Reciprocal Sanction Imposed

The Kansas Supreme Court imposed an indefinite suspension as reciprocal discipline for a Missouri disbarment by default. The matter was delayed for two years because the disciplined lawyer had represented that he would move to set aside the Missouri sanction. The court here had some procedural concerns but ultimately concluded that the Missouri default was functionally equivalent to a consent disbarment. The court states:

  After careful consideration, we conclude the final hearing report’s findings of fact andconclusions of law relative to the underlying Missouri claims of misconduct and their Kansascounterparts were inappropriate as such misconduct was not charged in the Kansas formalcomplaint nor did the Missouri Supreme Court determine that such misconduct occurred.However, it has been established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was disbarredin Missouri for misconduct in failing to file a timely response to the Missouri information and that,by Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.13, the effect thereof is consent to disbarment by the MissouriSupreme Court. Accordingly, that order of disbarment is valid and satisfies the grounds forreciprocal discipline set forth in Supreme Court Rule 202, which provides that a final adjudicationin another jurisdiction that a lawyer has been guilty of misconduct shall conclusively establish themisconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in Kansas.

  Respondent’s representation that he would seek to set aside the Missouri defaultdisbarment was untrue, although he has been given ample time to seek such relief. Suchmisrepresentation is a violation of Supreme Court Rule 8.4(d) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 559) ascharged in the formal complaint. As previously noted, failure to file a response to the Kansasformal complaint and to appear before this court constitute additional misconduct. We furtherconclude the appropriate discipline to be imposed is indefinite suspension with the specialcondition that no application for reinstatement will be considered unless accompanied by proofthat respondent has been reinstated to the practice of law in Missouri.

(Mike Frisch)