In re Wiechman

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 103,062

In the Matter of STEVEN R. WIECHMAN,
Petitioner.


ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On January 22, 2010, this court suspended the petitioner, Steven R. Wiechman,
from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 1 year. See In re Wiechman, 290 Kan.
70, 222 P.3d 485 (2010). Before reinstatement, the petitioner was required to pay the
costs of the disciplinary action, comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2010 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 370), and undergo a hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2010 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 370).

On January 27, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition with this court for
reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the
Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of
Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. On June 24, 2011, a hearing was held
before a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys to consider the
petitioner's request for reinstatement.

On September 20, 2011, the panel filed its report setting out the circumstances
leading to the petitioner's suspension, a summary of the evidence presented, and its
findings and recommendations. The panel unanimously recommended that the
petitioner's petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas be granted. The
panel further recommended that the petitioner's reinstatement be conditioned on the
following:

2

"1. the petitioner's agreement that he will meet with female clients in [the] first floor
conference room and not in his private office,
"2. the petitioner's agreement that he will meet with female clients in the presence of
another staff member [who is not a member of the petitioner's family],
"3. the petitioner's agreement that he will not meet with female clients after regular
business hours,
"4. the petitioner's agreement that he will not offer marketing products to clients, and
"5. the petitioner's agreement that he will seek out mental health counseling if the
circumstances warrant."

The panel further recommended that should a client make a similar complaint in
the future, the petitioner shall be immediately temporarily suspended and that if the
evidence supports the complaint at hearing, the petitioner should be disbarred.

The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and
recommendations of the panel that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law in
Kansas.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice of
law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his agreement to the five conditions listed
above as well as compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and
upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas
Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the petitioner has complied with the
annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the
Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission,
the Clerk is directed to enter petitioner's name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the
practice of law in Kansas.

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that should a client make a similar complaint in the
future to the one made in this disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner shall be immediately
3

temporarily suspended from the practice of law in Kansas, and that if the evidence
supports the complaint at hearing, the petitioner shall be disbarred.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order of reinstatement for Steven R.
Wiechman shall be published in the Kansas Reports and the costs of the reinstatement
proceeding are assessed to the petitioner.

Dated this 21st

day of December, 2011.