Case Title: In re Fickler - (Indefinite supension) video

Citation: 

Docket Number: 114096

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2015-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 114,096 
 
In the Matter of DEBRA JEAN FICKLER, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 23, 2015. Indefinite suspension. 
 
 
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Debra Jean Fickler, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Debra Jean Fickler, of Tonganoxie, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2009. 
 
On March 19, 2015, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent did not file an answer, but she appeared at the May 19, 
2015, hearing on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2015 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 461) (diligence); 3.2 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 595) (expediting litigation); 
8.1(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 661) (failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known by respondent); 8.4(d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) (engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct 
2 
 
 
 
adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 
207(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 328) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); 
and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350) (failure to file 
answer in disciplinary proceeding). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court: 
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"7. 
On September 18, 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the 
respondent's license to practice law for failure to pay the annual registration fee, failure to 
pay the annual continuing legal education fee, and failure to comply with the annual 
continuing legal education requirements. 
 
 
"8. 
On October 18, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Missouri appointed the respondent to represent a criminal defendant charged 
in a two count complaint alleging weapons violations. On August 20, 2013, contrary to 
his pleas, the defendant was convicted as charged. Later, the defendant was sentenced to 
serve 60 months in prison. 
 
 
"9. 
Thereafter, on January 15, 2014, the defendant filed a notice of appeal 
pro se. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit again appointed the 
respondent to represent the defendant. The court provided the respondent with a briefing 
schedule. According to the briefing schedule, the respondent's brief was due on March 4, 
2014. 
 
 
"10. 
On March 17, 2014, the respondent filed a motion for an extension of 
time. The court granted the respondent's motion and extended the time to file the brief to 
April 1, 2014. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
"11. 
On April 1, 2014, the respondent filed a second motion for an extension 
of time to file the brief. The court granted the respondent['s] motion and directed the 
respondent to file a brief on behalf of the defendant by April 8, 2014. 
 
 
"12. 
On April 8, 2014, the respondent filed a third motion requesting an 
additional seven days to file the brief. The court granted the motion, warned the 
respondent that no further extensions would be granted, and directed the respondent to 
file the brief by April 15, 2014. The respondent failed to file a brief by April 15, 2014. 
 
 
"13. 
On April 30, 2014, the court issued an order to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The respondent failed to respond 
to the court's order to show cause. 
 
 
"14. 
On May 23, 2014, the court issued an order removing the respondent as 
counsel of record for the defendant for 'a serious breach of her responsibility both to her 
client and to [the] court.' The court appointed new counsel for the defendant. 
 
 
"15. 
Thereafter, on May 29, 2014, the clerk of the court for the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit filed a complaint against the respondent with the 
disciplinary administrator. On June 3, 2014, the disciplinary administrator wrote to the 
respondent and directed her to provide a written response to the complaint within 20 
days. The respondent failed to provide a written response to the complaint within 20 days 
as directed. 
 
 
"16. 
In June 2014, Michael Crow, an attorney, was appointed to investigate 
the complaint filed by the clerk. Mr. Crow sent the respondent five letters, directing her 
to provide a written response to the complaint. The respondent failed to provide a written 
response to the complaint. 
 
 
"17. 
On March 19, 2015, the disciplinary administrator filed a formal 
complaint in the instant case. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) requires an attorney to file an 
4 
 
 
 
answer to the formal complaint within 20 days. The respondent failed to file an answer to 
the formal complaint. 
 
 
"18. 
The respondent appeared at the hearing on the formal complaint. During 
the hearing, the respondent testified that she did not have a good excuse explaining her 
failure to properly represent the defendant in this case. She testified as follows: 
 
'Q. 
Essentially the complaint is that you failed to file a brief on time 
after three extensions, as well as failed to answer an order of 
show cause. Can you explain what happened? 
 
'A. 
During this time I was actually a student at Research Medical 
Center School of Nuclear Medicine Technology. I was 
attempting to balance that load and at the same time continue my 
representation of [the defendant]. I had asked the CJA panel for a 
new appointment and I was told that at this point I needed to 
continue with representation of [the defendant]. 
 
 
 
I do not have a good excuse. My excuse is at this time I 
was disillusioned with the practice of law and at the same time 
in—during my multiple meetings with [the defendant] in his 
incarceration I had had more than one threat against me and my 
family. Such as he made sure that I understood that his previous 
attorney, who was appointed, had his fingers broken. I am 
hearing impaired so at first I just laughed these off as, you know, 
I misunderstood him. 
 
 
 
However, in March, I believe, we live in the country so 
it's not unusual to hear gunshots. At one point sometime during 
the night our shop was shot with a shotgun and then the next 
week there was a close range gunshot near our home, but as we 
ran outside, you know, whoever it was or whatever it was, you 
know, was long gone. I do not know, I cannot say that these are 
5 
 
 
 
related to [the defendant] just because we live in the country in 
Kansas, you know, people practice skeet shooting all the time. 
 
 
 
I did have conversations with the U.S. Marshall, when I 
represented [the defendant] at his trial, about his threats. They 
told me to, you know, let them know if he had threatened me 
again. At this point I didn't feel like I had any proof that it was 
him, but at the same time I was pretty upset and ready to move 
on with my life and leave the practice of law. So in between 
trying to balance school, you know, studying and trying to take 
on this case as an appeal, it was too much and I did not do my 
duty.' 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"19. 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent conceded that she 
violated the rules as alleged by the disciplinary administrator. Based upon the findings of 
fact and the respondent's concessions, the hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that 
the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1(b), KRPC 8.4(d), KRPC 8.4(g), 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b), as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
 
"20. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent her client. The respondent failed to timely file an appellate brief on 
behalf of the defendant in the criminal matter. Because the respondent failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
6 
 
 
 
"KRPC 3.2 
 
 
"21. 
An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if she fails to make reasonable efforts to 
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of her client. The respondent caused 
unnecessary delay in the defendant's case by failing to file an appellate brief. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 3.2. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"22. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). The respondent engaged in 
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when she failed to timely file 
an appellate brief and when she failed to respond to the order to show cause. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"23. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). The 
respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law when 
she failed to timely file an appellate brief and when she failed to respond to the order to 
show cause. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) 
 
 
"24. 
Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) and 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provide the requirements in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection 
with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not:  . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful 
demand for information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority, . . . .' KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid 
the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary 
Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, 
7 
 
 
 
and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information 
he or she may have affecting such matters.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). The respondent knew that she was required to forward a written 
response to the initial complaint—she had been repeatedly instructed to do so in writing 
by the disciplinary administrator and the attorney investigator. Because the respondent 
knowingly failed to provide a written response to the initial complaint filed by the clerk 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the hearing panel concludes 
that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 
 
"Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) 
 
 
"25. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file answers to 
formal complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the requirement: 
 
'The respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary 
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint 
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). The respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to 
file a timely written answer to the formal complaint. Accordingly, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"26. 
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. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
"27. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated her duty to her client to provide 
diligent representation. The respondent also violated her duty to the legal profession to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigations. 
 
 
"28. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated her duties. 
 
 
"29. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to the administration of justice. 
 
 
"30. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. 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: 
 
 
"31. 
Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. 
The respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1, KRPC 8.4, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 
207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"32. 
Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally 
Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The respondent 
failed to provide a written response to the initial complaint in this case. The respondent 
was repeatedly instructed to provide a written response. Additionally, the respondent 
failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. The respondent's failure to provide a 
written response to the initial complaint and failure to file an answer to the formal 
complaint amounts to bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally 
failing to comply with rules and orders of the disciplinary process. 
 
 
"33. 
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: 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
"34. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. 
 
 
"35. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct 
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. The respondent 
clearly did not wish to continue to represent the criminal defendant in the Eighth Circuit 
appeal, but the panel finds that this was motivated more out of fear from her relationship 
with her client and general disillusionment with the practice of law than out of dishonesty 
or selfishness. 
 
 
"36. 
The Present Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by Her Cooperation 
During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. 
During the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent admitted the facts and the 
rule violations. 
 
 
"37. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed 
genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
"38. 
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. 
 
'7.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
10 
 
 
 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system.' 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"39. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law and that the suspension be made retroactive to 
September 18, 2013, the date of her administrative suspension. The respondent concurred 
in the disciplinary administrator's recommendation. 
 
 
"40. 
Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent 
be indefinitely suspended. The hearing panel further recommends that the indefinite 
suspension be made retroactive to September 18, 2013, the date of the respondent's 
administrative suspension. 
 
 
"41. 
Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350). 
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the 
truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 
610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). 
 
11 
 
 
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which she did 
not file an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing 
before this court. The respondent did not file exceptions to the hearing panel's final 
hearing reports. As such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 
212(c) and (d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 369). 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.3 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 461) 
(diligence); 3.2 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 595) (expediting litigation); 8.1(b) (2015 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 661) (failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension 
known by respondent); 8.4(d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice); 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2015 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 328) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); and Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350) (failure to file answer in 
disciplinary proceeding), and it supports the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the 
panel's conclusions. 
 
At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator and the respondent jointly recommended that this court 
adopt the hearing panel recommendation that the respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law and that the date of the suspension be made retroactively 
effective on the date of respondent's administrative suspension, September 18, 2013. If 
respondent seeks reinstatement, a hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(d) (2015 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 403) will be required. 
  
 
12 
 
 
 
This court is not bound by the recommendations of the Disciplinary Administrator 
or the hearing panel. In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 911-12, 317 P.3d 756 (2014). The court 
is free to impose a sanction that is either greater or lesser than that which is 
recommended. Nevertheless, in this instance, given that all concerned have joined in the 
recommendation for a retroactively applied indefinite suspension, the court accepts that 
recommended sanction. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Debra Jean Fickler be and is hereby indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective September 18, 2013, 
in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 293). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401), and in the event respondent seeks reinstatement, 
she shall comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 219 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 403). 
  
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.