Stayed Reciprocal Suspension and Coordinated Probation in Kansas Attorney Discipline: Commentary on In re Kort

Stayed Reciprocal Suspension and Coordinated Probation in Kansas Attorney Discipline: Commentary on In re Kort

I. Introduction

The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in In re Kort, No. 129,389 (Dec. 26, 2025), is a significant addition to Kansas attorney discipline jurisprudence in three interrelated respects:

  • It illustrates how Kansas handles reciprocal discipline when another jurisdiction (here, Missouri) has already imposed a stayed suspension with probation.
  • It shows how the court uses the summary submission procedure under Supreme Court Rule 223 to streamline disciplinary proceedings while preserving its independent authority over findings and sanctions.
  • It refines the practice of imposing a stayed suspension with coordinated probation that is explicitly linked to an out-of-state probationary regime and allows for early termination upon successful completion of that foreign probation.

The respondent, Allison G. Kort, is a Kansas lawyer (admitted 2015) also licensed in Missouri and New York, with inactive licenses in California and North Carolina. Her misconduct arose from a pattern of missed post-judgment and appellate deadlines in a series of Missouri family law appeals, coupled with a failure to timely respond to investigative requests from the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC).

Missouri imposed an indefinite suspension (with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year), stayed that suspension, and placed Kort on a three-year probation with robust supervisory and treatment conditions. That discipline triggered reciprocal consequences in New York and Kansas. In Kansas, the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) proceeded on the underlying misconduct—not simply on the fact of the Missouri order—resulting in a three-year stayed suspension and two years of Kansas probation, coordinated with Missouri’s sanctions and subject to a possibility of early discharge.

While the opinion does not dramatically alter the text of any Kansas rule, it clarifies and exemplifies:

  • How Kansas structures discipline when another state has already imposed a probationary regime.
  • The weight given to mental health conditions and rehabilitation-related efforts in calibrating sanctions.
  • The use of KRPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel) to address repeated failures to comply with court rules and deadlines, not only discovery abuse or courtroom misconduct.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The case reaches the Kansas Supreme Court as an original proceeding in discipline but in a reciprocal discipline posture under Supreme Court Rule 221(c), following discipline originally imposed by the Missouri Supreme Court.

Key steps and outcomes:

  • Missouri proceedings:
    • OCDC sought interim suspension in June 2023 after multiple missed deadlines and nonresponse to investigative requests.
    • The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Kort’s license, then indefinitely suspended her on July 5, 2023.
    • On joint stipulation, a Missouri hearing panel in January 2024 approved discipline: indefinite suspension, no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year, stayed, with three years of probation.
    • On April 2, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court issued its order implementing that stay and three-year probation, with conditions including probation monitoring, CLE, mental health treatment, malpractice coverage, trust account audits, and costs.
    • New York imposed reciprocal suspension on January 23, 2024.
  • Kansas proceedings:
    • Kort self-reported the Missouri suspension to Kansas on July 19, 2023.
    • The ODA filed a formal complaint on May 19, 2025, alleging violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.1(b) based on the same underlying conduct.
    • On June 23, 2025, the parties entered into a Rule 223 summary submission agreement, stipulating facts, violations, aggravating and mitigating factors, and a recommended discipline.
    • The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission and canceled the formal hearing; by operation of Rule 228(g)(1), the stipulated facts and conclusions are deemed admitted.
  • Misconduct:
    • In five separate appeals, Kort:
      • Missed jurisdictional or critical briefing deadlines (sometimes repeatedly).
      • Filed noncompliant or incomplete briefs.
      • Caused multiple appeals to be dismissed, often without a decision on the merits.
    • She also failed to respond in a timely manner to two written demands from the Missouri OCDC seeking information about a disciplinary complaint.
  • Violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:
    • KRPC 1.1 – Competence, for failing to provide the necessary thoroughness and preparation by repeatedly missing mandatory deadlines.
    • KRPC 1.3 – Diligence, for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in pursuing clients’ appeals.
    • KRPC 3.4(c) – Fairness to opposing party and counsel, for knowingly failing to comply with court-ordered deadlines and rules of the tribunal.
    • KRPC 8.1(b) – Bar admission and disciplinary matters, for failing to respond to lawful requests for information from a disciplinary authority.
  • Sanction:
    • The court adopts the stipulated findings and conclusions under the Rule 223 summary submission.
    • It imposes a suspension “for no more than three years” from the practice of law in Kansas, effective as of the opinion date, stayed while Kort serves probation.
    • Kort is immediately placed on 24 months of probation in Kansas, on detailed conditions summarized below.
    • She may petition for early discharge from Kansas probation under Rule 227(g) after she successfully completes Missouri’s three-year probation (anticipated April 2, 2027).
    • Costs are assessed to respondent; the opinion is to be published in the official Kansas Reports.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Procedural Posture and Background

The case is explicitly designated a reciprocal attorney discipline proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 221(c). Reciprocal discipline arises when an attorney licensed in Kansas is disciplined in another jurisdiction; Kansas then determines whether, and how, to impose discipline in light of that foreign order.

Crucially, Kansas did not simply adopt Missouri’s sanction mechanically. Instead:

  • The ODA filed its own formal complaint alleging specific violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the Missouri facts.
  • Kort answered and cooperated fully in Kansas, ultimately agreeing to a summary submission under Rule 223.
  • The Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission and canceled the hearing.

Under Rule 223(b), a valid summary submission must contain:

  • An express admission of misconduct.
  • Stipulations on the record contents, findings of fact, conclusions of law (including each rule violation), and aggravating/mitigating factors.
  • A joint recommendation for discipline.
  • A waiver of the formal hearing.
  • A statement that no exceptions to findings or conclusions will be taken.

Those elements were all present here. Once the Board approves a summary submission and the respondent waives exceptions, Rule 228(g)(1) provides that the findings and conclusions are deemed admitted. Thus, by the time the matter reached the Kansas Supreme Court, there was no factual dispute; only the question of the appropriate sanction remained.

B. Misconduct and Rule Violations

The underlying Missouri disciplinary record, adopted by stipulation in Kansas, concerns five appellate matters and a failure to cooperate count.

1. Pattern of appellate neglect

Across five appeals, Kort:

  • Missed firm, non-extendable deadlines (for example, a post-judgment motion deadline that could not be extended by rule), causing clients to lose the ability to preserve certain issues for appeal.
  • Failed to file briefs by extended deadlines, sometimes even after multiple warnings from the appellate court and after explicit notices that no further extensions would be granted.
  • Filed noncompliant or incomplete briefs, which were struck by the appellate court, and failed to cure deficiencies in a timely and adequate manner.
  • Caused several appeals to be dismissed for failure to prosecute or for untimeliness, depriving clients of merits review.

Notably, in at least one matter (C.H. v. C.H.), Kort candidly acknowledged in a motion to reconsider that the dismissal of her client’s appeal stemmed solely from her own mistake and neglect in managing deadlines and workload. That admission reinforces the characterization of the misconduct as non-intentional but serious neglect, rather than deliberate sabotage or malice.

2. Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary authority

In Count 6, the OCDC sent Kort two written demands for a response concerning a disciplinary complaint. She failed to respond by the first deadline and again failed to respond by the extended deadline, without requesting additional time. This led to a violation of KRPC 8.1(b), which requires lawyers to respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority.

3. Mapping misconduct to the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct

Based on these facts, the parties stipulated—and the court agreed—that Kort violated the following Kansas rules:

  • KRPC 1.1 (Competence): Repeatedly missing critical filing deadlines and failing to prepare compliant appellate briefs demonstrated a lack of the thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for appellate representation.
  • KRPC 1.3 (Diligence): The pattern of delayed, missing, and inadequate filings showed a lack of reasonable diligence and promptness.
  • KRPC 3.4(c) (Fairness to opposing party and counsel): By knowingly disregarding court rules and explicit deadline orders, Kort violated her duty not to disobey obligations under tribunal rules.
  • KRPC 8.1(b) (Bar admission and disciplinary matters): Her failure to respond to the OCDC’s lawful requests for information constituted a direct violation.

The violations are mutually reinforcing: failures of competence and diligence culminate in repeated, knowing disregard of court rules (engaging Rule 3.4(c)), and the failure to cooperate with the OCDC compounds the misconduct and undermines the regulatory process itself.

C. Precedents and Rules Cited

1. In re Foster and the clear-and-convincing standard

The court cites In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 375 (2011), to reaffirm that attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, as required by Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A). The citation serves two purposes:

  • It confirms the standard of proof applicable in attorney discipline cases.
  • It underscores that even in a summary submission context, the evidence (here, the stipulated record) must meet that standard.

Because Kort stipulated that the facts constitute clear and convincing evidence of the rule violations, the court’s role is largely confirmatory: ensuring the legal sufficiency of the stipulations against the correctness of the standard set forth in prior precedent.

2. In re Lober and the meaning of “clear and convincing”

The decision also cites In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009), which defines clear and convincing evidence as evidence that causes the fact-finder to believe the truth of the facts asserted is “highly probable.” By invoking Lober, the court reiterates that:

  • Attorney discipline is a serious matter, closer to quasi-criminal in its potential consequences, and thus cannot rest on a mere preponderance of evidence.
  • Nevertheless, once parties stipulate that the evidence is clear and convincing, the court can confidently proceed to the sanction analysis without a contested evidentiary hearing.

3. In re Marks and the purposes of disciplinary sanctions

While not directly cited by the court itself, the parties’ recommended sanction expressly relies on In re Marks, 317 Kan. 10, 522 P.3d 789 (2023), for a fundamental principle: that attorney discipline is designed to:

“protect the public, maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the administration of justice from reproach.”

This language, adopted and reaffirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court in Marks, guides how sanctions are tailored. The parties argue—and the court implicitly accepts—that structuring Kort’s Kansas probation so it can be terminated early upon successful completion of her Missouri probation best serves these purposes:

  • Protection of the public: By conditioning Kansas relief on demonstrated compliance and rehabilitation under Missouri’s probation.
  • Integrity of the profession: By ensuring that misconduct in one jurisdiction has coordinated consequences in Kansas.
  • Administration of justice: By avoiding unnecessarily duplicative or inconsistent probationary structures while still maintaining meaningful oversight.

4. Key Supreme Court Rules

Several Kansas Supreme Court rules structure the proceeding:

  • Rule 221(c): Governs reciprocal discipline, allowing Kansas to initiate discipline when an attorney has been disciplined elsewhere.
  • Rule 223: Governs summary submissions, including requirements for stipulations, admissions, waiver of hearing, and the advisory nature of disciplinary recommendations. Rule 223(f) emphasizes that any recommended discipline is advisory only; the court retains full discretion.
  • Rule 225(a)(3) and (4): Identify suspension and probation as forms of discipline the court may impose, alone or in combination.
  • Rule 227(g): Provides the mechanism for release from probation, requiring a petition and court approval.
  • Rule 228(g)(1): Provides that if a respondent declines to file exceptions, findings of fact and conclusions of law are deemed admitted—paralleling the effect of the summary submission here.
  • Rule 238: Grants immunity to individuals acting as agents of the court in disciplinary contexts, including practice supervisors; the probation plan expressly invokes this for the supervising attorney.

These rules collectively frame how the court evaluates, adopts, and enforces disciplinary measures, and how it integrates foreign disciplinary regimes into Kansas practice.

D. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Establishing misconduct via summary submission

The court begins by confirming that the summary submission complies with Rule 223 and that the Board properly canceled the formal hearing. Once the parties stipulate that:

  • the respondent engaged in misconduct,
  • the factual record is complete,
  • the findings and conclusions are correct,
  • and no exceptions will be taken,

the court treats those facts and legal conclusions as established by clear and convincing evidence. This approach reflects a balance between:

  • Efficiency (avoiding an evidentiary hearing where there is no dispute), and
  • Fairness (ensuring the lawyer knowingly waives procedural protections and admits misconduct).

2. Application of KRPC 1.1 (Competence)

KRPC 1.1 requires “competent representation,” which encompasses legal knowledge, skill, and—crucially here—“thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary” for the representation. The court accepts the parties’ stipulation that:

  • Repeatedly missing non-extendable and critical deadlines,
  • Failing to file required motions within jurisdictional time limits, and
  • Submitting deficient briefs that fail to comply with appellate rules

constitutes a failure of thoroughness and preparation. The emphasis is not only on the lawyer’s failure to know the rules, but her failure to implement adequate systems and time management to comply with them consistently.

This application underscores that:

  • Competence is not static; it includes organizational and deadline-management skills.
  • Chronic lateness and poor file management, even absent dishonesty, can amount to a competence violation when they repeatedly jeopardize client rights.

3. Application of KRPC 1.3 (Diligence)

KRPC 1.3 requires a lawyer to act with “reasonable diligence and promptness” in representing a client. The stipulated facts show:

  • Deadlines repeatedly came and went without timely filings.
  • Extensions were often sought only after deadlines passed, frequently in violation of rules that do not allow retroactive extensions.
  • In several cases, the appeal was ultimately dismissed due solely to counsel’s inaction, not lack of merit.

Those facts readily satisfy a KRPC 1.3 violation. The distinction from KRPC 1.1 is subtle but important:

  • KRPC 1.1 focuses on capability and preparation.
  • KRPC 1.3 focuses on effort and timeliness.

By charging and sustaining both, the court signals that chronic neglect can be both a competence and a diligence failure.

4. Application of KRPC 3.4(c) (obedience to tribunal rules)

KRPC 3.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”

Kort:

  • Was repeatedly notified of firm deadlines and limitations on extensions.
  • Received explicit court orders stating “NO MORE EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.”
  • Nevertheless missed those deadlines or filed defective documents that did not comply with the rules.

The court treats these as knowing failures to comply with court rules. This extends KRPC 3.4(c) beyond paradigmatic discovery misconduct to include:

  • Ignoring appellate procedural rules, and
  • Disregarding explicit scheduling and filing orders.

The fairness dimension is critical: missed deadlines do not just harm clients; they:

  • Burden courts with managing repeated defaults and deficiencies.
  • Potentially prejudice opposing parties who must respond to uncertain and shifting procedural postures.

5. Application of KRPC 8.1(b) (duty to disciplinary authorities)

KRPC 8.1(b) prohibits knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority. Here:

  • The OCDC sent written demands on March 17 and April 7, 2023.
  • Deadlines of March 31 and April 14, 2023, were set.
  • Kort did not respond by either date, and did not seek additional time.

The court accepts the stipulation that this failure constitutes a violation of KRPC 8.1(b). This is a distinct and serious violation, as:

  • The disciplinary system depends on lawyers’ cooperation to investigate and resolve complaints.
  • Nonresponse hampers the system’s ability to protect the public and undermines confidence in self-regulation.

6. Aggravating and mitigating factors

The opinion accepts the parties’ stipulated aggravating and mitigating factors, which align with the analytical framework commonly derived from the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (though those Standards are not expressly cited).

Aggravating factors:

  • Pattern of misconduct: Five separate client matters, each with multiple failures, show a systemic problem rather than isolated error.
  • Multiple offenses: Violations of competence, diligence, obedience to court rules, and cooperation obligations.
  • Substantial experience in the law: Kort had been licensed in Kansas since 2015 and in multiple jurisdictions overall; she was not a novice.

Mitigating factors:

  • Absence of prior discipline: Aside from discipline arising from the same core misconduct in Missouri and New York, Kort had no earlier disciplinary history.
  • Full cooperation in Kansas: She self-reported the Missouri discipline, answered the complaint, and entered into a comprehensive summary submission.
  • Absence of dishonest or selfish motive: Misconduct arose from being overwhelmed, disorganized, and failing to address mental health issues, not from intentional deception or financial gain.
  • Mental health conditions: Documented diagnoses of anxiety, ADHD, and depression contributed to her difficulties; she increased medical and therapeutic treatment and is subject to ongoing management obligations.
  • Restitution/rectification: She obtained a home equity loan to refund fees to affected clients who wanted refunds.
  • Positive character and reputation: Involvement in the legal community and favorable views among colleagues.
  • Other sanctions: Interim suspension in Missouri, stayed indefinite suspension with three-year probation, and suspension in New York—all weigh in mitigation, as they demonstrate that significant sanctions are already in place.
  • Remorse: Expressed remorse for her misconduct.

The interplay of these factors supports a protective, rehabilitative sanction (supervised practice with treatment) rather than a strictly punitive, active suspension.

7. Crafting the sanction: stayed suspension and coordinated probation

The parties jointly recommended, and the court adopted (with slight clarification), the following structure:

  • Suspension: Kort is suspended from the practice of law in Kansas for no more than three years, effective the date of the opinion.
  • Stay of suspension: That suspension is entirely stayed—meaning she is not actively barred from practice—so long as she complies with terms of probation.
  • Probation: She is placed on 24 months of probation in Kansas, governed by a detailed plan.

The probation plan incorporates and supplements the Missouri conditions:

  • Missouri probation compliance: Kort must comply with and successfully complete her three-year Missouri probation. She must notify the ODA immediately of any Missouri probation violations.
  • Quarterly reports: She must file written quarterly reports with the ODA, including:
    • Any change of address;
    • Any missed statutory or court-ordered deadlines;
    • Any KRPC violations or docketed disciplinary complaints;
    • The status of her probation conditions.
  • Practice conditions:
    • Maintain malpractice insurance with minimum specified limits.
    • Engage in ongoing mental health treatment and comply with all treatment recommendations; provide reports to ODA if requested.
    • Maintain and comply with a Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program (KALAP) monitoring agreement, including appropriate releases.
  • Practice supervision:
    • Attorney Amy E. Elliot serves as practice supervisor.
    • She must meet monthly with Kort, monitor deadline compliance, access client files and systems as necessary, verify mental health and KALAP compliance, and file monthly reports with the ODA.
    • Under Rule 238, she acts as an agent of the court and receives corresponding immunity.
  • Additional conditions:
    • Obey the law.
    • Do not miss statutory or court-ordered deadlines.
    • Comply with all rules of professional conduct and promptly notify the ODA of any employment change.
    • Pay all costs associated with probation.
    • Continue to cooperate with the ODA and provide requested information about compliance.

This structure balances:

  • Risk management: Supervision, reporting, and treatment reduce the risk of recurrence and protect clients and courts.
  • Rehabilitation: Kort remains able to practice under supervision, which allows her to demonstrate improvement and regain trust.
  • Consistency with Missouri: Kansas does not impose an entirely separate, conflicting regime but one that is substantially coordinated with the Missouri probation.

8. Early termination of probation linked to out-of-state compliance

A notable feature of the decision is the explicit opportunity for early discharge from Kansas probation conditioned on successful completion of the Missouri probation:

  • Missouri probation runs three years from April 2, 2024 (anticipated end: April 2, 2027).
  • Kansas probation is set for 24 months from the opinion date (December 26, 2025), nominally ending in December 2027.
  • The court permits Kort to petition for early termination of Kansas probation under Rule 227(g) once she successfully completes Missouri probation.

The court frames this approach, via the parties’ reliance on In re Marks, as accomplishing the core purposes of discipline: protecting the public and the administration of justice while avoiding unnecessary duplication of sanctions. The practical import is:

  • Missouri is effectively treated as the primary supervisory jurisdiction for this misconduct.
  • Kansas retains its own authority but coordinates its sanctions to avoid over-penalizing the respondent for the same core conduct.
  • Compliance in Missouri serves as a strong proxy for rehabilitation and risk reduction, which Kansas is willing to recognize as a basis for easing its own restrictions.

IV. Impact and Prospective Significance

A. Reciprocal discipline practice in Kansas

In re Kort reinforces and clarifies how Kansas handles reciprocal discipline:

  • Kansas will often proceed by charging the underlying conduct as a violation of Kansas rules rather than simply mirroring the foreign jurisdiction’s order.
  • Nevertheless, the foreign sanction and conditions substantially inform Kansas’s choice of sanction and probationary structure.
  • Where another jurisdiction has already imposed a detailed and monitored probation, Kansas is willing to:
    • Impose a stayed suspension rather than an active one,
    • Coordinate the duration and terms of its probation with the foreign probation, and
    • Condition early termination of Kansas probation on successful completion of foreign probation.

This approach promotes:

  • Comity among jurisdictions;
  • Efficiency in supervision and rehabilitation; and
  • Consistency in the professional status of multijurisdictional lawyers.

B. Implications for lawyers with multistate licenses

For attorneys admitted in multiple jurisdictions, In re Kort is a cautionary and instructive example:

  • Discipline in one state will often trigger reciprocal action elsewhere.
  • Self-reporting, as Kort did to Kansas, is both an ethical obligation (under many jurisdictions’ rules) and a mitigating factor.
  • Lawyers should expect that other jurisdictions:
    • Will analyze the underlying conduct under their own rules.
    • May impose their own sanctions but often in a coordinated, not duplicative, fashion.

Practically, this case underscores the need for:

  • Robust docketing and deadline systems, especially in appellate practice.
  • Realistic caseload management when dealing with complex practice areas like family law appeals.
  • Proactive management of mental health issues and early engagement with assistance programs like KALAP.

C. Treatment of neglect and mental-health-related misconduct

The seriousness of Kort’s misconduct—lost appeals and jurisdictional defaults—is undeniable. Yet the court’s sanction structure, heavily influenced by the stipulated mitigating factors, sends important signals:

  • Mental health diagnoses (anxiety, ADHD, depression) do not excuse rule violations, but can meaningfully mitigate sanctions where:
    • The lawyer acknowledges the problem.
    • There is evidence of current and ongoing treatment.
    • Probation conditions are tailored to support compliance and stability.
  • A pattern of neglect, absent dishonesty or intentional harm, is likely to be treated with a rehabilitative focus—supervised practice, therapy, monitoring—rather than purely punitive suspension, so long as public protection can be assured.

The use of a practice supervisor, KALAP monitoring, mandatory insurance, and mental health treatment conditions illustrates a holistic, risk-focused approach to discipline.

D. Use of summary submission agreements

The case also illuminates the strategic and procedural aspects of Rule 223 summary submissions:

  • They offer a way for respondents to:
    • Avoid the burden and publicity of a full evidentiary hearing.
    • Demonstrate cooperation and acceptance of responsibility—both mitigating factors.
    • Work collaboratively with the ODA to design a structured probation plan responsive to their circumstances.
  • However, they require the respondent to:
    • Admit misconduct and accept stipulated facts and conclusions.
    • Waive the right to challenge those findings and conclusions on appeal.

In re Kort shows that the court will give serious consideration to a jointly recommended sanction but remains clear that under Rule 223(f), such recommendations are advisory only. Here, the court accepted the recommended sanction with minor clarification, signaling that well-reasoned joint proposals that protect the public and promote rehabilitation are likely to be adopted.

V. Complex Concepts Explained

A. Reciprocal discipline

“Reciprocal discipline” refers to the process by which one jurisdiction (here, Kansas) imposes discipline on a lawyer based on discipline imposed by another jurisdiction (Missouri).

Key points:

  • It prevents an attorney who is suspended or sanctioned in one state from practicing unchanged in another state.
  • Each jurisdiction retains the right to:
    • Examine the underlying conduct under its own rules.
    • Impose sanctions appropriate for its own public and legal system.

B. Summary submission (Rule 223)

A summary submission is a procedural device that allows disciplinary cases to be resolved without a full evidentiary hearing when:

  • The respondent lawyer admits misconduct.
  • Both the ODA and the lawyer agree on the facts, rule violations, and aggravating/mitigating factors.
  • They jointly recommend a sanction.

The lawyer also waives the right to:

  • Present additional evidence at a hearing.
  • Challenge (take exceptions to) the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Kansas Supreme Court, however, is not bound by the recommended sanction and may impose greater or lesser discipline.

C. Clear and convincing evidence

“Clear and convincing evidence” is a standard of proof higher than “preponderance of the evidence” but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As explained in In re Lober:

It is evidence that causes the fact-finder to believe the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.

Because attorney discipline can result in loss or restriction of a professional license, this elevated standard is used to protect the fairness of the process.

D. Stayed suspension and probation

A “stayed suspension” means:

  • The court orders that the lawyer is suspended for a certain period (here, up to three years).
  • But the effect of that suspension is held in abeyance—it does not go into effect—so long as the lawyer complies with probation conditions.

Probation, in this context, is:

  • A period during which the lawyer:
    • Must comply with specified conditions (supervision, reporting, treatment, insurance, etc.).
    • Remains under oversight by the disciplinary authorities.
  • Typically ends either:
    • By successful completion, leading to restoration of full good standing, or
    • By violation of conditions, which can trigger revocation of the stay and imposition of the full suspension.

E. Practice supervision and KALAP

“Practice supervision” means another attorney is appointed to:

  • Meet with the respondent regularly.
  • Monitor case management and deadlines.
  • Review files and trust accounts if necessary.
  • Report compliance or violations to the disciplinary authority.

“KALAP” (Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program) provides confidential help to lawyers dealing with mental health, substance abuse, and similar issues. A “KALAP monitoring agreement” typically:

  • Sets out treatment, reporting, and compliance expectations.
  • Requires the lawyer to authorize communication between KALAP and the ODA for monitoring.

These mechanisms aim to address underlying causes of misconduct and support sustained improvement in professional functioning.

F. Pattern of misconduct vs. single incident

A “pattern of misconduct” means recurring or repeated misconduct that reveals a systemic problem, as opposed to a one-time lapse. It is an aggravating factor because:

  • It suggests that the misconduct is not merely accidental.
  • It increases the risk of harm to clients and the justice system.
  • It often indicates deeper issues with practice management, judgment, or personal stability.

In In re Kort, the repetition across five appellate cases, each with multiple deadline failures, clearly constitutes such a pattern.

VI. Conclusion

In re Kort stands as a detailed example of how the Kansas Supreme Court:

  • Addresses reciprocal discipline when another jurisdiction has already imposed a stayed suspension and intensive probation.
  • Uses the summary submission process to efficiently resolve undisputed cases while preserving its independent judgment over sanctions.
  • Crafts a stayed suspension and coordinated probation regime that:
    • Protects the public through supervision, reporting, and treatment requirements.
    • Respects and integrates the foreign jurisdiction’s disciplinary framework.
    • Provides a path for rehabilitation and early termination conditioned on sustained compliance.

Doctrinally, the opinion:

  • Reaffirms the clear-and-convincing evidence standard in attorney discipline.
  • Illustrates the application of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.1(b) to patterns of neglect and procedural noncompliance in appellate practice.
  • Highlights the court’s increasing attention to mental health factors as mitigation and the use of treatment-oriented probation conditions.

For Kansas lawyers, especially those practicing in multiple jurisdictions, In re Kort underscores that:

  • Systematic neglect of deadlines and court rules, even absent dishonesty, can lead to serious discipline.
  • Failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities is an independent and significant violation.
  • Proactive engagement with assistance programs, honest self-reporting, restitution, and cooperation can substantially influence the nature and structure of sanctions.

Ultimately, the decision exemplifies a modern disciplinary philosophy: public-protective, coordinated across jurisdictions, and oriented toward both accountability and rehabilitation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Kansas

Comments