In re Davis (Corrected – February 11, 2013)

1

CORRECTED OPINION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 108,494

In the Matter of JOHN C. DAVIS,
Respondent.


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 1, 2013. Disbarment.

Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal complaint
for the petitioner.

John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., Topeka, argued the cause, and John C.
Davis, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, John C. Davis, of Overland Park, an
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1983, and in Missouri in 1968.
Respondent's Missouri license has been suspended since May 1, 2012.

On March 20, 2012, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent filed an answer on March 26, 2012. A hearing was
held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on
May 24, 2012, when the respondent was personally present and was represented by
counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.5 (2011 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 470) (fees); 1.15 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (safekeeping property); 8.4(b)
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the
2

lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct
involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).

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
. . . .

"7. In 1991, the Respondent began representing [D.N.] in estate planning
matters. The Respondent prepared a revocable trust naming [D.N.] as the trustee and
naming himself as the successor trustee. Finally, in the event the Respondent was unable
to serve or continue to serve, [D.N.] named Commerce Bank as an additional successor
trustee.

"8. Beginning in 1993, [D.N.] had a series of strokes. As a result, [D.N.]
asked the Respondent to succeed her as trustee of the trust. The Respondent continued to
serve as [D.N.'s] attorney and the attorney for the trust. The Respondent had the
responsibility to manage the trust's multi-million dollar investments and make
disbursements for the benefit of [D.N.]. Additionally, [D.N.] gave the Respondent a
power of attorney for healthcare decisions.

"9. Following her husband's death, [D.N.] moved into an apartment at a
nursing facility. From that point forward she lived in skilled nursing facilities, assisted
living communities, and rehabilitation centers for the rest of her life.

"10. In 1996, the Respondent, in his capacity as trustee of the trust, hired the
Respondent's wife to serve as an advocate for [D.N.]. The Respondent testified that this
engagement was initiated at his wife's suggestion. Initially, the Respondent paid Mrs.
Davis $25.00 per hour for her services. Over time, Mrs. Davis' hourly rate increased in
the Respondent's sole discretion. At the time of [D.N.'s] death in May, 2009, the
3

Respondent paid Mrs. Davis $100.00 per hour for her services. Mrs. Davis was paid in all
instances from the trust assets.

"11. Mrs. Davis' duties included supervising other care givers, accompanying
[D.N.] to doctor's appointments, visiting [D.N.], and ensuring that the nursing facilities
provided [D.N.] with good care.

"12. Mrs. Davis' annual income from serving as [D.N.'s] advocate was as
follows:

1996 $25.00 per hour $5,706.25
1997 $25.00 per hour $10,268.75
1998 $35.00 per hour $15,233.75
1999 $35.00 - $45.00 per hour $21,985.00
2000 $45.00 per hour $30,172.50
2001 $45.00 per hour $32,996.25
2002 $50.00 - $60.00 per hour $45,207.50
2003 $60.00 per hour $50,350.00
2004 $60.00 per hour $47,070.00
2005 $60.00 per hour $49,050.00
2006 $60.00 per hour $51,390.00
2007 $60.00 per hour $54,585.00
2008 $60.00 per hour $55,095.00
2009 $60.00 - $100.00 per hour $28,510.00

(Footnote: In 2009, the Respondent's wife received $28,510.00 for the time period of
January through May.) Thus, from 1996 through 2009, the Respondent paid his wife from
trust assets a total of $497,620.00 for serving as [D.N.'s] advocate.

"13. During that same period of time, the Respondent's hourly attorney rate
went from $185.00 to $380.00 per hour. The Respondent paid his law firm (for services
he rendered) the same rate whether the Respondent was performing work as attorney for
the trust or whether he was performing work as trustee of the trust. From 1996 through
4

2009, the Respondent paid his law firm a total of $801,906.00 in attorney and trustee
fees.

"14. On April 13, 2009, the Respondent opened an account, titled 'John C.
Davis, Trustee, [D.N.] Trust' at US Bank. Prior to the Respondent opening this account,
all of [D.N.'s] bank accounts had been held at Commerce Bank. As noted previously,
Commerce Bank was named as an additional successor trustee under the trust instrument.
The initial funds deposited into the US Bank account came from the sale of an investment
account held by the trust with A.G. Edwards. The initial deposit at US Bank was for
$119,595.08. Two days after opening the account, on April 15, 2009, the Respondent
wrote three checks drawn on the trust's account at US Bank as follows:

1001 Internal Revenue Service $70,000.00
1002 Kansas Income Tax $7,000.00
1003 Mo. Dept. of Revenue $6,000.00

The Respondent used the three checks to pay the Respondent's joint marital 2008 income
tax liability. On two of the checks, the Respondent struck through '[D.N.] Trust.' And, on
all three of the checks, the Respondent hand-wrote his personal social security number.
The Respondent did not have authority from [D.N.] to use trust funds in this fashion.
Further, the Respondent did not inform [D.N.] nor her beneficiaries that he used the
trust's assets to pay his personal marital income tax liabilities.

"15. The Respondent testified that at the time the Respondent converted the
trust assets to his own use, he had sufficient personal assets to pay his own tax
obligations.

"16. On May 23, 2009, [D.N.] died.

"17. In January 2010, [R.E.], as part of his administrative duties as chair of
the tax, trusts, and estate division of the Respondent's law firm, Stinson Morrison Hecker,
reviewed matters on which the Respondent, a member of that division, was working.
[R.E.] discovered that a significant portion of the Respondent's time billed during the
previous year had been devoted to [D.N.'s] trust and estate. During his review, [R.E.]
5

became concerned that the Respondent was billing excessive amounts of time for the
tasks detailed in the billing records. Additionally, [R.E.] noted that many of the
Respondent's time entries were in even hour increments rather than in tenth of an hour
increments that are standard for Stinson Morrison Hecker billing. Finally, [R.E.] also
discovered that the Respondent had been paying the Respondent's wife from [D.N.'s]
estate and trust assets.

"18. [R.E.] reported his concerns to the law firm's general counsel, [L.J.]. The
law firm conducted additional investigation. During the investigation, [R.E.] and [L.J.]
met with the Respondent on two occasions. During those meetings, the Respondent
acknowledged that he 'rounded up' some of his time entries. The Respondent failed to
disclose that he used [D.N.'s] trust funds to pay his personal marital income tax liabilities
for 2008.

"19. After being questioned by [R.E.] and [L.J.], on January 21, 2010, the
Respondent deposited $83,000.00 into [D.N.'s] trust account at US Bank. Additionally,
the Respondent deposited into [D.N.'s] trust account at US Bank $1,490.00 for interest on
the $83,000.00 that he had converted to his personal use on April 15, 2009. On the trust
account ledger, the Respondent noted that the $83,000.00 deposit was for 'tax refunds.'
Additionally, on the trust account ledger, the Respondent noted that the $1,490.00 was
for 'interest on refunds.'

"20. On February 8, 2010, the Respondent withdrew as a partner with Stinson
Morrison Hecker. At that time, the Respondent agreed to leave his partner capital account
with the law firm to cover any expenses associated with his misconduct. The Respondent
testified that at the time the Respondent departed Stinson Morrison Hecker, the
Respondent's partner capital account was approximately $50,000.

"21. On March 2, 2010, the Respondent resigned as trustee of [D.N.'s] trust.
At that time, Commerce Bank took over as successor trustee of the trust.

"22. Stinson Morrison Hecker informed Commerce Bank that it would fairly
compensate the trust for amounts that were billed inappropriately by the Respondent. As
a result of their pledge, Stinson Morrison Hecker ultimately agreed to and did pay the
6

trust $433,604.23. According to Stinson Morrison Hecker, that amount represents a
refund of $279,177.98 of the fees paid by the trust to the law firm for the Respondent's
attorney's fees and reimbursement of $154,426.25 of the payments made by the trust to
Mrs. Davis for serving as an advocate for [D.N.].

"23. Regarding restitution payments made by the Respondent, the Respondent
replaced the $83,000.00 he converted. Additionally, the Respondent deposited $1,490.00
as payment of interest on the $83,000.00. Finally, at the time Stinson Morrison Hecker
terminated the Respondent, the Respondent had approximately $50,000.00 in his partner
capital account. The Respondent agreed to forgo repayment of his partner capital account
when he left Stinson Morrison Hecker. The Respondent made no attempt to contact
Commerce Bank or the trust beneficiaries or to otherwise make restitution or confirm that
adequate restitution was paid by the law firm.

"24. On April 20, 2010, [R.E.] and [L.J.] filed a complaint with the
Disciplinary Administrator's office. At approximately that same time, a complaint was
filed with the Missouri bar disciplinary authorities.

"25. On May 14, 2010, the Respondent provided a written response to the
complaint filed with the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator. In the response, the only
statement made by the Respondent which would amount to accepting responsibility for
his actions was to say:

'It is possible I could have been more precise in describing and
perhaps I could have been more efficient, but the trust/estate
administration required a good deal of time which I expended. I did not
at any time overcharge for my work either for my own benefit or for the
benefit of the firm. I did not take advantage of the trust estate or its
beneficiaries and did not act dishonestly or deceitfully.'

Nowhere in the Respondent's written response did he admit to 'rounding up' his time.
Additionally, again, the Respondent failed to disclose his conversion of [D.N.'s] trust
funds that he used to pay his personal marital tax liabilities.

7

"26. Later, on September 15, 2010, [L.J.] supplemented his complaint with
the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator with information regarding the trust checks that
the Respondent wrote to the taxing authorities. It appears that the Respondent did not
respond to the allegations contained in [L.J.'s] supplemental complaint.

"27. On May 1, 2012, the Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the
Respondent violated three provisions of the Missouri Rules of Profession Conduct;
sections 4-8.4(b), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d). The Supreme Court of Missouri suspended the
Respondent for a period of three years for a portion of the conduct addressed in this final
hearing report. The Missouri Supreme Court considered only the Respondent's
conversion of [D.N.'s] trust funds for payment of the Respondent's personal marital
income taxes. It does not appear that the Missouri Supreme Court considered whether the
Respondent violated Missouri's equivalent to KRPC 1.5 or KRPC 1.15.

"28. At the disciplinary hearing, the Respondent testified as to his practice of
rounding up time to the nearest full hour and stated that his billing practice on [D.N.'s]
file was consistent with his practices for his other clients.

"29. The Respondent admitted to violating KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.15, KRPC
8.4(b), KRPC 8.4(c), and KRPC 8.4(d).

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"30. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.15, and KRPC 8.4, as detailed
below.

"31. KRPC 1.5 requires attorneys to charge reasonable fees. Rounding up
time constitutes billing for work not performed. Billing for work not performed is per se
unreasonable. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent charged an
unreasonable fee.

"32. Lawyers must keep the property of their clients safe. See KRPC 1.15. In
this case, the Respondent failed to properly safeguard [D.N.'s] property when he
8

converted $83,000.00 and used it to pay his personal marital income tax liabilities.
Therefore, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15.

"33. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act
that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects.' KRPC 8.4(b). In this case, the Respondent committed the crime of theft
when he knowingly converted [D.N.'s] money and used it for his own purposes. The
crime of theft is a crime of dishonesty. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent committed a criminal act and that criminal act reflects directly on the
Respondent's honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in
violation of KRPC 8.4(b).

"34. Further, '[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The
Respondent engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he knowingly converted
[D.N.'s] property and used it to pay his personal marital income tax liability. Further, the
Respondent engaged in additional dishonest conduct in an attempt to cover up his theft of
the money by making false entries in the ledger for the US Bank account after he
replaced the money in the account. The Respondent indicated that the deposits were for
tax refunds and interest on the tax refunds. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c).

"35. Finally, '[i]t 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 established a new trust bank account at US Bank for his own personal purposes. As
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d).

"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

"36. 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
9

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.

"37. Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his client to properly
safeguard her property. Additionally, the Respondent violated his duty to his law firm
and the legal profession to maintain his personal integrity.

"38. Mental State. The Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his
duties.

"39. Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent
caused actual injury to [D.N.'s] estate, to Stinson Morrison Hecker, and the legal
profession.

"40. 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:

"41. Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct was
motivated by dishonesty and selfishness. Despite the Respondent's statements to the
contrary, the Respondent's conversion of $83,000.00 of trust funds was not a loan. The
Respondent intentionally converted trust property. Intentional conversion is a dishonest
and selfish act. Additionally, the Respondent failed to exercise professional judgment
when he retained his wife to serve as [D.N.'s] advocate. Hiring his wife to serve in this
capacity constitutes selfish conduct.

"42. A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of
dishonest conduct by committing a number of dishonest acts over a period of many years.
First, he engaged in a pattern of 'rounding up' his time charged to [D.N.'s] estate, and, by
his own admissions, his other clients. Next, he engaged in a series of events involving
dishonesty by establishing the US Bank account, having [D.N.'s] funds deposited into the
account, using the account to pay his personal marital income taxes, by failing to replace
10

the money until after Stinson Morrison Hecker launched an investigation into his
representation of [D.N.], and by making false entries on the ledger associated with the US
Bank account. Finally, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of dishonesty when he failed
to disclose that he converted [D.N.'s] money for his own use by using it to pay his
personal marital income tax liability. This included the Respondent's intentional
dishonest representation to the Disciplinary Administrator in his May 14, 2010, letter,
where he states: 'I did not take advantage of the trust estate or its beneficiaries and did
not act dishonestly or deceitfully.'

"43. Vulnerability of Victim. [D.N.] was extremely vulnerable to the
Respondent's misconduct. She had no one overseeing her financial business, other than
the Respondent. She was unable to effectively communicate following her strokes.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that it can envision few victims who would be
more vulnerable than [D.N.].

"44. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Missouri Supreme
Court admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 1968. Additionally, the Kansas
Supreme Court admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 1983. Accordingly, the
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent had substantial experience in the practice of
law at the time he engaged in the misconduct.

"45. Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, other than replacing the
converted funds and paying a small amount of interest on the converted funds, the only
effort the Respondent has made to make restitution was leaving his partner capital
account of approximately $50,000 behind at the time he withdrew from Stinson Morrison
Hecker. The Respondent has not communicated or attempted to communicate with
Commerce Bank, Stinson Morrison Hecker, or the beneficiaries regarding appropriate
restitution.

"46. Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled
Substances. The Respondent engaged in illegal conduct when he knowingly converted
[D.N.'s] property.

11

"47. 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:

"48. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. Other than the concurrent
disciplinary proceedings in Missouri, the Respondent has not been disciplined.

"49. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. While the Respondent
presented some evidence of personal problems, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
evidence presented is not compelling. In addition, the evidence presented indicated that
the Respondent blamed his wife for much of his personal problems which reflected the
Respondent's reluctance to accept responsibility for his own actions. Accordingly, the
Hearing Panel concludes that personal or emotional problems are not a mitigating factor
in this case.

"50. The Present 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. During the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged the misconduct.
However, the Respondent failed to initially acknowledge his misconduct and withheld the
information first from his law firm's investigation and later from the investigator assigned
by the Disciplinary Administrator. Further, the Respondent never fully acknowledged his
conversion of [D.N.'s] funds, instead characterizing them as a loan, in direct opposition to
the evidence and without any colorable support for such assertion.

"51. Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community Including
Any Letters from Clients, Friends and Lawyers in Support of the Character and General
Reputation of the Attorney. The Respondent presented letters regarding his good
character and reputation. The Hearing Panel accepted the letters of the Respondent's
previous good character.

12

"52. Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The Missouri Supreme Court
suspended the Respondent's license to practice law in the State of Missouri for a period of
three years.

"53. Remorse. At the hearing on the formal complaint, the Respondent
expressed remorse. However, the Hearing Panel was not convinced that the Respondent
was remorseful for the misconduct. It appeared that the Respondent's remorse was limited
to the predicament that the Respondent currently finds himself in.

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

'4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly converts client property and causes injury or
potential injury to a client.

'5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
. . . .
(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation that serious adversely reflects
on the lawyer's fitness to practice.'

"RECOMMENDATION

"55. The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The Respondent joined in the
Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation for an indefinite suspension from the
practice of law.

"56. The Hearing Panel recognizes that it is an unusual event for a Hearing
Panel to recommend discipline greater than recommended by the parties. However, the
Respondent's misconduct in this case is so serious that the ultimate sanction of
disbarment is appropriate.
13


"57. The Respondent established the US Bank account on April 13, 2009,
with proceeds from the sale of investments in [D.N.'s] trust's account with A.G. Edwards.
Prior to this event, all of the trust's bank accounts had been maintained at Commerce
Bank, successor trustee of the trust. Two days later, the Respondent wrote three checks
drawn on that account to pay for personal obligations. Clearly, opening the account was
done to perpetuate a fraud.

"58. The Respondent knowingly converted an elderly, disabled client's funds
and used those funds to pay his personal marital income tax liability. The Respondent has
minimized his responsibility for this act by describing it as 'borrowing' $83,000.00.
However, the fact that the Respondent did not replace the funds in [D.N.'s] account until
after the law firm launched its investigation leads the Hearing Panel to conclude that the
Respondent may never have paid those monies back had the law firm not investigated his
representation of [D.N.'s] trust.

"59. The Respondent overpaid his law firm and overpaid his wife more than
$400,000.00, according to the agreement between Commerce Bank and Stinson Morrison
Hecker.

"60. Finally, to compound his misconduct, the Respondent failed to disclose
to [R.E.] and [L.J.] the conversion of [D.N.'s] funds during the investigation of the
Respondent's representation of [D.N.]. The Respondent went on to assert to the
Disciplinary Administrator that he had not taken advantage of the trust or its beneficiaries
and did not act dishonestly or deceitfully.

"61. By itself, theft of client funds warrants disbarment. However, in this
case, the Respondent's misconduct is compounded by various other dishonest acts.

"62. Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards
listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be
disbarred.

14

"63. 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]).

The 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. The respondent filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing
report. The panel's findings of fact are thus deemed admitted. See Supreme Court Rule
212(c), (d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352).

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 also adopt the panel's conclusions.

The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline. At the hearing
before this court, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommended indefinite
suspension. The respondent, through counsel and personally, also requested indefinite
suspension. Respondent has continued to minimize his conduct and maintained that he
did not take advantage of the trust estate or its beneficiaries. He personally professed to
15

the court that his troubles were born of inefficiencies; that the trust and estate
administration required a good deal of time in which he neither overcharged for his own
benefit or the benefit of the firm. We are not persuaded by that argument. The respondent
knowingly converted an elderly, disabled client's funds and used those funds to pay his
wife nearly a half a million dollars for supervising healthcare providers and ensuring that
nursing facilities provided adequate care. Further, he used estate funds to pay his personal
marital income tax liability. The respondent minimized his responsibility for this act by
describing it as "borrowing" $83,000.00. Respondent took money entrusted to him,
converted it to his own use, and has yet to fully refund either the estate or the law firm
who covered some of his misappropriation from the estate. Disbarment is the appropriate
sanction.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that John C. Davis 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), as amended December 1, 2012, and in the event
respondent seeks reinstatement, he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2011
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 380), as amended December 1, 2012.

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.