In re Terry

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 105,693

In the Matter of PAUL C. TERRY,
Respondent.


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 21, 2011. Disbarment.

Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A.
Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., Topeka, argued the cause, and Paul C. Terry,
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, Paul C. Terry, of Kansas City,
Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2004.

On October 14, 2010, 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 December 1, 2010. A hearing was
held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on
December 6, 2010, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by
counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2010 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 406) (competence); 1.3 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 422) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2010
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 441) (communication); 1.5(d) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 458) (fees);
1.15(a) and (d)(2)(v) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 505) (safekeeping property and
production of trust account records for examination); 1.16(d) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.
521) (termination of representation); 8.1(b) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) (failure to
2

respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority); 8.4(c) (2010 Kan.
Ct. R. Annot. 603) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327) (failure to file timely answer
in disciplinary proceeding).

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
. . . .

"Attorney License History

"2. On December 23, 2004, the Kansas Supreme Court granted the
Respondent a license to practice law in Kansas.

"3. Thereafter, on October 11, 2006, the Court suspended the Respondent's
license for failing to pay the annual registration fee and for failing to pay the late filing
continuing education fee. On June 18, 2007, after correcting the deficiencies, the Court
reinstated the Respondent's license to practice law.

"4. On October 9, 2007, the Court suspended the Respondent's license for a
second time. The Court suspended the Respondent a second time for failing to pay the
annual registration fee, for failing to pay the noncompliance continuing legal education
fee, and for failing to fulfill the minimum continuing legal education requirements.
Sixteen months later, on February 18, 2009, the Court reinstated the Respondent's license
to practice law.

"5. On October 18, 2010, the Court suspended the Respondent's license for a
third time. The Court suspended the Respondent's license this year for failing to pay the
annual registration fee, for failing to fulfill the minimum continuing legal education
requirements, and for failing to pay the late filing fee and noncompliance continuing legal
education fee. The Respondent's license remains suspended.
3


"6. The Respondent has never been licensed to practice law in Missouri.

"Representation of Ms. Collins

"7. On August 26, 2007, the Respondent met Joyce Collins at Sharp's 63rd
Street Grill in Kansas City, Missouri. At that time, Ms. Collins sought to hire an attorney
to file and prosecute a wrongful termination case against Commerce Bank. Despite his
inability to do so, the Respondent agreed to file the case in behalf of Ms. Collins in the
Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Court in Independence, Missouri.

"8. At that time, the Respondent was associated with Neysa L. Day. Also at
that time, Ms. Day was a licensed Missouri attorney.

"9. Ms. Collins paid the Respondent $1,000 for the representation. Ms.
Collins and the Respondent agreed that the Respondent would bill Ms. Collins at a rate of
$100 per hour and that the Respondent would be entitled to one-third of any proceeds
recovered. The Respondent agreed to prepare and forward to Ms. Collins a written fee
agreement memorializing their agreement. The Respondent never provided Ms. Collins
with a written fee agreement.

"10. On August 31, 2007, the Respondent deposited Ms. Collins' check into
his law office operating account. The Respondent used the proceeds from Ms. Collins'
check to pay personal expenses, including his home mortgage and car payment before he
performed any substantial work on Ms. Collins' case.

"11. On December 26, 2007, a petition was filed in behalf of Ms. Collins. Ms.
Day signed the petition as attorney of record for Ms. Collins. However, the Respondent
testified that he drafted the petition, Ms. Day edited the petition, and that the Respondent
personally filed the petition with the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Contrary
to Ms. Collins' request, the Respondent filed the case at the Kansas City, Missouri, court
rather than the Independence, Missouri, court At no time did the Respondent file a
motion for admission pro hac vice in Ms. Collins' case. The Respondent never informed
Ms. Collins that Ms. Day would be the attorney of record on her case.
4


"12. On January 4, 2008, the Respondent and Ms. Collins again met at Sharp's
63rd Street Grill. During the meeting, the Respondent informed Ms. Collins that he filed
the case on December 26, 2007, and that he needed an additional check for $1,000.
Again, the Respondent assured Ms. Collins that he would provide her with a written fee
agreement. And, again, the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Collins with a written fee
agreement.

"13. Ms. Collins provided the Respondent with another $1,000 check. The
Respondent deposited Ms. Collins' second check into his operating account. At the time
he deposited it, the account was overdrawn. The Respondent used the proceeds from Ms.
Collins' check to pay his personal expenses prior to earning the fees.

"14. On April 23, 2008, a motion for the appointment of a special process
server was filed in behalf of Ms. Collins. The court granted the motion. Thereafter, the
Respondent did nothing to further the representation of Ms. Collins or to prosecute the
case.

"15. Following their meeting on January 4, 2008, from time to time Ms.
Collins provided information to the Respondent regarding her representation. However,
the Respondent failed to keep in touch with Ms. Collins.

"16. Ms. Collins attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone. However,
the Respondent did not return the telephone calls. The Respondent, likewise did not
contact the Ms. Collins by letter or via electronic mail after February 2, 2008.

"17. On April 17, 2009, the court dismissed Ms. Collins' cause of action
without prejudice. The Respondent did not notify Ms. Collins that her case had been
dismissed by the court.

"[18]. Throughout the time the Respondent represented Ms. Collins, his license
to practice law in Kansas was suspended.

5

"[19]. In October, 2009, Ms. Collins discovered that her case had been
dismissed by the court by viewing case information online. Ms. Collins also discovered
that Ms. Day was listed as her attorney of record. Prior to observing Ms. Day's name
associated with her case in the online case information, Ms. Collins had never heard of
Ms. Day. The Respondent did not inform Ms. Collins that he did not have a license to
practice law in Missouri nor did he inform Ms. Collins that Ms. Day would be the
attorney of record in her case. Ms. Collins never met Ms. Day.

"[20]. In November, 2009, the Missouri Supreme Court disbarred Ms. Day.

"[21]. Ms. Collins filed a complaint with the Office of the Missouri
Disciplinary Counsel. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel informed Ms. Collins that the
Respondent had never been licensed in Missouri and that she should file her complaint
with the Disciplinary Administrator in Kansas.

"[22]. On February 11, 2010, Ms. Collins filed a complaint with the
Disciplinary Administrator. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the
Respondent and directed him to file a written response to the complaint within 20 days.
The Respondent failed to provide a written response as directed by the Disciplinary
Administrator.

"[23]. The Disciplinary Administrator also forwarded Ms. Collins' complaint to
the Johnson County Ethics and Grievance Committee for investigation. J. Nick
Badgerow, Chairman of the committee, assigned Thomas Mitchelson to investigate the
complaint.

"[24]. On March 2, 2010, Mr. Mitchelson wrote to the Respondent and directed
him to provide a written response to the complaint. Additionally, Mr. Mitchelson directed
the Respondent to contact him to schedule an interview. The Respondent failed to
provide a written response to the complaint and also failed to contact Mr. Mitchelson to
schedule an interview.

"[25]. In May, 2010, Mr. Mitchelson again wrote to the Respondent and
directed him to provide a written response to the complaint and contact him to schedule
6

an interview. The Respondent contacted Mr. Mitchelson and scheduled an interview.
After several continuances of the schedule[d] interview, on June 9, 2010, the Respondent
met with Mr. Mitchelson.

"[26]. The Respondent informed Mr. Mitchelson that he deposited Ms. Collins'
first check into his attorney trust account. The Respondent informed Mr. Mitchelson that
he was unsure whether he deposited Ms. Collins' second check into his attorney trust
account or in his operating account. The Respondent informed Mr. Mitchelson that he did
not have a written fee agreement with Ms. Collins.

"[27]. Following his interview with Mr. Mitchelson, the Respondent provided a
written response to the complaint.

"[28]. Mr. Mitchelson requested that the Respondent provide his attorney trust
account records showing the deposit of Ms. Collins' checks and the disbursements of the
deposits. The Respondent did not provide Mr. Mitchelson with any attorney trust account
records.

"[29]. On September 15, 2010, the Disciplinary Administrator issued a
subpoena to the Respondent, requiring the Respondent to produce copies of all of his
attorney trust account records required to be maintained. On September 21, 2010, Terry
Morgan, special investigator for the Disciplinary Administrator, served the subpoena on
the Respondent. The subpoena required the Respondent to produce the records by
September 28, 2010. The Respondent failed to provide any attorney trust account records.
Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide the Disciplinary Administrator with any
explanation as to why he failed to comply with the subpoena.

"[30]. At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent testified that he could not
comply with the subpoena because his bank had recently merged with another bank and
the records were no longer available.

"[31]. On September 15, 2010, the Disciplinary Administrator also issued a
subpoena to the Respondent's bank, Metcalf Bank. The subpoena was served that same
7

day. On September 24, 2010, the bank complied with the subpoena and provided the
Disciplinary Administrator's office with a copy of the Respondent's bank records.

"[32]. On October 14, 2010, the Disciplinary Administrator filed the Formal
Complaint in this case. The Respondent failed to file a timely Answer to the Formal
Complaint. On December 1, 2010, five days prior to the hearing on the Formal
Complaint, John J. Ambrosio entered his appearance in behalf of the Respondent and
filed an Answer to the Formal Complaint.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1. In his Answer to the Formal Complaint, the Respondent admitted that he
violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5(d), KRPC 1.15(a), KRPC
1.15(d)(2)(v), KRPC 1.16(d), KRPC 8.1(b), and KRPC 8.4(c). Additionally, based upon
the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter of law that the Respondent
violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) as detailed below:

"2. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC
1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' The Respondent was not
competent to represent Ms. Collins or anyone else in an employment discrimination case.
Having no experience in that area of law, the Respondent failed to represent Ms. Collins
with the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for
the representation. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent
violated KRPC 1.1.

"3. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. After filing the petition, the Respondent did
little to no work on Ms. Collins' case. He failed to represent her with the diligence and
promptness that the rules require. Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing Ms. Collins, the Hearing Panel concludes that
the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3.

8

"4. 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 failed to
respond to Ms. Collins' requests for information and provide Ms. Collins with current
information regarding the representation. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that
the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a).

"5. Contingent fee agreements must be in writing. KRPC 1.5(d) provides the
requirement in this regard:

'A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which
the service is rendered, . . . A contingent fee agreement shall be in
writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined,
including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in
the event of settlement, trial or appeal, and the litigation and other
expenses to be deducted from the recovery. . . .'

The Respondent entered into a contingency fee agreement with Ms. Collins but failed to
reduce the agreement to writing. Thus, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent
violated KRPC 1.5(d).

"6. Lawyers must properly safeguard their clients' property. KRPC 1.15(a)
specifically provides that:

'(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons
that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation
separate from the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a
separate account maintained in the state of Kansas. Other property shall
be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of
such account funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and
shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the
representation.'

9

In this case, the Respondent failed to properly safeguard Ms. Collins' property. First, the
Respondent did not deposit the unearned fees into his attorney trust account. Rather, the
Respondent deposited Ms. Collins' unearned fees into his operating account. Further, the
Respondent used Ms. Collins unearned fees on personal expenses prior to earning it.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent failed to properly
safeguard Ms. Collins' property, in violation of KRPC 1.15(a).

"7. Attorneys must maintain attorney trust account records and produce the
records upon request by the Disciplinary Administrator. KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v) provides
that '[t]he lawyer shall: . . . [p]roduce all trust account records for examination by the
Disciplinary Administrator upon request of the Disciplinary Administrator.' The
Respondent failed to produce his attorney trust account records as requested by the
Disciplinary Administrator. Therefore, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent
violated KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v).

"8. 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.'

To date, the Respondent has not refunded Ms. Collins' unearned fees, in violation of
KRPC 1.16(d). As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC
1.16(d).

"9. Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b)
provides the requirement in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection with a . . . disciplinary
matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from
10

[a] . . . disciplinary authority, . . .' The Respondent failed to provide his trust account
records as requested by Mr. Mitchelson and as required by the subpoena. Accordingly,
the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b).

"10. 'It 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 deceit by omission. The Respondent engaged in
deceitful conduct when he failed to inform Ms. Collins that he was not licensed in
Missouri, when he failed to inform Ms. Collins that his license to practice law in Kansas
was suspended, when he failed to inform Ms. Collins that Ms. Day would be the attorney
of record in his case, and when he failed to inform Ms. Collins that her case had been
dismissed. The Respondent also engaged in dishonest conduct when he informed Mr.
Mitchelson that he deposited Ms. Collins' first check into his attorney trust account.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c).

"11. The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file Answers to
Formal Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the requirement:

'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the
hearing panel.'

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by
failing to file a timely written Answer to the Formal Complaint. Accordingly, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b).

"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
11

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 his duty to his client to provide
competent and diligent representation and adequate communication. Additionally, the
Respondent violated his duty to his client to properly safeguard his client's property.
Finally, the Respondent violated his duty to the legal profession to cooperate in
disciplinary investigations.

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

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused
actual injury to Ms. Collins.

"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 was motivated by
both dishonesty and selfishness. The Respondent was deceitful in dealing with Ms.
Collins. He failed to inform her that he was not licensed in Missouri, he failed to inform
her that his Kansas license to practice law was suspended, he failed to inform her that Ms.
Day would be the attorney of record on her case, and he failed to inform her when her
case was dismissed. By spending Ms. Collins' attorney fees on personal expenses prior to
earning the fees and by failing to return the unearned fees to Ms. Collins, the Respondent
acted selfishly.

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct in
this case. Throughout the period of time the Respondent represented Ms. Collins, his
license to practice law in Kansas was suspended. The Respondent's misconduct occurred
over a period of time and included engaging in the same misconduct repeatedly.

12

"Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4,
KRPC 1.5(d), KRPC 1.15(a), KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v), KRPC 1.16(d), KRPC 8.1(b), KRPC
8.4(c), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent committed multiple offenses.

"Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally Failing
to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The Respondent engaged in
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by failing to timely provide a written
response to the initial complaint, by failing to timely schedule an interview with Mr.
Mitchelson, by failing to provide Mr. Mitchelson with copies of his attorney trust account
records, by failing to provide the attorney trust account records pursuant to the subpoena,
and by failing to timely file an Answer to the Formal Complaint. Further, the Respondent
repeatedly failed to comply with annual registration rules.

"Vulnerability of Victim. Ms. Collins was vulnerable to the Respondent's
misconduct.

"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.

"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 cooperated during the disciplinary hearing and
acknowledged his misconduct and the violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct.

"Inexperience in the Practice of Law. The Respondent is inexperienced in the
practice of law, having been admitted to the practice in 2004.

13

"Remorse. During the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent
expressed genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct.

"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.

'4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
. . . .
(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client
and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or

(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to
client matters and causes serious or potentially serious 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

"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be disbarred.
Counsel for the Respondent recommended that the Respondent be required to serve a
short, definite suspension and that the Respondent's practice be supervised upon
reinstatement.

"The Respondent does not appear to fully appreciate the significance of his
misconduct. Ms. Collins retained the Respondent to perform a service. The Respondent
accepted the representation and the attorney fee and did not perform the service. The
14

Respondent failed to inform her that her case had been dismissed. The Respondent could
have informed Ms. Collins that the case had been dismissed at a time when she could
have retained new counsel to pursue the litigation. Because he did not, Ms. Collins lost
not only her $2,000 in attorney fees but also her cause of action.

"Additionally, the Respondent basically ignored the Disciplinary Administrator's
office. He failed to provide a written response to the initial complaint, he failed to timely
contact the investigator to schedule an interview, he failed to provide a copy of the trust
account records when requested to do so by Mr. Mitchelson, he failed to provide a copy
of the trust account records pursuant to the subpoena, and he failed to file a timely
Answer to the Formal Complaint.

"Finally, the Respondent has repeatedly failed to comply with the annual
registration rules resulting [in] the repeated suspension of his law license. It does not
appear that the Respondent ever complied with the suspension orders. Rather, it appears
that the Respondent continuously practiced law when his license was suspended.

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

"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) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327).
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the
15

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 filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. As
such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2010
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 344). We conclude the hearing panel's findings are supported by clear
and convincing evidence. Thus, the only issue before us is the appropriate discipline.

At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office of
the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The
respondent argued against disbarment and requested an indefinite suspension with
supervised probation upon reinstatement.

We decline the respondent's request for suspension and subsequent probation. As
the hearing panel noted, the respondent's license to practice law in this state has been
suspended three times for failure to timely pay the annual registration fee and continuing
legal education late fees; in fact, his license has been suspended since October 18, 2010.
When these offenses are considered along with the respondent's multiple offenses in this
case, including violations of KRPC 1.1; 1.3; 1.4(a); 1.5(d); 1.15(a) and (d)(2)(v); 1.16(d);
8.1(b); 8.4(c); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b), we find disbarment is the
appropriate discipline.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Paul C. Terry 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) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 276).

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court
Rule 218 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 370).

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.