial obligation against the inheritance Mr. [B.] was
entitled to receive from his brother's estate.

"7. The administrator filed a petition and scheduled a hearing on the petition.

"8. The Respondent failed to maintain adequate communication with Mr.
[B.].

"9. The Respondent failed to attend the hearing on the petition. The
Respondent failed to inform Mr. [B.] of the scheduled hearing. The Court entered
judgment against Mr. [B.] for the financial obligation.

"10. As a result of the Respondent's failure to communicate, Mr. [B.]
terminated the Respondent's representation. After Mr. [B.] terminated the Respondent's
representation, the Respondent failed to timely withdraw from the representation.

"11. The Respondent ultimately refunded the full retainer to Mr. [B.].

3

"DA11079

"12. The Respondent was appointed to represent the natural mother in an
appeal of the termination of her parental rights to the Kansas Court of Appeals in a case
titled In re D.O., Jr., T.A.O., M.L.P., appellate case number 103,755.

"13. The Court informed the Respondent that the case would be expedited and
no extensions of time would be granted. The Respondent failed to file a brief by the
deadline.

"14. The Court extended the time for the Respondent to file the brief. Again,
the Respondent failed to file the brief.

"15. As a result of the Respondent's failure to file a brief, the Court dismissed
the appeal and the natural mother lost her opportunity to have the Court of Appeals
review the order terminating her parental rights.

"DA11106

"16. [J.D.W.] retained the Respondent to represent her in a guardianship case
involving her son. Previously, as a result of financial difficulties, Ms. [W.] allowed her
mother, [S.K.S.], to care for the child. When Ms. [W.'s] financial difficulties improved
she sought to have the child returned to her care but Ms. [S.] refused and filed a
guardianship case.

"17. Ms. [W.] paid the Respondent $1,500 for the representation and the
Respondent entered his appearance.

"18. The Respondent agreed to continue the case, contrary to Ms. [W.'s]
wishes. After agreeing to the continuance, Ms. [W.] never heard from the Respondent
again.

4

"19. On February 22, 2010, Ms. [W.] wrote to the Respondent directing him
to withdraw from the representation. The Respondent failed to withdraw from the
representation.

"20. Ms. [W.] hired a subsequent attorney, Stephen M. Turley. Mr. Turley
filed an emergency motion. As a result of Mr. Turley's actions, Ms. [W.'s] son was
returned to her.

"21. Eventually, the Respondent refunded Ms. [W.'s] entire retainer.

"DA11187

"22. [J.D.] retained the Respondent to represent her in a post-divorce child
custody matter. Ms. [D.] paid the Respondent $2,500.00 for the representation.

"23. The Respondent informed Ms. [D.] that the summer of 2009 was the best
opportunity for Ms. [D.] to attempt to gain residential custody of three of her children.
The Respondent filed a motion in behalf of Ms. [D.] for a change of custody.

"24. Ms. [D.] repeatedly attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone.
Ms. [D.] left many messages for the Respondent on the Respondent's answering machine
and the Respondent's voice mail. The Respondent failed to return Ms. [D.'s] telephone
calls.

"25. After the Respondent filed the motion, the Respondent did not have any
additional contact with Ms. [D.] or the Court.

"26. Ms. [D.] requested that the Respondent return the unearned attorney fees.
The Respondent failed to return the unearned fees. Ms. [D.] contacted the fee dispute
committee for assistance. The fee dispute committee contacted the Respondent in an
attempt to address Ms. [D.'s] grievance. The Respondent failed to respond to the fee
dispute committee.

5

"27. Eventually, Ms. [D.] filed a small claims action against the Respondent.
On the day of trial, the Respondent appeared and refunded the entire attorney fee plus
interest. As a result, Ms. [D.] dismissed the small claims action.

"28. Ms. [D.], however, lost the opportunity to attempt to regain custody of
three of her children.

"DA11265

"29. In a child in need of care case, the Respondent entered his appearance in
behalf of the natural mother. The natural mother's parental rights were terminated and the
Respondent filed a timely notice of appeal, in In re L.Z.M.T., appellate case number
105,153.

"30. The Respondent filed a request for a transcript. However, the
Respondent's request was misdirected for some period of time. At the same time, the
Kansas Court of Appeals issued an order expediting the appeal.

"31. The Respondent failed to timely file the brief in behalf of his client. Due
to the misdirection of the transcript request, the Respondent did not have a copy of the
transcript. The Respondent failed to file a request with the Court to grant an extension of
time to allow him to obtain a copy of the transcript.

"32. Despite the Respondent's failure to request an extension of time, the
Court set a new deadline for the Respondent's brief. The new deadline was during the
holiday season. The Respondent did not learn of the new deadline because he did not
open his mail during the holiday season. The Respondent failed to file the brief by the
new deadline. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal.

"33. Later, the Respondent filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The Court
granted the motion, the Respondent filed a brief, and the Court has issued its opinion in
this case.



6

"DA11414

"34. In December, 2009, [D.R.], a disabled individual, retained the
Respondent to file a bankruptcy case. The Respondent did some work on Mr. [R.'s]
bankruptcy case. However, the Respondent failed to timely file the bankruptcy case. As
of August 2011, the Respondent had not filed the bankruptcy case in behalf of Mr. [R].

"35. Mr. [R.] repeatedly tried to contact the Respondent. The Respondent did
not return Mr. [R.'s] telephone calls.

"36. On August 2, 2011, Mr. [R.] filed a complaint with the Disciplinary
Administrator's office. The Respondent failed to timely cooperate during the disciplinary
investigation.

"37. Eventually, the Respondent refunded Mr. [R.'s] attorneys fees.

"DA11471

"38. The Respondent was appointed to represent the natural mother in an
appeal of the termination of her parental rights to the Kansas Court of Appeals in a case
titled In re J.T.R. and J.M.R., appellate case number 106,863.

"39. The natural mother requested that the Respondent withdraw from the
representation based upon communication issues. The Court issued an order to show
cause why the Respondent should not be replaced as counsel. The Respondent failed to
respond to the Court and the Court removed the Respondent as counsel of record.

"40. The Respondent's registration address was a post office box. Without
providing a new address to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, the Respondent closed the
post office box. As a result, mailings from the Clerk of the Appellate Courts were
returned. Eventually, on December 15, 2011, the Respondent changed his address.



7


"Attorney Diversion Program

"41. On March 19, 2009, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent, informing him
that the Review Committee concluded that the Respondent should be informally
admonished or, as an alternative, could participate in the attorney diversion program
regarding case DA10397.

"42. On August 20, 2009, Ms. [K.] forwarded the proposed diversion
agreement to the Respondent. The Respondent did not sign and return the diversion
agreement.

"43. On December 3, 2009, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent, enclosing a
second copy of the diversion agreement. Ms. [K.] provided the Respondent with an
additional week to execute the diversion agreement. Again, the Respondent did not sign
and return the diversion agreement.

"44. On December 23, 2009, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent again, noting
his failure to respond to an offer to resolve the case by informal admonition. Ms. [K.]
informed the Respondent that based upon his failure to respond, the matter would
proceed to hearing unless he responded by January 8, 2010. The Respondent did not
respond by January 8, 2010.

"45. In April, 2010, the second disciplinary complaint, DA11079, was filed
against the Respondent.

"46. On April 7, 2010, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent again, informing
him that she scheduled an informal admonition in DA10397 for May 5, 2010. The
Respondent did not appear for the informal admonition on May 5, 2010.

"47. On May 6, 2010, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent, asking him to
contact her to discuss how the case would proceed.

8

"48. Three additional disciplinary cases were filed with the Disciplinary
Administrator, against the Respondent, cases numbered DA11106, DA11187, and
DA11265.

"49. On May 4, 2011, Ms. [K.] wrote to the Respondent again. Ms. [K.]
renewed the Review Committee's offer to allow the Respondent to participate in the
attorney diversion program.

"50. On May 20, 2011, the Respondent wrote to Ms. [K.], expressing interest
in applying for the attorney diversion program. On June 14, 2011, the Respondent and
Ms. [K.] executed a diversion agreement.

"51. The Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the
diversion agreement. Additionally, two more disciplinary complaints were filed against
the Respondent. The Review Committee revoked the Respondent's diversion agreement
and traditional disciplinary proceedings resumed.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"52. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 3.2,
KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, as detailed below.

"53. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and
promptly represent his clients in this case. The Respondent failed to provide diligent
representation to Mr. [B.], the natural mothers in the three appellate cases, Ms. [W.], Ms.
[D.], and Mr. [R.]. The Respondent repeatedly failed to do what he was appointed or
retained to do—represent his clients in their pending cases. As a result of the
Respondent's lack of diligence, appellate cases were dismissed, cases were delayed,
opportunities were lost, and financial troubles continued. Because the Respondent
repeatedly failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his
clients, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3.

9

"54. KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information.' In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he repeatedly
failed to return his clients' telephone calls and when he failed to provide his clients with
pertinent information regarding their cases. The Respondent failed to adequately
communicate with Mr. [B.], Ms. [W.], Ms. [D.], and Mr. [R.]. Accordingly, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.4(a).

"55. KRPC 1.16(a) requires that attorneys withdraw from the representation
of clients in certain situations. Specifically, KRPC 1.16(a)(3) requires that attorneys
withdraw from the representation of a client if the client discharges the attorney. In this
case, Mr. [B.] terminated the Respondent's representation and the Respondent failed to
withdraw. Additionally, Ms. [W.] wrote to the Respondent directing him to withdraw
from his representation. The Respondent failed to do so. Finally, in appellate case number
106,863, the Respondent's client directed him to withdraw from the representation.
Again, the Respondent failed to withdraw from the representation. Thus, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(a)(3) on three occasions.

"56. KRPC 1.16 also requires lawyers to take certain steps to protect clients
after the representation has been terminated. Specifically, KRPC 1.16(d) provides the
requirement in this regard:

'Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to
the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is
entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been
earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent
permitted by other law.'

Ms. [D.] directed the Respondent to refund the unearned fees. The Respondent did not
respond to Ms. [D.'s] direction. Ms. [D.] sought the assistance of the fee dispute
committee. The Respondent ignored the fee dispute committee's contacts. Ms. [D.] was
forced to file a small claims action before the Respondent refunded the unearned fees.
10

The Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d) when he failed to timely refund the unearned
fees. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d).

"57. An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if he fails to make reasonable efforts to
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client. The Respondent's conduct
caused extreme delay in cases in District Court and the Kansas Court of Appeals. The
Respondent failed to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his clients in six
cases. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated
KRPC 3.2.

"58. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this case, the Respondent
engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' when he failed to
file briefs in two of the appellate cases and when he failed to respond to the Kansas Court
of Appeals order to show cause in the third appellate case. As such, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) in three cases.

"59. Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. Kan. Sup. Ct. R.
207(b) provides the requirement in this regard.

'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid
the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary
Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct,
and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information
he or she may have affecting such matters.'

The Respondent knew that he was required to forward a written response to the initial
complaint—he had been instructed to do so in writing by the Disciplinary Administrator
and by the attorney investigator. Because the Respondent knowingly failed to provide a
written response to the initial complaint filed by Mr. [R.] as requested by the Disciplinary
Administrator and the attorney investigator, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).

11

"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

"60. In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors
to be considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating
factors.

"61. Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide
diligent representation and adequate communication. The Respondent also violated his
duty to his clients to properly deal with their property. Further, the Respondent violated
his duty to the legal system to expedite litigation. Finally, the Respondent violated his
duty to the legal profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.

"62. Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties.

"63. Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent
caused actual serious injury to his clients and to the legal system.

"64. Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case,
found the following aggravating factors present:

"65. A Pattern of Misconduct. Seven complaints were filed against the
Respondent. Each of the complaints involved similar misconduct. As such, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct.

"66. Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4,
KRPC 1.16(a)(3), KRPC 1.16(d), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.4(d), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent committed multiple
offenses.
12


"67. Vulnerability of Victim. The Respondent's clients were vulnerable. One
was in prison, three were parents whose parental rights had been terminated, one was in
dire financial straits, and two were in need of assistance in relation to child custody
matters. The Hearing Panel concludes that each of the Respondent's seven clients were
vulnerable.

"68. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme
Court admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in the State of Kansas in 1991. The
Respondent had substantial experience in the practice of law prior to engaging in the
misconduct.

"69. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its
recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following
mitigating circumstances present:

"70. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has no record
of prior discipline.

"71. Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness.

"72. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent suffers from
depression. Additionally, many personal tragedies occurred in the Respondent's personal
life during the period of misconduct. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent's
personal and [emotional] problems contributed to the violations in this case.

"73. Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences
of Misconduct. The Respondent has refunded all unearned fees. The Hearing Panel
concludes, however, that the Respondent's efforts to make restitution were not necessarily
timely.

13

"74. The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His or Her
Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the
Transgressions. The Respondent fully and freely acknowledged his wrongdoing. The
Respondent's attitude of cooperation is a mitigating factor.

"75. Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent expressed
genuine remorse for engaging in the misconduct.

"76. In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly
examined and considered the following Standards:

'4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services
for a client and causes injury or potential injury
to a client; or

(b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and
causes injury or potential injury to a client.'

"RECOMMENDATION

"77. The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The Respondent requested that his plan
of probation be adopted and that he be allowed to close down his office in June 2012, and
cease practicing law. During his testimony, Mr. Johnson [Batt's former office partner]
suggested that the Respondent be transferred to inactive status.

"78. The Hearing Panel will first address Mr. Johnson's suggestion. When
disciplinary complaints are pending, transferring to inactive status does not impact on the
completion of a disciplinary case. The Respondent is free to register as an inactive
attorney. However, registering as an inactive attorney does not stop or change the
outcome of a disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding must be completed
regardless of whether the Respondent is registered as active or inactive.
14


"79. No suggestion was made to transfer the Respondent to disabled inactive
status. Transferring an attorney to disabled inactive status requires certain proof not
presented during the hearing on the formal complaint. See Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 220.

"80. The Hearing Panel will next turn its attention to the Respondent's request
for probation. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g) sets forth the procedure for an attorney to be
placed on probation. That rules provides:

'(1) If the Respondent intends to request that the Respondent
be placed on probation for violating the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct or the Kansas Supreme Court Rules, the Respondent shall
provide each member of the Hearing Panel and the Disciplinary
Administrator with a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of
probation at least ten days prior to the hearing on the Formal Complaint.
The plan of probation must contain adequate safeguards that will protect
the public and ensure the Respondent's full compliance with the
disciplinary rules and orders of the Supreme Court.

'(2) If the Respondent provides each member of the Hearing
Panel and the Disciplinary Administrator with a plan of probation, the
Respondent shall immediately and prior to the hearing on the Formal
Complaint put the plan of probation into effect by complying with each
of the terms and conditions of the probation plan.

'(3) The Hearing Panel shall not recommend that the
Respondent be placed on probation unless:

(i) the Respondent develops a workable,
substantial, and detailed plan of probation and provides a
copy of the proposed plan of probation to the
Disciplinary Administrator and each member of the
Hearing Panel at least ten days prior to the hearing on
the Formal Complaint;
15


(ii) the Respondent puts the proposed plan
of probation into effect prior to the hearing on the
Formal Complaint by complying with each of the terms
and conditions of the probation plan;

(iii) the misconduct can be corrected by
probation; and

(iv) placing the Respondent on probation is
in the best interests of the legal profession and the
citizens of the State of Kansas.

"81. Unfortunately, probation is not appropriate in this case. First, the
Respondent failed to develop a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of probation.
Second, the Respondent failed to put the proposed plan of probation into effect prior to
the hearing on the formal complaint. Next, the Respondent's misconduct cannot be
corrected by probation. Finally, placing the Respondent on probation is not in the best
interests of the legal profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas.

"82. In determining what sanction to recommend to the Kansas Supreme
Court, the Hearing Panel is persuaded by language found in the commentary following
ABA Standard 4.42.

'Suspension should be imposed when a lawyer knows that he is
not performing the services requested by the client, but does nothing to
remedy the situation, or when a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect,
with the result that the lawyer causes injury or potential injury to a
client.'

"83. The Respondent knew that he was not performing the services requested
by his client and required for adequate representation. The Respondent did nothing to
remedy the situation. Additionally, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of neglect which
resulted in serious injury to his clients.
16


"84. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent is not in a position to
continue with the practice of law at this time. Thus, based upon the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the Standards listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously
recommends that the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite
period of time. At the reinstatement hearing, the Respondent should establish what steps
he has taken to ensure that his mental health issues have been fully addressed and that the
Respondent is currently fit to return to the practice of law.

"85. Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator."

DISCUSSION

In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945,
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334).
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the
truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d
610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]).

Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed
an answer, and adequate notice of both the hearing before the panel and the hearing
before this court. He filed no exceptions to the panel's final hearing report. As such, the
findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 352).


17

The evidence before the hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct of the
respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of law.
We therefore adopt the panel's conclusions.

The only issue before us is the appropriate discipline. The hearing panel
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that
he undergo a reinstatement hearing prior to reinstatement. At the hearing before this
court, the respondent did not appear. Due to this failure, the office of the Disciplinary
Administrator recommended that respondent be disbarred. We agree the failure to appear
aggravates the circumstances under consideration.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Roger Batt be disbarred from the practice of law
in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme
Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 280).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court
Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas reports.