Intoxication Does Not Negate “Knowing” Misconduct: Kansas High Court Imposes Indefinite Suspension for Pattern of Alcohol-Related Crimes, Threatening Communications, and Reporting Failures

Introduction

In re Good is a Kansas Supreme Court attorney discipline decision arising from a sequence of alcohol-related incidents, criminal convictions, and procedural missteps by Wichita lawyer Paul F. Good, admitted to the Kansas bar in 1985. The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) charged Good with violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) and Supreme Court Rule 219. After a formal hearing, a panel found violations and recommended a one-year suspension with a reinstatement hearing. On review, the Kansas Supreme Court concluded the violations were proved by clear and convincing evidence and—emphasizing the respondent’s pattern of misconduct, threats and misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities, and disregard for reporting and appellate briefing rules—imposed an indefinite suspension.

The case presents four core issues:

Whether Good’s three criminal convictions and related conduct violated KRPC 8.4(b) (criminal misconduct reflecting adversely on fitness), 8.4(d) (prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (other conduct adversely reflecting on fitness), and Supreme Court Rule 219(c)-(d) (duty to report charges and convictions).
Whether intoxication and personal stress negate the “knowing” mental state required for disciplinary violations.
Whether threatening, intimidating, or deceptive communications to disciplinary authorities and others act as aggravating factors.
What sanction is appropriate when the misconduct is not client-representation specific but nonetheless implicates the lawyer’s fitness and the integrity of the legal system.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court adopted the panel’s factual findings and legal conclusions that Good violated:

KRPC 8.4(b): based on three criminal convictions—criminal trespass (Butler County 21-CR-281), battery (Sedgwick County 22-CR-460), and DUI (Bel Aire Municipal 2023-00224).
KRPC 8.4(d): by failing to appear at a criminal hearing, resulting in a bench warrant.
KRPC 8.4(g): by conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice—particularly an incident where, while intoxicated, he was found at a stranger’s residence claiming to be there in his capacity as a lawyer.
Supreme Court Rule 219(c) and (d): for failing to timely report certain criminal charges and a conviction.

Rejecting the respondent’s “lack of intent” exceptions (which the Court deemed largely abandoned and an invitation to reweigh facts), the Court reaffirmed that individuals are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts and held that the respondent “knowingly” engaged in misconduct notwithstanding his intoxication.

Although the panel recommended a one-year suspension with reinstatement under Rule 232, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension under Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(2), ordered compliance with Rule 231, and required a Rule 232 reinstatement hearing. Costs were assessed to the respondent.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision

In re Daniels, 320 Kan. 365 (2025): Reaffirmed the standard of proof—clear and convincing evidence—and the Court’s review posture. The Court applied Daniels to emphasize that it does not reweigh evidence, and that the ODA carried its burden.
In re Hodge, 307 Kan. 170 (2017) and In re Hawver, 300 Kan. 1023 (2014): The Court reiterated that when exceptions are taken, it evaluates for clear and convincing support, but does not reweigh conflicting evidence or reassess credibility. Good’s exceptions sought to add context and reweigh evidence rather than show error; the Court declined to do so.
In re Johanning, 292 Kan. 477 (2011) and In re Jones, 286 Kan. 544 (2008): Failure to brief exceptions results in abandonment. The Court found that Good waived many exceptions by not arguing them in his brief. Jones was also cited for the principle that the KRPC bind a lawyer “in every capacity in which the lawyer acts,” not just when representing clients, drawing on State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897 (1980). This was critical because Good argued that his misconduct did not arise from client representation.
State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718 (2024): Individuals are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts. The Court used Mendez to reject Good’s claims that intoxication negated the “knowing” mental state for disciplinary violations or criminal culpability.
In re Huffman, 315 Kan. 641 (2022): Noncompliance with appellate briefing rules may be considered in finding professional failings and in imposing sanctions. The Court found Good’s brief substantially deficient and considered that deficiency as an aggravating factor.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously applied the KRPC and Supreme Court rules to the established facts and then calibrated the sanction under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

1) KRPC 8.4(b): Criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness

Three convictions (criminal trespass, battery, DUI) were undisputed. Each independently supports an 8.4(b) violation and, taken together, show a pattern of criminal conduct that reflects adversely on Good’s fitness, honesty, and trustworthiness. Intoxication did not negate the “knowing” component; the Court applied Mendez’s presumption of intended consequences.

2) KRPC 8.4(d): Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

Good failed to appear for a scheduled criminal hearing, prompting a bench warrant and bond forfeiture order. The Court agreed this obstructed orderly judicial administration and constituted 8.4(d) misconduct.

3) KRPC 8.4(g): Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness

The Bel Aire incident—while intoxicated, found at a stranger’s residence after claiming to be there as a lawyer—adversely reflects on professional fitness. The Court underscored the “every capacity” principle: lawyers must uphold professional standards even when not actively representing a client.

4) Supreme Court Rule 219(c) and (d): Reporting obligations

Good untimely reported certain charges and failed to report a conviction. The Court emphasized the clarity and strictness of Rule 219’s 14-day requirements and found violations of both subsections (c) and (d).

5) Mental state and intoxication

Respondent argued he did not “knowingly” engage in misconduct due to intoxication, pain, and stressors. The Court rejected this, holding that the pattern of behavior and its foreseeable consequences demonstrated conscious, intentional conduct meeting the “knowing” standard. Substance use and personal stress were considered as mitigating context but did not neutralize culpability.

6) Aggravating and mitigating factors; ABA Standards

The Court evaluated aggravators and mitigators under the ABA Standards:

Aggravators:
- Pattern of misconduct across multiple incidents and convictions, all alcohol-related; the DUI was a third DUI conviction.
- Substantial experience (36+ years) in the practice of law.
- Multiple instances of illegal conduct.
- Threatening, intimidating, and deceptive communications to the Disciplinary Administrator and others, including false claims of terminal cancer and veiled threats (“Do you want me to do the same thing I just did to Biden?”) alongside aggression toward opposing counsel and court staff.
- Noncompliance with appellate briefing rules, considered per Huffman.
Mitigators:
- Absence of prior discipline in more than three decades of practice.
- Substance use disorder and anxiety contributed to the misconduct.
- Positive character references and professional reputation.
- Other penalties already imposed via criminal sentences.

The Court referenced Standards 5.12 (criminal conduct reflecting on fitness), 6.22 (knowing violation of court order or rule), 6.23 (negligent noncompliance), and 7.2/7.3 (violations of duties owed as a professional). Given the seriousness, pattern, public risk (DUI), and the respondent’s failure to accept responsibility, the Court found that a one-year suspension (as recommended by the panel) was insufficient and imposed an indefinite suspension.

What This Decision Clarifies and Why It Matters

Intoxication does not defeat “knowing” misconduct: The Court’s reliance on the presumption that people intend natural consequences (Mendez) makes clear that intoxication and pain do not negate the mental state for KRPC violations when the conduct is intentional and its consequences foreseeable.
The KRPC regulate lawyers in every capacity: Misconduct outside client representation—especially when the lawyer invokes their professional role to third parties—can support serious discipline under 8.4(g) and related rules.
Threats and misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities aggravate sanctions: The Court treated deceptive claims about serious medical conditions and veiled threats against public officials and opposing counsel as significant aggravators that support indefinite suspension.
Rule 219 reporting must be timely and complete: The 14-day reporting duty is enforced strictly; late or non-reporting adds to the sanction calculus.
Poor appellate briefing can be sanction-aggravating: Echoing Huffman, the Court considered the respondent’s noncompliant brief as a professional failing bearing on sanction severity.

Impact

On attorney discipline in Kansas

In re Good signals that when a lawyer’s non-client, alcohol-fueled criminal conduct is compounded by threats, misrepresentations, and reporting failures, the Kansas Supreme Court will not hesitate to move beyond a fixed-term suspension to an indefinite suspension with a mandatory reinstatement hearing. The decision positions deceit and intimidation directed at the disciplinary process itself as serious aggravators that can escalate sanctions.

On lawyers with substance use disorders

The opinion recognizes substance use and anxiety as mitigating influences but makes clear they do not excuse violations or obviate “knowing” misconduct. Promises of sobriety, even with treatment and AA participation, will not carry weight without sustained follow-through. Reinstatement will require proof of rehabilitation and fitness through the structured Rule 232 process.

On compliance culture

The Court emphasizes professional accountability beyond courtroom conduct. Lawyers must:

Report charges and convictions within 14 days under Rule 219(c)-(d).
Maintain professionalism in all written communications, especially with the ODA, opposing counsel, and courts.
Conform appellate submissions to Kansas Supreme Court rules; deficiencies may be treated as aggravating circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Indefinite suspension: Unlike a fixed-term suspension, indefinite suspension removes the lawyer from practice for an unspecified period. Reinstatement is not automatic; the lawyer must petition and prove fitness at a Rule 232 hearing.
Rule 231 duties: A suspended lawyer must wind down their practice ethically and notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel as required, to protect client interests and the integrity of pending matters.
Rule 232 reinstatement hearing: A formal proceeding where the lawyer bears the burden of demonstrating rehabilitation, current fitness to practice, compliance with disciplinary orders, and, where applicable, sustained sobriety and treatment compliance.
“Clear and convincing evidence”: A high standard of proof requiring that the fact-finder be firmly convinced of the truth of the allegations; used in attorney discipline.
KRPC 8.4(b), (d), (g):
- (b) Prohibits criminal acts that reflect adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
- (d) Prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (e.g., failing to appear, causing bench warrants).
- (g) Prohibits other conduct that adversely reflects on fitness, even outside client representation.
Rule 219(c)-(d) reporting: Lawyers must report “reportable” criminal charges and convictions in writing to the ODA within 14 days. Untimely or missing reports constitute independent violations.
“Knowing” misconduct: In discipline, “knowing” refers to conscious, intentional conduct—not necessarily with specific intent to violate the rule. Intoxication does not negate “knowing” when the acts and their consequences are voluntary and foreseeable.
ABA Standards: A framework for calibrating sanctions based on duty violated, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors (e.g., Standards 5.12, 6.22, 7.2). They guide, but do not bind, the Court’s sanction analysis.

Practice Guidance and Takeaways

Substance use disorder is a mitigating factor only when paired with demonstrable rehabilitation and sustained compliance; it does not excuse criminal or unethical conduct.
A lawyer’s off-duty conduct can trigger serious discipline when it reflects on fitness or harms public confidence—invoking lawyer status in the midst of such conduct compounds risk.
Communications with the ODA and courts must remain professional. Threats, intimidation, or falsehoods (e.g., feigning a terminal diagnosis) will be treated as severe aggravators.
Calendar Rule 219 deadlines. Promptly report qualifying charges and convictions; document disclosure.
Ensure appellate filings strictly comply with formatting and content rules; deficiencies can influence sanction severity.
Expect that a pattern of alcohol-related offenses—particularly a third DUI—may support indefinite suspension absent compelling, sustained rehabilitation evidence.

Conclusion

In re Good underscores a firm disciplinary posture: intoxication does not defeat the “knowing” element of professional misconduct; off-the-clock criminal behavior and misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities can warrant severe sanctions; and procedural obligations—from reporting crimes to properly briefing the Court—are integral to professional fitness. The Kansas Supreme Court’s imposition of an indefinite suspension, elevating the panel’s one-year recommendation, reflects the cumulative weight of a pattern of alcohol-related crimes, threats and deception in the disciplinary process, and failures to comply with reporting and appellate rules.

The opinion is a clear signal to the bar that safeguarding public trust requires integrity in every capacity a lawyer acts and at every step of the disciplinary and appellate processes. Lawyers facing substance-related issues are encouraged—and expected—to pair treatment with transparent compliance and sustained behavioral change, particularly where public safety and the administration of justice are at stake.

Case Snapshot

Court: Supreme Court of Kansas
Case: In re Paul F. Good, No. 128,150
Date: August 8, 2025
Holding: Violations of KRPC 8.4(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and Supreme Court Rule 219(c)-(d); indefinite suspension imposed; Rule 231 compliance required; Rule 232 hearing mandated for reinstatement.