Jurisdiction Retained

An attorney who had been indefinitely suspended in Kansas in 1999 was permitted to practice in Kansas federal district court under the supervision of another attorney. He was charged with ethical misconduct in connection with two cases in federal court. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed findings of misconduct and ordered disbarment. The court rejected the assertion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the charges:

  The question as to whether the hearing panel–or, by extension, this court–hasjurisdiction to hear a case is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. SeeFoster v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 281 Kan. 368, 369, 130 P.3d 560 (2006). Thehearing panel’sfinal hearing report indicated that there was no objection to the panel’s jurisdiction to hear thecase. The respondent takes issue with this statement on appeal, claiming he did object to thepanel’s subject matter jurisdiction when he argued that all of the conduct at issue took place infederal court. Whatever the resolution of this dispute, we may consider the respondent’sjurisdictional challenge because the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.See Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389, 397, 153 P.3d 1227 (2007).

  That said, this court rejected the exact argument raised by the respondent in this case inInre Arnold, 274 Kan. 761, 771-72, 56 P.3d 259 (2002), where we explained:

       “KRPC 8.5 states: ‘A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject tothedisciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although engaged in practice elsewhere.’

“There is no conflict between state and federal jurisdiction. Arnold’s actions werenotproper in federal court just as they were not proper in state court. We retain the power todiscipline attorneys for conduct committed outside of and beyond our Kansas courts.”

  The respondent argues that there is a potential conflict in this case because the disciplinarypanel for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas may impose a differentdiscipline from that imposed in this jurisdiction. This argument is without merit. The comments toKRPC 8.5 state that “[i]f the rules of professional conduct [of Kansas and another jurisdiction]differ, principles of conflict of laws may apply.” KRPC 8.5, comment (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.579). The respondent has not demonstrated that the federal court’s rules of professional conductdiffer from those in Kansas or that his conduct would not have been subject to discipline in thefederal district court. In fact, the federal disciplinary panel has stayed its proceedings against therespondent pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings.

  Because the respondent is an attorney licensed to practice in this state, we conclude thatthe hearing panel had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the disciplinary action against himpursuant to KRPC 8.5.

(Mike Frisch)