Border Crossing

A bar discipline matter scheduled for oral argument before the Missouri Supreme Court on May 6 involves allegations of unauthorized practice of law.

From the brief of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Region IV Special Representative

Respondent has been licensed as an attorney in Missouri since 1999 and his bar number is 51603. App. 5, 199, 208. Respondent has never been licensed to practice law in Kansas or in any state other than Missouri. App. 70, 208. Respondent is a solo practitioner in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. His general practice includes minor criminal defense cases, traffic violations, and municipal court work. App. 54. The majority of Respondent’s clients only speak Spanish. App. 51, 55. Since 2001, approximately five to ten percent of Respondent’s cases have been in Kansas courts. App. 54, 124. During that time, Respondent failed to disclose to clients that he was not licensed to practice in Kansas. App. 54-55. Although he did have the opportunity to seek admission into the Kansas Bar, Respondent explained that he failed to do so because of “[p]ure laziness and informalities of the court.” App. 56.

Since 2001, Respondent appeared as counsel of record in Kansas municipal courts in Fairway, Gardner, Kansas City, Olathe, Leawood, Lenexa, Merriam, Mission, Mission Hills, Mission Woods, Overland Park, Prairie Village, Lake Quivira, Roeland Park, Shawnee and Westwood Hills. He appeared in at least 1,143 cases in Kansas courts. App. 209. Initially, Respondent would ask for permission to appear in the Kansas municipal courts by pro hac vice application and with a licensed Kansas attorney. App. 209. In 2002, Respondent stopped using local counsel and began appearing in Kansas municipal courts without a license. App. 209. Respondent would enter his appearance when required, using his own name, but noting his Missouri Bar number. App. 209. In addition, he would often use Bar Number 19595, the Kansas Bar number of a law school classmate, Adam T. Suroff. App. 209, 263, 271, 275. Mr. Suroff had no knowledge that his Kansas Bar number was being used. App. 209. Respondent admitted using Mr. Suroff’s Kansas Bar number at least fifty-nine times. App. 114-115. Between 2014 and 2018, Respondent routinely appeared in Lenexa Municipal Court on several cases in which his sister-in-law Nancy Olivares, a properly licensed Kansas attorney, was the attorney of record. As a routine, Respondent would appear alone on those cases without requesting pro hac vice application. App. 201. Respondent admitted during the DHP hearing that he appeared in at least 1,143 cases without local counsel or having permission following a pro hac vice application. App. 120.

While appearing in Kansas courts, Respondent would handle traffic matters, including speeding tickets, driving while suspended and driving under the influence (“DUI”) cases. App. 58. Although he did some pro bono work, he was paid in at least ninety-five to ninety-eight percent (95-98%) of the cases. App. 57-58. His fees ranged from one-hundred dollars ($100.00) for a speeding ticket to one thousand to fifteenhundred dollars ($1,000 – $1,500.00) for DUI cases. App. 58-59. Respondent’s Kansas practice allowed him to earn substantial fees and income. App. 116. Respondent did not handle felony cases in Kansas due to Kansas District Courts being more formal than municipal courts and because he “knew [he] shouldn’t have been in municipal court.” App. 59. Most of Respondent’s clients had immigration or potential immigration issues. App. 116 117. Although the matters were filed in a municipal court, they were serious cases because they had potential ramifications for all of his clients who were either in the country undocumented or on a temporary visa. App. 117

Chief Disciplinary Counsel seeks disbarment. (Mike Frisch)