In re Ireland

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 105,322

In the Matter of KIMBERLY J. IRELAND,
Respondent.


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE


Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed May 25, 2012. Two-year suspension.

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

Peggy A. Wilson, of Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri,
argued the cause, and James C. Morrow, of the same firm, was with her on the brief for respondent, and
Kimberly J. Ireland, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Per Curiam: This is a contested original proceeding in discipline filed by the
office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Kimberly J. Ireland, an
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2005.

On October 22, 2009, 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 November 23, 2009. On September
9, 2010, a hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for
Discipline of Attorneys where the respondent was personally present and was represented
by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a) (2011
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 615) (false statements concerning qualifications or integrity of judicial
and legal officials). After the hearing's conclusion, the hearing panel made the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court:

2

"FINDINGS OF FACT

. . . .

"2. On March 19, 2007, the Respondent filed an action in divorce against
Kevin Ireland, Johnson County District Court case number 07CV02121. Aaron McKee
represented the Respondent until he was disqualified from the representation. Edward
Bryne represented Mr. Ireland. The Honorable Allen Slater, Judge of the Johnson County
District Court, presided over the Respondent's divorce.

"3. The divorce was bitterly contested and caused the Respondent to suffer
physically and emotionally. The Respondent suffered heart trouble, was hospitalized on
approximately six occasions, and had a pacemaker inserted. Additionally, the Respondent
has been diagnosed with an acute stress disorder―depression and an adjustment disorder
with mixed anxiety and depression.

"4. Judge Slater assigned Judge Kevin Moriarty to attempt to mediate the
divorce. On September 26, 2007, Judge Moriarty held a mediation session in the
Respondent's divorce.

"5. Shortly after 9:00 a.m., the mediation commenced. Initially, the parties,
their attorneys, and Judge Moriarty met in his courtroom. After meeting and discussing
general issues related to the divorce with both parties and attorneys, Judge Moriarty met
separately with the Respondent and her counsel and Mr. Ireland and his attorney. Finally,
the Judge met with the Respondent and Mr. Ireland without the presence of counsel.
During this portion of the mediation, Judge Moriarty sat behind the bench.

"6. Subsequent to the mediation, on October 1, 2007, the Respondent sought
the counsel of Judge Slater. The Respondent informed Judge Slater that Judge Moriarty
used profanity and threats to intimidate and harass her during the mediation. Judge Slater
advised the Respondent of her option to file a complaint with the Commission on Judicial
Qualifications.

3

"7. On October 3, 2007, the Respondent filed a complaint against Judge
Moriarty with the Commission on Judicial Qualifications concerning her issues with the
mediation. In the complaint, the Respondent made the following allegations:

'On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, all parties in the above
referenced case attended mediation with Judge Moriarty in Division 14,
Johnson County District Court. Due to the highly adversarial nature of
this case Judge Slater ordered the parties to mediation with Judge
Moriarty; however, Judge Moriarty's behavior during the mediation was
unacceptable and inexcusable and has caused the parties additional
problems. Judge Moriarty tried to force me into resolving this case by
using profanity, threats, intimidation and humiliation.

'Prior to separating the parties, Judge Moriarty began the
mediation by proposing an "equal" distribution of the assets and debts
while refusing to consider any factors, such as who incurred the debt,
when the debt was incurred, income disparity, financial misconduct, etc.
Shockingly, the "equal" distribution proposed by Judge Moriarty was
worse than what my ex-husband had already agreed to in the pleadings.
When I tried to explain that I could not afford his proposal he yelled that
I was "wasting his fucking time."

'After finding a solution he believed was equitable, Judge
Moriarty separated the parties to discuss maintenance. In March 2007,
my ex-husband was ordered to pay $1,070 per month in maintenance. On
or about June 6, 2007, a hearing was held and Judge Slater denied my ex-
husband's motion to modify maintenance and child support. He talked to
my ex-husband and his attorney first. Upon his return, Judge Moriarty
proposed $250 per month in maintenance claiming that I would be lucky
to get that much from Judge Slater.

'More specifically, Judge Moriarty refused to listen to my side of
the case. Although the case is more than six months old, and the
respondent had never argued, orally or in writing, to impute income,
4

Judge Moriarty unilaterally decided that I should be imputed with an
annual income of $60,000. He further decided that my ex-husband's
income was only $93,000 per year, even though prior to separating the
parties Judge Moriarty was told by my ex-husband that he received a
monthly bonus that he expects to total $5,000 annually. I pointed out that
it was increasing my income so much was wrong [sic], but at the same
time ignoring his bonus was unfair. Judge Moriarty responded by saying
"it's what Judge Slater will order" and "he said he only got a $500 bonus
last month." Judge Moriarty then used my ex-husband's $13,000 credit
card bill to further justify the drastic reduction in maintenance. Judge
Moriarty refused to listen when I pointed out that my ex-husband had
admitted in the pleadings that the debt is solely his, that the card is solely
in my ex-husband's name, I am not a responsible party and that I was not
aware of the card until the divorce.

'Not only did Judge Moriarty ignore my position, but he never
even gave me an opportunity to make a counter offer. When I said that I
would only agree to resolve the entire case, including custody, Judge
Moriarty told me that I was "sabotaging" the mediation and settlement
process.

'Again, without any other offers to consider, Judge Moriarty
immediately began discussing child custody. This time, however, Judge
Moriarty had me return to the courtroom without my attorney. Judge
Moriarty sat at the bench while my ex-husband and I sat at the tables. He
made it crystal clear that his role was that of judge and not of mediator.
He asked questions and demanded yes or no responses from me. When I
tried to say I don't know or that I'd like to think about it, he accused me
of being evasive or that I did not have my children's best interests in
mind. He then proceeded to enter "orders" with respect to the children
and marital property.

'Although Judge Moriarty's "orders" and refusal to listen to me
were bad, his behavior was much worse. The majority of the time we
5

were in the courtroom, it appeared as if Judge Moriarty was masturbating
under the bench. He used profanity repeatedly, and continually used and
directed the word "fuck" to me. He talked about my "panties," discussed
my sex life and who I was "boinking." All of these things he did outside
the presence of my attorney and in front of my ex-husband. I was
extremely uncomfortable, and I felt trapped in a courtroom with a Judge
who was intentionally intimidating and sexually harassing me.

'At one point when my ex-husband was complaining about a pair
of bicycles, worth several thousand dollars, Judge Moriarty compared
these two bikes to my "panties". Although a protection of abuse order
had been in place that I had to dismiss because the police would not
enforce it, Judge Moriarty "ordered" that my ex-husband go to my house
and take the bicycles in exchange for me getting to keep my "panties". I
tried to argue that the bikes were marital property, not personal property
and were extremely expensive, but he again said they were just like my
"panties". He further said that Judge Slater would order that my ex-
husband could pick up the bikes and that if I refused he would tell Judge
Slater that I refused to cooperate.

'In addition, my ex-husband has made very false and very public
allegations that I physically abused our children. Accordingly, a guardian
ad litem was appointed. I have told my ex-husband on many occasions
that unless and until he withdraws these false allegations and apologizes
I will not deal with him directly. My ex-husband complained to Judge
Moriarty that I refused to talk, text, and/or email with him. Instead of
addressing these allegations, again without counsel and in front of my
ex-husband, Judge Moriarty blamed me for causing problems with the
children because I refuse to communicate with my ex-husband. He then
"ordered" that I talk with my ex-husband at least every two days on the
phone and, most shockingly, he "ordered" that my ex-husband and I take
the children out to dinner like one big happy family.

6

'When the mediation finally concluded, I spoke to my attorney
and explained what had occurred. When my attorney requested
clarification, Judge Moriarty stated that he was going to send an email to
Judge Slater and the parties claiming that I was uncooperative and unable
to make decisions without my attorney.

'During the voluntary mediation process, I was intimidated,
threatened and sexually harassed by a Johnson County District Court
Judge. Judge Moriarty's behavior was more than unacceptable and
unprofessional. The behavior of Judge Moriarty has impacted me both
personally and professionally.'

The Respondent had no basis to allege that Judge Moriarty was masturbating during the
mediation. Judge Moriarty's administrative assistant and his court reporter were in the
courtroom during the mediation. Both women provided factual statements to the
Commission on Judicial Qualifications refuting the Respondent's allegations.

"8. On November 15, 2007, Judge Robert Fleming, Chairman of the
Commission on Judicial Qualifications, sent a letter to the Respondent. Judge Fleming's
letter provided:

'While Judge Moriarty was acting as a mediator in this situation,
he is, at all times, a district court judge. With regard to Judge Moriarty
using profanity during mediation, Judge Moriarty did admit to using
profanity and advised he often repeats statements made by parties to
confirm that he is listening. He has been cautioned that such conduct is
inappropriate for a judge, even when acting as a mediator.

'The Commission's investigation revealed, however, no support
for the remaining conclusory allegations in your complaint. Given the
serious nature of your allegations and the lack of support for them, the
Commission determined to refer your complaint to the Disciplinary
Administrator for investigation.'

7

"9. On January 2, 2008, the Respondent filed a response to the complaint
filed by Judge Fleming with the Disciplinary Administrator's Office. In her response, the
Respondent stated:

'As an initial matter, the complaint filed by Mr. Fleming is
improper and retaliatory and should be dismissed because truth is an
absolute defense and complainants are absolutely immune from
prosecution. Subject to and without waiving, I offer the following
response.

'As I [sic] licensed Kansas attorney, I have certain rights,
responsibilities and obligations. I have always done my best to uphold
the laws, rules and regulations of this state. I have also always made a
conscious effort to perform my duties in an ethical manner.
Unfortunately, others do not always share my perspective, and it is these
very people that have now required me to respond. I can assure the
judicial committee, Judge Moriarty and you that I do not intend on taking
this retaliation lying down.

'My complaint against Judge Moriarty stems from a mediation he
conducted in my divorce case. During the mediation Judge Moriarty used
profanity and threats to intimidate and harass me. He attempted to enter
orders in my divorce matter even though he was only serving as the
mediator and he was not the judge assigned to the divorce. Now, after
being assured that I would not be retaliated against, a bar complaint has
been filed against me and I am being forced to defend myself for filing a
complaint. If, however, I would have simply walked away and allowed
Judge Moriarty to continue his behavior I would have neglected my
duties as a Kansas attorney and violated my ethical obligations to the
citizens of this state.

'You have already received and reviewed the complaint that I
filed against Judge Moriarty, and I continue to stand by each and every
allegation. However, I only filed my complaint at the request of Judge
8

[Allen] Slater. My decision to file a complaint against Judge Moriarty
was not easy. Because I was fearful of retaliation I discussed the
situation with Judge Slater. Not once did he say it was unbelievable; to
the contrary, he was visibly shaken, he apologized profusely for
assigning Judge Moriarty to conduct the mediation and, most
importantly, he walked me through the procedure for filing a complaint
against Judge Moriarty. Judge Slater, using his own rule books in his
office, looked up and directed me to the pertinent statutes and gave me as
much information as he could for filing a complaint.

'Based upon Judge Slater's request and KRPC 8.3(b) I had no
choice but to file a complaint against Judge Moriarty. After I filed the
complaint, Ms. Carol Green assured me on several occasions that no
retaliation would be taken against me for filing. In addition, a careful
review of the laws of the State of Kansas makes it quite clear that I am
absolutely immune from any action for filing a complaint.

. . . .

'. . . During my discussion with Judge Slater, he made a comment
that epitomizes the purpose of immunity in this situation, Judge Slater
specifically said "my daughter is an attorney and I would hate to see her
treated this way."'

"10. Despite the Respondent's statement above that she filed the complaint
with the Commission on Judicial Qualifications after speaking with Judge Slater, she
failed to acknowledge that she never mentioned to Judge Slater that Judge Moriarty
'appeared to be masturbating' during the mediation.

"11. On September 25, 2009, the Respondent filed a Complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, Ireland v. Moriarty and the Johnson
County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners, case number 09-CV-2506 JWL/JPO. In the
Complaint, the Respondent made the following allegations:

9

'13. On September 26, 2007, the plaintiff Ireland attended
voluntary mediation conducted by defendant Moriarty.

'14. Defendant Moriarty used profanity during the
mediation. . . .

'15. Defendant Moriarty used the word "fuck" during the
mediation. . . .

'16. Defendant Moriarty discussed plaintiff Ireland's female
undergarments and referred to the same as "panties" during the
mediation. . . .

'17. Defendant Moriarty discussed plaintiff Ireland's sex life
during the mediation. . . .

'18. Plaintiff Ireland's sex life was irrelevant to the divorce
matter. . . .

'19. Defendant Moriarty appeared to be masturbating during
the mediation. . . .

'20. Plaintiff Ireland's ex-husband testified during the trial of
the divorce that defendant Moriarty's behavior during the mediation may
have been offensive to others.

'21. Most, if not all, of defendant Moriarty's inappropriate
behavior during the mediation occurred while only defendant Moriarty,
plaintiff Ireland and Kevin Ireland were in the room. . . .

'22. On October 1, 2007, plaintiff Ireland complained about
defendant Moriarty's behavior to District Court Judge Allen Slater.'

10

"12. The allegations made by the Respondent have been reported in the
Kansas City area in the Pitch Weekly.

"13. On December 15, 2009, the Respondent voluntarily dismissed her federal
court action against Judge Moriarty and Johnson County Kansas Board of
Commissioners and issued a press release that provided:

'On Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Kimberly J. Ireland dismissed
her federal court action and publicly apologized to Johnson County
Judge Kevin Moriarty, his family and other Johnson County District
Court personnel for alleging wrongful conduct that she mistakenly
believed took place in the midst of her highly contentious divorce action.
The divorce action, still pending after two years, has caused Ms. Ireland
to suffer heart ailments and extreme anxiety. After further reflection, Ms.
Ireland believes her perceptions regarding Judge Moriarty's conduct and
the conduct of other court personnel involved in her divorce action were
the product of extreme stress, and she has now determined that her
claims were untrue.

'Ms. Ireland regrets the ridicule, embarrassment and harm her
allegations caused to Judge Moriarty, his family, and other Johnson
County District Court personnel.'

"14. On March 1, 2010, the Respondent agreed to a temporary suspension of
her law license. Thereafter, on March 31, 2010, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an
order temporarily suspending the Respondent from the practice of law. As a result of the
Respondent's temporary suspension, she left the firm she formed with Aaron McKee.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1. Based upon the Respondent's stipulation and the above findings of fact,
the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC
8.2(a).

11

"2. KRPC 8.2(a) provides:

'A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be
false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal
officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal
office.'

The Respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a) when she repeatedly asserted that Judge Moriarty
'appeared to be masturbating' when she had no basis for making the statement.
Additionally, the Respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a) when she asserted in the federal
lawsuit that Judge Moriarty used his authority as a district court judge to request that his
administrative assistant and court reporter falsely state in letters to the Commission on
Judicial Qualification that he had done nothing wrong. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a).

"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

"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.

"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated her duty to the public, the legal system,
and the legal profession to maintain her personal integrity.

"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated her duty.

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused
actual, serious, injury to Judge Moriarty and to the legal profession.

12

"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:

"Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct involved making
false allegations against Judge Moriarty.

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct
by making serious false allegations against Judge Moriarty in three separate forums over
a period of 2 years―the letter of complaint to the Commission of Judicial Qualifications,
the response to the disciplinary complaint, and the Complaint in the federal law suit.

"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:

"Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not previously
been disciplined.

"Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed to
Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondents conduct
occurred while she was amidst her extreme stressful, highly contentious divorce action,
which caused her extreme anxiety and physical heart ailments requiring hospitalizations.
The Respondent has sought and continues psychological counseling and treatment from
Dr. James Ryabik.

"Inexperience in the Practice of Law. At the time the misconduct began, the
Respondent was inexperienced in the practice of law.

"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. According to letters received by the Hearing Panel, the
13

Respondent was an active and productive member of the bar in Johnson County, Kansas,
and enjoyed a good reputation.

"Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. Since March 1, 2010, the
Respondent has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law as a result of the
instant complaint. For a period of time following the suspension, the Respondent was
able to find employment. However, she lost that job after an article was published in the
Pitch Weekly regarding the Respondent's allegations against Judge Moriarty.

"Remorse. The Respondent expressed remorse at the hearing. However, when
given the opportunity to testify regarding what she regrets about this matter, she
discussed the impact on herself and her professional status. Only after prompting by
counsel did the Respondent address the effects of her conduct on her children, Judge
Moriarty, and his family. It appears that the Respondent's only apology to Judge Moriarty
came in the form of a press release written by her attorney. To call a press release an
apology is disingenuous. The Hearing Panel concludes that, to date, the Respondent has
only a limited recognition of the impact of her actions.

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

'7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public,
or the legal system.'

"RECOMMENDATION

"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Counsel for the Respondent
recommended that the Respondent be censured by the Kansas Supreme Court and that the
censure be published in the Kansas Reports. Counsel for the Respondent further
recommends that the temporary suspension be lifted.

14

"The Hearing Panel is concerned that, to date, the Respondent does not have a
clear understanding of her wrongdoing. The Respondent's failure to truly understand the
misconduct was highlighted by the following exchange during the hearing on the Formal
Complaint, when the Respondent was questioned by the Presiding Officer:

'Q. I guess what I'm most curious about is what you would
do differently today if confronted with a situation like the one that you
believed you found yourself in, in 2007 at the mediation?

'A. It's difficult to say because I would like to say that I
would not file a complaint at all and that would be a very easy answer.
But the―some of the behavior that occurred, like the profanity, I believe
was something that was inappropriate. But in hindsight with all of the
trouble that it's caused I don't know that I would file another judicial
complaint.

'Q. But you make that response based upon the
consequences of what you did three years ago or because you now
believe that what you did was wrong?

'A. I believe my word choice in my complaint was wrong.
That and I would never do that again and I would never advise anyone to
do that ever. And I do believe that it affected the integrity of Judge
Moriarty and I would never do that again. I do believe that it was wrong.

'Q. You've talked about several events in this case, most of
which occurred during the mediation but some afterwards as well,
including the judicial counsel's disposition of the matter as being
something that you felt affected or impugned your side of the story or
your personal integrity. Do I understand correctly that that's how it made
you feel?

15

'A. It made me feel that way at the time and it may have just
been that I did not understand the judicial commission's role that they
were to play in that―that I did not understand what their role was.

'Q. What do you understand differently today?

'A. That they may not be there to investigate every judicial
complaint that comes in and that they may not call and talk―speak to
everybody. That they may not come down and investigate and talk to and
ask for letters and do a full what I think of as an investigation. And that I
should have taken it upon myself to gather letters, such as Judge
Moriarty did, and to complete my story so that they had the full story in
front of them.'

"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. The Hearing Panel further
recommends that the indefinite suspension be made retroactive to the date of the
temporary suspension.

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

RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS

On December 27, 2010, the respondent filed exceptions to the final hearing report.
See Supreme Court Rule 212(e) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352). Specifically, she took
exception to the hearing panel's conclusion concerning her violation of KRPC 8.2(a)
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 615) (judicial and legal officials). She also took exception to
the hearing panel's findings of facts 2, 7, 8, and 10. Finally, with regard to the subject of
the appropriate discipline, the respondent took exception to the hearing panel's
recommendation of discipline and costs.
16

The respondent did not argue all of these exceptions in her brief, however. She
instead raises only one issue for this court's consideration: whether indefinite suspension
for a violation of KRPC 8.2(a) is too severe a sanction in this matter. Because she did not
argue the other exceptions that she had raised, the respondent has abandoned those
exceptions. See In re Johanning, 292 Kan. 477, 486, 254 P.3d 545 (2011) (a respondent
who does not advance arguments in a brief to this court that support exceptions to the
final hearing report is deemed to have abandoned the exceptions).

DISCUSSION

In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the
hearing panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of the
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); In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009); 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. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708,
725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]).

This court considers the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations to be advisory but gives the final hearing report the same dignity as a
special verdict by a jury or the findings of a trial court. In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 525,
241 P.3d 1010 (2010).

With respect to the discipline to be imposed, the hearing panel's recommendation
that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time
and that the indefinite suspension be made retroactive to the date of the temporary
suspension is "advisory only and shall not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions
17

greater or lesser than those recommended by the panel or the Disciplinary
Administrator." Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 353); see In re
Depew, 290 Kan. 1057, 1073, 237 P.3d 24 (2010). The disciplinary sanction must be
based on the specific facts and circumstances of the violations and the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances presented in the case. Johanning, 292 Kan. at 490.

The respondent requests that this court find indefinite suspension too harsh and
recommends instead that her self-imposed 1-year suspension be deemed sufficient
discipline and that any additional discipline be limited to published censure. Reprimand
or censure is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in negligent conduct that
causes injury or potential injury. In re Swanson, 288 Kan. 185, 215, 200 P.3d 1205
(2009); ABA Standards 4.43, 4.63, 7.3.

KRPC 8.2(a) reads:

"A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with
reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a
judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or
appointment to judicial or legal office." (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 615).

The stipulated facts demonstrate a knowing violation of the respondent's
professional duties. Granting that she was in great emotional distress during her divorce
and the related physical suffering, writing letters and filing federal lawsuits surely are
intentional, not negligent, acts. The respondent suggests that her behavior was "reckless"
but that she did not intend to cause harm to Judge Moriarty or the legal system. It is not
credible, however, to maintain that an attorney could file a disciplinary complaint and a
civil law suit against an individual without understanding that those actions would cause
harm to the individual.

18

The respondent submits that prior cases support imposition of a lighter sanction.
Each disciplinary sanction is based on the specific facts and circumstances of the
violations and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented in the case.
Because each case is unique, past sanctions provide little guidance. In re Bishop, 285
Kan. 1097, 1108, 179 P.3d 1096 (2008). When an attorney's misconduct is clearly
intentional, some length of suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate
sanction. Swanson, 288 Kan. at 215; Bishop, 285 Kan. at 1109.

As mitigating factors, the respondent emphasized her precarious emotional and
physical health during the pendency of her divorce, her lack of other ethical misconduct,
her relative professional inexperience, her retraction of the accusations and her apology
to Judge Moriarty, and her self-imposed suspension and cooperation with the
Disciplinary Administrator.

We note, however, that the respondent's professional misconduct was not limited
to a single instance but consisted of repeatedly making false accusations against a judge.
These allegations became a matter of public concern when they were set out in a lawsuit
and were discussed in the media. The respondent subsequently acknowledged that most
of her accusations were false, yet she continued to suggest that the real problem was her
failure to document her accusations adequately. While we recognize that certain factors
operate to mitigate the intentional nature of the misconduct, we deem the misconduct to
have been of sufficient magnitude to warrant suspension.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Kimberly J. Ireland be suspended from the
practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of 2 years and that the suspension be
retroactive to the initial date of the respondent's temporary suspension, March 31, 2010.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme
Court Rule 219 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 380) in the event respondent seeks
reinstatement.

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.