Case Title: In re Rogers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
CCR No. 1721 
 
In the Matter of MEGHAN ROGERS, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held November 2, 2023. Opinion filed February 
23, 2024. Public reprimand. 
 
Todd N. Thompson, appointed disciplinary counsel for the State Board of Examiners of Court Reporters, 
argued the cause and was on the brief for the petitioner. 
 
Bryan W. Smith, of Smith Law Firm, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Christine Caplinger, of the 
same firm, was with him on the brief for the respondent.  
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the State Board 
of Examiners of Court Reporters, in its disciplinary capacity, against the respondent, 
Meghan Rogers, a certified court reporter.  
 
On July 11, 2021, appointed disciplinary counsel for the Board filed a formal 
complaint and notice of hearing against respondent, alleging she failed to timely file an 
expedited transcript with the Court of Appeals and failed to meet completion dates. It was 
asserted the nature of these failures violated the provisions of Rules Adopted by the State 
Board of Examiners of Court Reporters, Supreme Court Rule 367 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
464), as follows: 
 
• Board Rule No. 9.F.2 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 468)—Professional incompetency; 
 
2 
 
• Board Rule No. 9.F.3—Knowingly making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or 
fraudulent representations as a court reporter; 
• Board Rule No. 9.F.6—Fraud in representations relating to skill or ability as a 
court reporter; and  
• Board Rule No. 9.F.11—Refusal to cooperate in an investigation conducted by the 
Board or obstructing such investigation. 
 
(For clarity, we will refer to the Board in its disciplinary capacity as "Prosecutor"; and the 
Board in its judicial capacity as "Board.")  
 
Respondent was served with the formal complaint and notice of hearing on July 
14, 2021, and responded to the complaint's allegations on August 3, 2021. Respondent 
was given timely notice of the formal hearing before the Board. 
 
 
On January 31, 2022, this matter was heard by the Board, and respondent was 
present at the hearing, where she was self-represented. After presentation of testimony 
and other evidence, the Board took the matter under advisement. 
 
On April 11, 2023, the Board issued its written findings of fact, conclusions, and 
recommendation concerning discipline: 
 
"BOARD FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 
CONCERNING DISCIPLINE  
 
 
. . . . 
 
"1. 
On May 4, 2020 the initial request for transcript was filed in Case No. 
16JC331 in Shawnee County. 
 
"2. 
On May 11, 2020, the Court entered an Order expediting the case. 
 
3 
 
 
"3. 
On June 10, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time 
to complete and file the transcript, alleging it was 40% completed but not finished:  
'Due to current pandemic lack of access to files. I have returned to the office setting 
and will continue to expedite the matter now that I have access to the files needed to 
complete the requested hearing.' 
 
"4. 
On June 18, 2020 the Motion was granted, but Respondent was 
advised there would be no further extensions absent exceptional circumstances and 
was directed to produce the transcripts on or before July 10, 2020. 
 
"5. 
On July 9, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion for Additional Extension 
of Time to complete and file the transcript, alleging it was 60% completed but not 
finished:  'Due to several requests upon returning from administrative leave.' 
 
"6. 
On July 20, 2020, the Motion was granted, but Respondent was 
advised there would be no further extensions absent exceptional circumstances and 
was directed to produce the transcripts on or before August 19, 2020. 
 
"7. 
On August 19, 2020 Respondent filed Motion for Extension of Time 
seeking a 14-day extension of time to complete and file the transcript, alleging it was 
60% completed but 14 additional days were needed:  'To finalize edits.' 
 
"8. 
On August 20, 2020, the Motion was granted, but it was ordered that 
there would be no further extensions. 
 
"9. 
Respondent was granted an extension to September 2, 2020. 
 
"10. 
On September 8, 2020 Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of time 
to complete and file the transcript, seeking an additional 20 days, alleging it was 85% 
completed but 20 additional days were needed:  'Due to personal circumstances.' 
 
"11. 
On September 9, 2020, the Motion was granted, and Respondent was 
again advised there would be no further extensions. 
 
4 
 
 
"12. 
Respondent was granted an extension to September 22, 2020. 
 
"13. 
On September 28, 2020, Respondent filed an out-of-time Motion for 
Extension of time to complete and file the transcript, alleging it was 85% completed 
but 30 additional days were needed because:  'Personal circumstances related to the 
pandemic and transferring of districts.' 
 
"14. 
On October 8, 2020 the Motion was granted, and Respondent was 
again advised there would be no further extensions. 
 
"15. 
Respondent was granted an extension to October 22, 2020. 
 
"16. 
On October 15, 2020, a complaint was filed with the Board of 
Examiners of Court Reporters against the Respondent. 
 
"17. 
On December 28, 2020, the Board notified Respondent of the 
complaint submitted against her. The Office of Judicial Administration did not 
receive an answer to the initial request for information although Respondent stated 
during the hearing that she sent a response via regular mail. 
 
 
"18. Respondent delivered the completed transcript on February 5, 2021. 
 
"CONCLUSIONS 
 
"Respondent does not contest the facts contained in the Notice of Hearing. 
Respondent failed to present any evidence justifying the delay in transcript 
production or mitigating the circumstances which led to the delay. The Board finds 
by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Supreme Court Rule 367, 
Nos. 9.F.2, professional incompetency. 
 
"RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
"The Board recommends that Respondent be suspended for a period of six months." 
 
5 
 
 
 
On July 5, 2023, respondent filed a brief with this court, purportedly taking 
exception to the Board's findings of fact by asserting the Board had omitted seven 
uncontested facts. But respondent did not take exception to the findings of fact the Board 
made. Respondent also took exception to the Board's conclusion that clear and 
convincing evidence showed respondent had committed a Board rule violation. Finally, 
respondent argued the case should be dismissed for failure to prove a violation or, if 
violation was found, that mitigating factors would support admonishment rather than the 
more severe sanction of a suspension recommended by the Board. 
 
Prosecutor filed a responsive brief on September 5, 2023. He takes exception to 
respondent's proposed additional facts. Prosecutor also asserts facts number 16 through 
21 that are slightly different than, or in addition to, findings of fact found by the Board. 
As for the conclusions to be drawn from the facts, Prosecutor urges this court not only to 
find a violation of Board Rule No. 9.F.2. (professional incompetency) but also violation 
of Board Rule No. 9.F.3 (knowingly making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent 
representations as a court reporter). Finally, Prosecutor urges this court either to adopt the 
Board's recommendation of a six-month suspension or add two months, making it an 
eight-month suspension. 
 
During oral arguments before this court, the parties again argued what they 
believed the evidence established, conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, and what 
punishment, if any, ought to be imposed. 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In court reporter discipline cases, "[t]he Board may, based upon clear and 
convincing evidence," impose certain discipline or recommend discipline for the 
 
6 
 
Supreme Court to impose. Rule 367, Board Rule No. 9.E. of the Rules Adopted by the 
State Board of Examiners of Court Reporters. So we must first determine whether the 
Board's Findings of Fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 
 
"Clear and convincing evidence is 'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the 
truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."' '"'In making this determination, the court 
does not weigh conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, or redetermine questions 
of fact. If a disputed finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence, it will not be 
disturbed."' [Citations omitted.]" In re Morton, 317 Kan. 724, 740, 538 P.3d 1073 (2023).  
 
In our independent review of the record, and because the parties do not contest 
them, we find the Board's findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence. We also find that the parties' proposed additional facts are either redundant, 
immaterial, argumentative, or are not established by clear and convincing evidence, so 
they will not be considered. 
 
As in any disciplinary proceeding, once we have ascertained the evidence 
sufficiently proved, we will consider that evidence, along with the parties' arguments to 
determine whether the rules applicable to court reporters were violated and, if so, what 
discipline to impose. See Morton, 317 Kan. at 740 (concerning attorney discipline). Thus, 
we next turn to the Board's conclusion that respondent committed the violation of 
professional incompetency. The Board rules do not define "professional incompetency." 
The dictionary defines "incompetent" as:  (1) "lacking the qualities needed for effective 
action"; (2) "unable to function properly"; (3) "not legally qualified"; or (4) "inadequate 
to or unsuitable for a particular purpose." "Incompetent." Merriam-Webster.com 
Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incompe- 
tent. Because this definition does not reveal the specific parameters of professional 
incompetency, however, we look elsewhere for guidance. For instance, K.S.A. 65-
2837(a) defines "professional incompetency" for physicians this way: 
 
7 
 
 
"(1) One or more instances involving failure to adhere to the applicable standard 
of care to a degree that constitutes gross negligence, as determined by the board. 
 
"(2) Repeated instances involving failure to adhere to the applicable standard of 
care to a degree that constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the board. 
 
"(3) A pattern of practice or other behavior that demonstrates a manifest 
incapacity or incompetence to practice the healing arts." 
 
For nurses, K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 65-1120(e) defines "professional incompetency" 
as: 
 
"(1) One or more instances involving failure to adhere to the applicable standard 
of care to a degree which constitutes gross negligence, as determined by the 
board; 
 
"(2) repeated instances involving failure to adhere to the applicable standard of 
care to a degree which constitutes ordinary negligence, as determined by the 
board; or 
 
"(3) a pattern of practice or other behavior which demonstrates a manifest 
incapacity or incompetence to practice nursing." 
 
The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) require a Kansas attorney to 
be competent in his representation, stating:  
 
"A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent 
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." KRPC 1.1 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 327). 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
We use these definitions by analogy in the context of this case. Respondent is a 
certified court reporter. The record reflects no prior discipline, so respondent's 
professional competence, or lack of it, is judged only by this record.  
 
 
That record shows that the district court ordered a transcript on May 4, 2020, then 
expedited it on May 11, 2020. Respondent was the court reporter for the hearing, and thus 
was responsible for preparing and delivering the transcript for filing. Respondent did not 
deliver the completed transcript until February 5, 2021—some nine months later. In the 
meantime, she filed five Motions for Extension of Time to complete this transcript. While 
all five motions were granted, one of the motions was not filed until the previous deadline 
had expired. The last extension expired October 22, 2020, so the transcript was officially 
delinquent for more than three months.  
 
 
The Prosecutor challenges respondent's reasons for her requests for extension of 
time to comply with the request for transcript. Since the court reviewing her requests 
found those reasons adequate, we decline to review the sufficiency of those reasons vis-à-
vis the appropriateness of respondent's deadline extensions.  
 
The Prosecutor urges us to find two violations:  first, professional incompetency 
under Board Rule No. 9.F.2.; and second, that respondent knowingly made misleading, 
deceptive, or untrue representations as a court reporter under Board Rule No. 9.F.3. He 
argues the reasons respondent gave for extensions of time to submit the transcript were 
untruthful. But, although respondent was formally accused of knowingly making 
misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations, she presented testimony to 
refute those accusations. After reviewing all the evidence presented, the Board did not 
make a finding that respondent was untruthful. We agree there is not clear and 
convincing evidence to show the respondent was untruthful or that she violated Board 
Rule No. 9.F.3. 
 
9 
 
 
The Prosecutor argues the delay was significant and harmful and that respondent's 
excuses were suspect. He asserts her conduct was not efficient, lacked necessary skill, 
and showed she was not capable of producing the transcript in compliance with court 
orders, all of which demonstrates professional incompetency. 
 
Respondent counters that one late transcript does not demonstrate professional 
incompetency. There is no allegation that the transcript itself was insufficient, and she 
avoided having to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. Besides, 
a litigant does not have the right to a transcript, the failure to make a record is not 
automatically reversible error, and there are probably backup files in the office of the 
clerk. 
 
But none of these arguments help respondent much. It was her job to produce an 
official transcript and to do it timely. We have previously held that "repeated failure to 
timely respond to discovery requests, court orders, and dispositive motions is clear 
evidence of incompetence." In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 727, 188 P.3d 1 (2008). Here, 
although respondent successfully requested five extensions of time to deliver the 
transcript, those extensions expired on October 22, 2020. Respondent knew how to 
request more time, but she did not. So the now delinquent transcript was delivered 106 
days after respondent's last extension expired.  
 
Court reporters serve a valuable role in our judicial system. "Unlike the executive 
or the legislature, the judiciary 'has no influence over either the sword or the purse; . . . 
neither force nor will but merely judgment.' The judiciary's authority therefore depends in 
large measure on the public's willingness to respect and follow its decisions. [Citation 
omitted.]" Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433, 445, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 191 L. Ed. 
2d 570 (2015). "Court reporters employed by the district courts are officers of the court. 
 
10 
 
Supreme Court Rule 352 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 412)." In re Shepard, 310 Kan. 1017, 
1023, 453 P.3d 288 (2019). As such, court reporters have an ongoing duty to meet and 
satisfy their duties competently. 
 
A majority of this court concludes respondent's actions and failures to act 
constituted professional incompetency. A minority of the court disagrees and concludes 
the respondent's actions here, while concerning, do not rise to the level of incompetency. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for the 
respondent's violation. For attorney discipline, we receive guidance from the American 
Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions to help us determine 
appropriate discipline. That framework considers "four factors in determining 
punishment:  (1) the ethical duty violated by the lawyer; (2) the lawyer's mental state; 
(3) the actual or potential injury resulting from the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) the 
existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re Hodge, 307 Kan. 170, 231, 407 P.3d 
613 (2017). 
 
While court reporter discipline has no counterpart to the ABA Standards for 
lawyers, we are similarly guided by their commonsense approach. Here, the ethical duty 
violated by respondent was the single violation of professional incompetency. 
 
Respondent's mental state was not at issue. As to injury, actual injury from 
respondent's violation was alleged in an exhibit admitted at the formal hearing. This 
initial complaint against respondent states:  "The children in question have been in care 
for more than 4 years and they cannot have permanency in an adoptive family until the 
parental rights termination appeal is settled . . . ." Though no further evidence of injury 
was presented, and the Board made no findings in that regard, the delay of a transcript in 
this context has the potential for injury in the children's quest for family stability. 
 
11 
 
 
Finally, we address the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. Here, 
the Board found no evidence of mitigating circumstances. We disagree. In her Response 
to the Prosecutor's Formal Complaint, which was admitted as an exhibit during the 
formal hearing, respondent stated:  
 
"During the pandemic I was and have been responsible for the care of an elderly 
grandfather, teacher of three children in remote learning classes along with other personal 
matters that were contributing factors. . . . I also had transferred districts during a time 
that was very difficult to receive communications. . . .  
 
"Additionally, I would like to provide you with more information regarding this 
past year. I am currently on extended leave due to medical issues that have been ongoing 
and will be on leave for several weeks to come. . . . We have been in quarantine a few 
times and had several positive cases within our household. I had a computer crash during 
the pandemic which led to several delays . . . ." 
 
Representing herself without benefit of counsel, respondent testified that some 
hardships she mentioned in her Response occurred before, and some after, delivery of the 
completed transcript. But her computer crash and delay of replacement parts, difficulty 
transferring records from Shawnee County District Court (where the record was taken) to 
Douglas County District Court (where she continued to work during transcript 
preparation), health issues, and childcare responsibilities all contributed to delays in 
completing the transcript. These are all considered to be mitigating circumstances.  
 
The Board may recommend the following discipline to the Kansas Supreme Court:  
(1) public reprimand; (2) imposition of a period of probation with special conditions 
which may include additional professional education or re-education; (3) suspension of 
the certificate; or (4) revocation of the certificate. Board Rule, No. 9.E.4 (2023 Kan. S. 
Ct. R. at 467). Here, the Board recommends a six-month suspension of respondent's 
 
12 
 
certificate. The prosecutor recommends either a six-month or eight-month suspension. 
Respondent recommends we issue a public reprimand if violation is found. 
 
Having considered all matters raised, we find that appropriate discipline is a public 
reprimand. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Meghan Rogers be and is disciplined by public 
reprimand in accordance with Rule 367, Board Rule No. 9.E.4. of the Rules Adopted by 
the State Board of Examiners of Court Reporters. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion be published in the official Kansas 
Reports.