Case Title: In re Sedgwick

Citation: 

Docket Number: 126643

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2023-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 
No. 126,643 
 
In the Matter of PHILIP R. SEDGWICK, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held November 2, 2023. Opinion filed 
December 29, 2023. Six-month suspension, stayed pending successful completion of a three-year period 
of probation. 
 
Julia A. Hart, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal 
complaint for the petitioner. 
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Morris Laing Law Firm of Topeka, argued the cause, and Philip R. 
Sedgwick, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an attorney-discipline proceeding against the respondent, 
Philip R. Sedgwick, of Kansas City, Kansas. Sedgwick received his license to practice 
law in Kansas in April 1983.  
 
On February 7, 2023, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 
complaint against Sedgwick alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Sedgwick answered the formal complaint on February 24, 2023.  
 
On June 8, 2023, Sedgwick appeared at the complaint hearing before a panel of 
the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. After the hearing, the panel determined 
that Sedgwick had violated KRPC 1.1 (competence) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 327), KRPC 
1.3 (diligence) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 331), and KRPC 1.4 (communication) (2023 Kan. 
S. Ct. R. at 332). The panel set forth its factual findings, legal conclusions, and 
recommended discipline in a final hearing report. The relevant portions of that report are 
set forth below. 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
"18. The hearing panel finds the following facts, by clear and convincing 
evidence:   
 
"DA13,686 
 
"19. On October 17, 2019, T.W. hired the respondent to represent him in an 
ongoing domestic case in which C.C. was the opposing party.  
 
"20. Prior to T.W. hiring the respondent, the court had issued an order 
establishing paternity and ordering T.W. to pay child support. The court also approved a 
parenting plan establishing visitation.  
 
"21. During a hearing on August 22, 2018, the court ordered supervised 
visitation between T.W. and the minor child at a court-approved visitation facility. The 
court further ordered T.W. to engage in family therapy with the minor child.  
 
"22. Later, in August 2019, the court suspended T.W.'s supervised visitation 
with the minor child because therapy between T.[W]. and the child had ceased after the 
therapist discharged T.W. as a client.  
 
"23. The therapist filed a report, dated July 9, 2019, with the court regarding her 
decision to discharge T.W. This report was filed under seal and listed in the court's 
'record of actions' in an entry dated August 26, 2019.  
 
"24. Around this same time, the court also held a hearing on T.W.'s pro se 
motion seeking an order to require C.C. to sign off on their minor child's passport. The 
court granted this motion.  
 
"25. On May 28, 2019, the court filed an order to appear and show cause against 
C.C. due to her refusal to sign off on the minor child's passport as ordered.  
 
"26. On October 17, 2019, when T.W. hired the respondent to represent him in 
the domestic case, T.W. also hired the respondent to represent him in a misdemeanor 
domestic battery charge pending in Kansas City Municipal Court. C.C. was the alleged 
victim in this case.  
 
"27. On December 16, 2019, the respondent entered his appearance as T.W.'s 
attorney in the domestic case and filed an amended proposed parenting plan and domestic 
relations affidavit to supplement T.W.'s previously filed pro se motion.  
 
"28. The proposed plan contained typographical errors, including paragraph #4, 
which left the time for weekend visitation blank.  
 
"29. The proposed parenting plan also contained what the court perceived as 
inappropriate language in the heading for paragraph #8:  'Dog in the Manger Rule.'  
 
"30. The court scheduled a hearing in the child custody case for December 19, 
2019. At the hearing, opposing counsel, C.C., and the respondent were present for the 
hearing; the respondent's client T.W. failed to appear timely. Accordingly, the court 
granted default judgment and dismissed the pending motion.  
 
"31. On December 27, 2019, the respondent filed a motion to set aside the 
default judgement.  
 
"32. The court granted the motion to set aside and scheduled the matter for 
rehearing. The hearing was continued by agreement several times. Some continuances  
were due to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, others were due to the respondent's 
inability to obtain service on C.C. due to his typographical errors in the certificates of 
service.  
 
"33. On November 13, 2020, the respondent filed an amended motion to modify 
custody and child support. In support of this motion, the respondent stated:  1) T.W. has 
no income and is applying for disability, and 2) T.W. seeks to have contact with the 
minor child.  
 
"34. The court set the matter for hearing on March 16, 2021. The court blocked 
off the entire afternoon for the parties to present evidence and argument. Due to the 
ongoing pandemic, this hearing was to occur via Zoom.  
 
"35. The respondent sent out notice of the March 16, 2021, hearing. However, 
the Zoom meeting identification number in the notice was incorrect. The court caught this 
clerical error, provided the parties with the correct identification number, and the matter 
proceeded.  
 
"36. At this hearing, the respondent called his client as a witness. The 
respondent asked T.W. if he had completed the court-ordered therapy with the minor 
child. T.W. testified that he had completed this therapy.  
 
"37. On cross-examination, T.W. admitted he did not successfully complete 
court-ordered therapy, as he had not attended any sessions since August 2019.  
 
"38. The respondent also asked T.W. how he and C.C. got along. T.W.'s 
testimony indicated they got along 'fine.'  
 
"39. On cross-examination, T.W. admitted the municipal court had convicted 
him of the domestic misdemeanor battery charge against C.C.  
 
"40. At this hearing, T.W. also asserted he had applied for and was placed on 
disability.  
 
"41. In response to the court's questioning, T.W. admitted his application for 
disability had been denied, but he had appealed the decision.  
 
"42. On March 17, 2021, the court issued a written order denying T.W.'s motion 
to modify custody and child support and specifically found that T.W.'s testimony that he 
successfully completed court-ordered therapy was 'untrue.'  
 
"43. During the disciplinary investigation, the respondent acknowledged 
inappropriately using the 'Dog in the Manger Rule' phrase in the amended parenting plan, 
making typographical errors in filings, not spending the appropriate time preparing T.W. 
for his March 16, 2021, testimony, and that he had not reviewed the therapist's reports or 
spoken with the therapist before the hearing.  
 
"DA13,702 
 
"44. On June 5, 2019, the respondent appeared with and on behalf of the 
complainant, T.B., in the Wyandotte County District Court on allegations that T.B. 
violated his court-ordered probation. T.B. waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and 
stipulated to the alleged probation violations. The court then proceeded to disposition, 
revoked T.B.'s probation, and imposed his underlying prison sentence of 161 months in 
the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections.  
 
"45. On June 18, 2019, the respondent properly and timely filed a notice of 
appeal with the sentencing court and requested that the court appoint an appellate 
defender for T.B.  
 
"46. On July 30, 2019, T.B. filed a complaint with the disciplinary 
administrator's office, alleging that the respondent entrapped T.B. and failed to present 
a defense. As a result, T.B. alleges the court sentenced him to more than ten years of 
additional incarceration.  
 
"47. On September 19, 2019, T.B. sent another letter to the disciplinary 
administrator's office stating the local court had still not appointed the appellate 
defender's office to represent him in his June 2019 probation revocation appeal.  
 
"48. The disciplinary administrator's office sent timely responses to T.B. 
regarding these complaints, stating that they would not be docketed for investigation, as 
they did not appear to implicate the rules of professional conduct.  
 
"49. Approximately one year later, on October 10, 2020, and October 26, 2020, 
T.B. sent letters to the disciplinary administrator's office. In addition to reiterating the 
prior allegations, T.B. noted that the local court had not yet appointed the appellate 
defender's office to appeal his probation revocation. On March 25, 2021, T.B. submitted 
a written complaint regarding the failure to appoint appellate counsel.  
 
"50. On April 7, 2021, the disciplinary administrator's office asked the 
respondent to provide any information he had regarding why there was no court-
appointed counsel representing T.B. in his appeal.  
 
"51. On April 16, 2021, the respondent replied by letter noting his usual practice 
when a client requests to appeal a sentence. The respondent also stated that he would 
inquire of the court what happened with the appointment of counsel for T.B.'s appeal.  
 
"52. On April 30, 2021, the respondent told the disciplinary administrator's 
office that after he contacted the judge's aide on April 20, 2021, the court appointed the 
appellate defender's office to represent T.B.  
 
"53. During the subsequent disciplinary investigation, the respondent 
acknowledged that he should have followed up with the court earlier to ensure the 
appellate defender's office was appointed.  
 
"54. The parties stipulate that the respondent's conduct violated KRPC 1.1 
(competence), 1.3 (diligence), and 1.4 (communication) in the DA13,686 matter and 
KRPC 1.3 (diligence) in the DA13,702 matter.  
 
"55. During the formal hearing, the respondent testified that he believes 
changing the nature of his law practice to less complex matters and reducing the number  
of cases he accepts at any one time, along with following the terms of his proposed 
probation plan will help ensure he complies with the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct in the future. 
 
"56. Craig Lubow, the respondent's proposed probation supervisor, is an 
attorney who practices separately from the respondent, but in the same office building. 
Mr. Lubow testified during the formal hearing that he has been meeting regularly with 
the respondent to go over the respondent's case files. Mr. Lubow said that the respondent 
is very open to suggestions and reaches out to Mr. Lubow with any concerns about a 
case.  
 
"57. However, Mr. Lubow is concerned that the respondent does not keep his 
case files organized well and has a lot of papers on his desk that do not always make it to 
their assigned files. He also felt that the respondent should reduce his caseload further 
than its current level. Mr. Lubow said that the respondent needs to be more organized so 
that matters don't fall through the cracks, but otherwise felt that the respondent was doing 
reasonably well complying with the probation plan.  
 
"58. Mr. Lubow testified that he is willing to work with the respondent on his 
organization, help him continue to reduce his case load, and supervise the respondent for 
the proposed three-year term of probation. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
"59. Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter of 
law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), and 1.4 
(communication), as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.1 
 
"60. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC 1.1. 
'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' Id. 
 
"61. The respondent was not competent to represent T.W. in the domestic 
matter due to the respondent's failure to review therapist reports or speak with the 
therapist, use of an inappropriate phrase in a parenting plan, failure to correct 
typographical errors to ensure proper service on the opposing party, and failure to 
properly prepare T.W. for his testimony during the March 26, 2021, hearing. This 
conduct reflects inadequate skill, thoroughness, and preparation to represent T.W. in 
the domestic case. 
 
"62. Further, the respondent stipulated that his conduct in DA13,686 violated 
KRPC 1.1.  
 
"63. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.1.  
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
"64. 'A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client.' KRPC 1.3.  
 
"65. The respondent failed to diligently represent T.W. in the DA13,686 matter 
when he failed to obtain proper service of the notice of hearing on C.C. Further, the 
respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence when he failed to properly investigate 
the situation involving T.W.'s former family therapist and failed to adequately prepare 
T.W. for his testimony prior to the March 26, 2021, hearing. 
 
"66. In addition, the respondent failed to act diligently in his client T.B.'s case 
in not confirming that the court [had] appointed appellate counsel to represent T.B. in a 
timely manner. 
 
"67. The respondent stipulated that his conduct in DA13,686 and DA13,702 
violated KRPC 1.3.  
 
"68. Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing T.W. and T.B., the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
"69. KRPC 1.4(b) provides that '[a] lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation.'  
 
"70. In the DA13,686 matter, the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(b) when he 
failed to explain the potential legal consequences of the misdemeanor battery case and 
other circumstances in the domestic matter to T.W. prior to T.W.'s testimony during the 
March 26, 2021, hearing. 
 
"71. Further, the respondent stipulated that his conduct in DA13,686 violated 
KRPC 1.4. 
 
"72. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.4(b).  
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
"73. In making this recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel considered 
the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing 
Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be 
considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury 
caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.  
 
"74. Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his clients T.W. and 
T.B.  
 
"75. Mental State. The respondent negligently violated his duty. The hearing 
panel concludes that the respondent engaged in a pattern of neglect. 
 
"76. Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
injury to T.W. in negatively impacting T.W.'s opportunity to present the best case he 
could to gain the court's approval of his motion during the March 26, 2021, hearing. As a 
result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused potential injury to T.B.'s 
appeal and actual injury to T.B. by creating unnecessary stress and T.B.'s worsened 
disillusionment with the legal process. 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
"77. Aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may 
justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its 
recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following 
aggravating factors present: 
 
"78. Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on three occasions for rules violations similar to those involved here. In 2002, 
the respondent was disciplined by informal admonition for violation of KRPC 1.3 and 
1.4. In 2007, the respondent was placed on diversion for violation of KRPC 1.3. In 2018, 
the respondent was placed on diversion for violation of KRPC 1.1, 1.4, 3.1, 8.1, and 
8.4(a). The respondent successfully completed and was discharged from both diversions. 
 
"79. A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent has engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct, particularly involving violation of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. The respondent 
has violated each of these rules more than once between this and prior disciplinary cases 
and violated KRPC 1.3 in both docketed matters at issue here.  
 
"80. Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. The 
respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, and KRPC 1.4. This matter involves 
misconduct in two separate client representations. Accordingly, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses.  
 
"81. Vulnerability of Victim. T.W. and T.B. were both particularly vulnerable to 
the respondent's misconduct. T.W.'s ability to have contact with his child was at stake and 
lost in the domestic case. T.B. was in prison and unable to take independent action to 
employ appellate counsel or ensure counsel was appointed as he would have been if not 
incarcerated. The hearing panel concludes that the victims of the respondent's misconduct 
were vulnerable. 
 
"82. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court 
admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1983. At the time of the 
misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 36 years.  
 
"83. Misconduct Occurred During Prior Diversion Period. The hearing panel 
notes that the respondent's 2018 diversion was for a term of 24 months, from August 
2018 to August 2020. At least some of the misconduct in the two docketed matters here 
occurred during the term of this diversion. The hearing panel considered this as an 
aggravating factor. 
 
"84. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify 
a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for 
discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances 
present: 
 
"85. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. While the respondent received 
prior discipline, this is the first hearing on a formal complaint involving the respondent in 
more than 36 years of practice. The hearing panel took this into account in mitigation 
when considering prior discipline as an aggravating factor. 
 
"86. The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His or Her 
Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the 
Transgressions. The respondent fully cooperated with the disciplinary process. The 
respondent and his counsel worked with the disciplinary administrator's office and 
ultimately entered into a joint stipulation regarding the underlying facts and stipulated to 
rules violations.  
 
"87. Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community Including Any 
Letters from Clients, Friends and Lawyers in Support of the Character and General 
Reputation of the Attorney. The respondent is an active and productive member of the bar 
in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The respondent also enjoys the respect of his peers and 
generally possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by several letters 
received by the hearing panel.  
 
"88. Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for having engaged in the misconduct.  
 
"89. In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards:   
 
'4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:   
 
(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client; or 
 
(b) 
 a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or 
potential injury to a client.'  
 
'4.52 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of 
practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client.'  
 
'4.53 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer: 
 
(a) demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or 
procedures and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or 
 
(b) is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent to handle 
a legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a client.' 
 
'8.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded 
for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further acts of 
misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the 
legal system, or the profession.'  
 
'8.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer: 
 
(a) negligently violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such 
violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the 
legal system, or the profession; or 
 
(b) has received an admonition for the same or similar misconduct and 
engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential 
injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.'  
 
"Recommendation of the Parties 
 
"90. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent's license 
to practice law be suspended for a period of three years and that the respondent be 
required to undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 232 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
293), with the suspension being stayed while the respondent serves three years' probation 
according to the terms of the respondent's proposed probation plan in respondent's exhibit 
F1. 
 
"91. The respondent recommended the same discipline as that recommended by 
the disciplinary administrator.  
 
"Discussion 
 
"92. When a respondent requests probation, the hearing panel is required to 
consider Rule 227, which provides: 
 
'(d) 
Restrictions on Recommendation of Probation. A hearing panel may not 
recommend that the respondent be placed on probation unless the 
following requirements are met: 
 
(1) the respondent complies with subsections (a) and (c) and the 
proposed probation plan satisfies the requirements in subsection (b); 
 
(2) the misconduct can be corrected by probation; and 
 
(3) placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of the 
legal profession and the public.' 
 
"93. The hearing panel concludes based on the evidence that the requirements 
of Rule 227 are met here. The hearing panel heard testimony of Mr. Lubow that when the 
respondent is supervised by Mr. Lubow, the respondent is able to maintain the necessary 
attention, thoroughness, and preparation necessary to properly represent his clients. Mr. 
Lubow believed that the respondent is competent in the areas of law he practices in and 
with the proper limitation of his caseload and supervision, the respondent can 
appropriately represent his clients. The respondent accepts cases from a portion of the 
population that may not otherwise be able to obtain legal representation, and the hearing 
panel believes that the respondent can serve these clients appropriately if he follows the 
terms of the proposed probation plan.  
 
"94. The respondent's probation plan is workable, substantial, and detailed, 
contains adequate safeguards to address the respondent's misconduct, protect the public, 
and ensure the respondent's compliance with the rules going forward, names Mr. Lubow, 
who seems capable of handling the assignment, as practice supervisor, and includes a 
provision that the respondent will not commit misconduct. 
 
"95. Further, the respondent complied with subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 227. 
 
"96. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that with the proper supports 
through the respondent's probation plan and limiting the amount and types of cases he 
handles, the respondent's misconduct can be corrected by probation and placing the 
respondent on probation is in the best interest of the legal profession and the public. 
 
"97. While the hearing panel concludes that the probation plan is adequate to 
meet the requirements of Rule 227, the hearing panel further recommends that paragraph 
20 of the proposed probation plan be amended to permit the respondent to accept or 
handle no cases other than municipal criminal matters, misdemeanor criminal matters, or 
severity level 7-9 felonies. Based on the evidence, limiting the respondent to only 
handling these types of cases will ensure the lowest possibility of error or violation of the 
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. 
 
"98. The hearing panel further recommends that the respondent be required to 
undergo a KALAP law practice audit within 6 months of the Court's decision in this 
matter and follow all recommendations from KALAP. The hearing panel believes that the 
respondent could benefit from the assistance of a qualified law practice management 
monitor who could help the respondent develop systems he can use to become better 
organized and ensure his compliance with the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.  
 
"99. Mr. Lubow testified that he is not familiar with the KALAP program. 
Therefore, the hearing panel recommends that, while Mr. Lubow should serve as the 
respondent's probation supervisor, another lawyer should be appointed to assist the 
respondent with any law practice management assistance recommended by KALAP. 
 
"Recommendation of the Hearing Panel 
 
"100. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent's 
license to practice law be suspended for a period of three years with the requirement that 
the respondent undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 232 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
at 293). The hearing panel further recommends that the suspension be stayed while the 
respondent serves three years' probation according to the terms of the respondent's 
proposed probation plan in respondent's exhibit F1, as amended pursuant to the panel's 
recommendations in sections 97 and 98. 
 
"101. Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator."  
 
 
After the hearing panel issued its report, we ordered oral arguments in this matter 
under Rule 232(g)(4)(D) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 296). And we heard oral argument on 
November 2, 2023. 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court generally considers the evidence, the 
disciplinary panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC 
violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel, 315 Kan. 143, 147, 
504 P.3d 1057 (2022); see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
281). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that causes the fact-finder to believe that 
the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. In re Murphy, 312 Kan. 203, 218, 473 
P.3d 886 (2020).  
 
The respondent filed no exceptions to the panel's final hearing report. Thus, the 
hearing panel's final report is deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2023 
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 288). After a review of the entire record, we conclude the panel's 
findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and support the panel's 
conclusions of law. We therefore adopt those findings and conclusions.  
 
As to the discipline to be imposed, both the Disciplinary Administrator and the 
hearing panel recommended a three-year suspension, with a stay of the suspension while 
the respondent serves three years' probation. But these recommendations are advisory 
only and do not prevent this court from imposing different discipline. In re Biscanin, 305 
Kan. 1212, 1229, 390 P.3d 886 (2017). 
 
 
To aid in determining appropriate discipline, this court generally considers the 
American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. In re 
Hodge, 307 Kan. 170, 230-31, 407 P.3d 613 (2017). Under those Standards, a suspension 
is generally an appropriate sanction for a lack of diligence when "a lawyer engages in a 
pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client." ABA Standard 
4.42(b). Suspension is also "generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded 
for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct that 
cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession." 
ABA Standard 8.2.  
 
Here, the respondent negligently violated his duties to T.W. and T.B. resulting in 
violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4(b). The respondent showed a lack of diligence in his 
representation of both T.W. and T.B., demonstrating a pattern of neglect. And the 
respondent has previously been disciplined for violations of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. 
Thus, we agree that suspension is an appropriate sanction under the relevant ABA 
Standards. 
 
But we disagree that a three-year suspension is appropriate in this case. We have 
previously imposed suspensions of this length in cases involving knowing misconduct. 
See, e.g., In re Martinez, 315 Kan. 245, 257, 506 P.3d 909 (2022) (imposing three-year 
suspension on attorney for knowingly violating KRPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 7.1, and 
8.4); In re Rumsey, 301 Kan. 438, 450, 343 P.3d 93 (2015) (imposing three-year 
suspension on attorney for knowingly violating KRPC 3.5, 8.1, and 8.4); In re Cline, 289 
Kan. 834, 849, 217 P.3d 455 (2009) (imposing three-year suspension on attorney for 
knowingly violating KRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8, 1.16, 5.3, 8.3, and 8.4). But in cases of 
negligent conduct, we have imposed lesser sanctions. See, e.g., In re Works, 307 Kan. 26, 
36-37, 404 P.3d 681 (2017) (imposing two-year suspension on attorney for negligently 
violating KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 3.2); In re Freed, 294 Kan. 655, 663, 279 P.3d 
118 (2012) (imposing six-month suspension on attorney for negligently violating KRPC 
1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15); see also In re Boaten, 276 Kan. 656, 663, 78 P.3d 458 (2003) 
(imposing sanction of published censure on attorney for negligently violating KRPC 1.3 
and 1.4).  
 
Here, respondent's misconduct was neither intentional nor knowing. Thus, we hold 
that a suspension of six months is appropriate discipline in this case. However, that 
suspension shall be stayed pending respondent's successful participation in and 
completion of a three-year probation period. During this probation period, respondent 
shall comply with the terms and conditions of his amended proposed probation plan. 
Respondent shall also be subject to two additional conditions during this probation 
period. First, the respondent shall neither accept nor handle any criminal cases other than 
municipal criminal matters, misdemeanor criminal matters, or severity level 7-9 felonies. 
Second, the respondent shall be required to undergo a Kansas Lawyers Assistance 
Program (KALAP) law practice audit within six months of the court's decision in this 
matter and follow all recommendations from KALAP.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Philip R. Sedgwick is suspended for six months 
from the practice of law, effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme 
Court Rule 225(a)(3) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281) for violating KRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. 
However, respondent's suspension is stayed pending successful completion of three years 
of probation under the terms and conditions set forth above, including the terms of the 
amended proposed probation plan which are incorporated by reference. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.