Case Title: In re Giardine - (Published censure) video

Citation: 

Docket Number: 116190

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 116,190 
 
In the Matter of MICHAEL J. GIARDINE, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 7, 2017. Published censure. 
 
Penny R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
John Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Michael J. 
Giardine, 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, Michael J. Giardine, of Cimarron, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2006. 
 
 
On March 21, 2016, 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 timely filed an answer on April 1, 2016. Respondent 
and the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator entered into a Stipulation on May 25, 2016. A 
hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys on May 26, 2016, where the respondent was personally present and was 
represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 
8.2(b) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 377) (lawyer candidate for judicial office shall comply with 
applicable provisions of code of judicial conduct); Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 
2 
 
 
 
4.1(A)(4) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 458) (knowingly making any false or misleading 
statement); and KRPC 8.4(c) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
 
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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"6. 
On March 20, 2005, while in law school, the respondent was stopped by 
a Lansing, Michigan, police officer. The officer described the stop as follows: 
 
'Reason for Contact: 
On 03/20/2005 at approx. 03:33 Hrs. I was on road patrol in a fully 
marked patrol vehicle. I was Southbound on Washington near 
Kalamazoo. I observed the accused near the closed business in the 400 
block of S. Washington. The accused saw me and started to walk South 
on Washington. The accused had on a black knit hat and sunglasses. The 
accused took off his sunglasses and put them in his pocket. The accused 
looked back and began to walk faster. I pulled up behind the accused and 
honked my horn. The accused looked back and kept walking. I finally 
opened my vehicle door and told the accused to stop walking. The 
accused stopped walking. 
 
'Terry Pat Down: 
The accused put his hands in his pockets as I was approaching so I had 
him take his hands out of his pockets, and turn around. I conducted a 
Terry Pat Down and during my pat down I asked the accused if he had 
any weapons on him or anything illegal. The accused stated "No." I 
asked the accused if he minded if I checked. The accused stated "Yes, I 
3 
 
 
 
mind." During my pat down of the accused's right front jacket pocket I 
felt something that I thought was a box cutter. I asked the accused what it 
was in his pocket for my safety. The accused stated "Its [sic] drugs. Its 
marijuana." 
 
'Discovery Of Marijuana: 
At that point I placed the accused in handcuffs and conducted a search of 
the accused. I found a green leafy substance in a plastic sandwich bag 
that is consistent with marijuana and a pack of zig zags in the accused's 
right front jacket pocket. The pack of zig zags is what I thought was the 
box cutter. 
 
'Officers [sic] Actions: 
I identified the accused and released him.' 
 
Later, the respondent retained an attorney to defend him in the event he was charged with 
a crime as a result of the stop. 
 
 
"7. 
After graduating from law school, the respondent relocated to Olathe, 
Kansas. 
 
 
"8. 
Unbeknownst to the respondent, on July 1, 2005, the Ingham County, 
Michigan, prosecutor filed a complaint, charging the respondent with one count of 
misdemeanor possession of marijuana. A warrant for the respondent's arrest was issued 
that day. 
 
 
"9. 
In November 2005, the respondent filed his petition for admission to the 
bar of the State of Kansas. According to the respondent, while the respondent's 
application was pending, the respondent's attorney sent the respondent a letter. In the 
letter, the respondent's attorney informed the respondent that no charges had been filed 
and the attorney was closing the matter. The respondent cannot recall the name of the 
attorney and did not retain a copy of the letter. The respondent took the Kansas bar 
examination in February 2006. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
"10. 
In 2014, the respondent ran for a district court judge position in the 
Sixteenth Judicial District of Kansas. The respondent faced competition in the 
Republican primary. The election was scheduled for August 4, 2014. 
 
 
"11. 
On July 15, 2014, a Dodge City Daily Globe reporter contacted the 
respondent and told him that an anonymous source had informed the newspaper that the 
respondent had an outstanding arrest warrant in Ingham County, Michigan. 
 
 
"12. 
On July 17, 2014, the respondent forwarded a letter to the disciplinary 
administrator. The letter provided: 
 
'I, Michael Giardine, an attorney in good standing, licensed to 
practice law in the State of Kansas, write this letter pursuant to Rule 226 
of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Section 8.3, and the 
continuing obligation to update my Kansas Bar Association application 
within five (5) days of any change, inform the appropriate authority of 
the following and:  [sic] 
 
'On July 15, 2014, I was notified by a member of the local media 
that information had been provided to the Dodge City Daily Globe under 
the condition of anonymity that a bench warrant for my arrest was issued 
and outstanding in Ingham County, Michigan. Up to that point, I had no 
knowledge of the warrant or complaint filed against me. I had never been 
served with a ticket, notice to appear, arrested, booked, fingerprinted, 
photographed or informed of this matter. 
 
'A copy of the warrant was emailed to me showing the charge as 
Possession of Marijuana, with the day of offense listed as March 20, 
2005. The summons shows it was issued on July 1, 2005. The warrant 
shows it was issued on June 28, 2005. At no point was I contacted [sic] 
any private investigator, member of the local bar association or legal 
community. 
5 
 
 
 
 
'I have retained counsel in Lansing, Michigan to defend this 
matter and will cooperate with your office as required by law.' 
 
 
"13. 
On July 21, 2014, the respondent appeared in a Michigan district court 
and entered a plea of guilty to one count of disorderly conduct in exchange for a 
dismissal of the possession of marijuana charge. 
 
 
"14. 
On July 22, 2014, the respondent falsely stated, to a Dodge City Daily 
Globe reporter, that he was not the person stopped during the March 20, 2005, incident. 
The respondent stated that his identification had been stolen a short time before the 
incident. The article provided: 
 
'A nine-year-old charge for misdemeanor possession of marijuana and an 
associated warrant for the arrest of 16th Judicial District candidate 
Michael J. Giardine were dismissed, Monday, during a trip to Michigan 
to clear his name of the crime he said he did not know about or commit. 
 
. . . . 
 
'Giardine said he was not the person stopped during the March 20, 2005, 
incident in Lansing and that his Michigan resident identification card had 
been stolen before that date.' 
 
The respondent's statements to the Dodge City Daily Globe reporter were published on 
the Dodge City Daily Globe's website and republished by the Associated Press and the 
Wichita Eagle. 
 
 
"15. 
On July 23, 2014, while speaking at a judicial candidate forum, the 
respondent publicly misrepresented that he was not the individual stopped during the 
March 20, 2005, incident. 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
"16. 
On July 24, 2014, the respondent posted in the Dodge City 
dodgeboard.com, an online forum. The respondent's post contained false statements. 
 
'My name is Michael Giardine. I am writing this post to clear up some 
misinformation that either wasn't relayed or the members of this forum 
have no interest in accepting. I have no interest in going 
point/counterpoint with anyone about the merits or any personal opinions 
about me. I gave my story to the Dodge City Globe immediately upon 
resolution of this matter. It was my hope that would clear up any 
questions. Obviously it did not. 
 
'I was notified by email by a reporter with the Daily Globe on Tuesday, 
July 15 at approx. 1:00 p.m. that an anonymous source associated with 
my opponents [sic] campaign had delivered information to the Globe that 
a warrant had been issued for my arrest in the State of Michigan back in 
July 2005. 
 
'That email was the FIRST time I had any idea of a warrant or pending 
charge. 
 
'I immediately hired an attorney in Michigan who confirmed the warrant. 
I then made arrangements to travel to Michigan to address the matter. 
 
'On Friday I read a copy of the affidavit written by the officer in the case. 
 
'It is clear from the affidavit that there was never an arrest made, ticket 
issued, summons issued, booking photo taken, fingerprints taken or even 
a signature of the person stopped that resulted in the charges filed against 
me in the subsequent warrant. The Judge in Michigan, after reviewing 
the file, confirmed these facts after questioning me why I had not availed 
myself to the Court for 9 years to answer these charges. 
 
7 
 
 
 
'The hallmark of our criminal justice system in America is Due Process. 
At its essence, due process is notice and the OPPORTUNITY TO BE 
HEARD. There can be no question that I was never given notice of a 
charge until the Daily Globe notified me on July 15. 
 
'The report simply says "information was taken" and the person released. 
 
'I will not speculate about possibilities of how "information was taken" 
because that may give the impression I have more information about this 
incident than I really do. The sum total of my knowledge of this case is 
what I read in the officers' affidavit. I will state that in 2004 I had a 
Michigan ID card, that card was stolen from my bicycle in front of my 
law school. There is no mention whether my name was given or my ID 
was given. 
 
'I traveled to Michigan on Sunday, July 20 [sic] had a hearing on 
Monday, July 21, and the charge of Possession of Marijuana was 
dismissed. 
 
'At no time did I attempt to avoid answering to a charge or hiding from a 
charge. At no point did I attempt to conceal the charge from the Kansas 
Bar Association. I learned about the charge on July 15 and notified the 
Kansas Bar Association on July 17. 
 
'Additional information:  I was informed about 2 months ago that a 
private investigator had been hired to investigate me for the purpose of 
this election. The information came from the Clerk of the Gray County 
District Court who called to tell me the investigator stopped by the Court 
asking for any records they had in which I was a named party. I was 
upset that the opposition would stoop so low, but also relieved that my 
opponent or his supporters had so little faith in their candidate to win on 
the merits that they would resort to bringing Washington DC style 
political mudslinging to rural Western Kansas. 
8 
 
 
 
 
'If I had any knowledge or even suspicion that I had a criminal charge in 
Michigan I would have been a fool not to withdraw from the race or take 
steps to address it immediately before a private investigator uncovered it. 
 
'I have been subject to no less than 6 background checks since leaving 
the State of Michigan and none of these background checks resulted in 
knowledge of a warrant or criminal charges pending against me. I 
worked at the Wyandotte County DA's office in KCK and 2005 and had 
a background check for employment, I underwent an FBI background 
check (including required fingerprinting) in 2006 when applying to take 
the Kansas Bar Exam, Kansas Bar Association Character and Fitness 
background check the same year, Ford County Attorney's office 
employment background check in 2006, United States Passport 
Application background check in 2009, concealed carry background 
check in 2011, application for private pilot license background check in 
2013. None of these background checks resulted in knowledge of any 
warrant or criminal charge in the State of Michigan. 
 
'I have no interest in hiding from my past. As I told the Daily Globe, if 
anything, this experience gives me more perspective and understanding 
for those who find themselves in Dodge City Municipal Court. I have not 
campaigned on the platform of having "the highest moral character". I 
never want to look down my nose on someone while perched in an ivory 
tower of self-righteousness. I have been in Court before and I know it is 
terrifying. Based on that, I have always been mindful that I am dealing 
with good people who find themselves in a bad situation and always keep 
in mind that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.' 
 
 
"17. 
On July 27, 2015, the respondent sent a second letter to the disciplinary 
administrator's office. That letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 
 
9 
 
 
 
'In 2014 I ran for elected office in the 16th Judicial District. A 
local attorney associated with my opponent hired a private investigator 
for purposes of influencing the election against me. The local attorney 
learned from the investigator that an arrest warrant had been issued for 
me in Ingham County, Lansing, Michigan in regards [sic] to the 2005 
incident cited above. Instead of furnishing the information to me, or 
reporting the information to the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, 
it was delivered to a reporter with the Dodge City Globe for publication. 
The information delivered included copies of the warrant, my 
biographical information from the Blue Book of Kansas Attorneys, and 
portions of the application for admission which were highlighted for 
emphasis, alluding I intentionally failed to disclose this incident as 
required. The attorney also faxed and forwarded a copy of the warrant, 
and a narrative stating I was fugitive from the law to each of the six 
district courts in the 16th District, of which some were active polling 
sites, in violation of state law. 
 
1. 
On July 15, 2014, at approximately 1:00 p.m. I 
was contacted by email by Chris Guinn with the 
Dodge City Globe newspaper asking me to 
contact him immediately.  
 
2. 
I called him immediately and was informed of 
the information delivered to him.  
 
3. 
This was the first time I found out about the 
warrant and alleged criminal charges. 
 
4. 
I asked the reporter to wait one week before 
publishing the story to allow me an opportunity 
to find out what was going on, specifically how I 
could go nine years without knowing a warrant 
10 
 
 
 
was issued for my arrest and to resolve the issue 
immediately.  
 
5. 
The reporter told me the source wanted the 
information published immediately and had 
already threatened to deliver the same 
information to news outlets in Hutchinson, 
Topeka and Wichita.  
 
6. 
The reporter informed me "[good] ole' boys 
club" of local attorneys were behind the private 
investigator and he felt I was being "railroaded".  
 
7. 
The same day I hired an attorney in Lansing, 
Michigan to begin working on the issue.  
 
8. 
On July 17, 2014, two days after being informed 
of the warrant, I self reported the allegations to 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator as 
required.  
 
9. 
I traveled to Lansing, Michigan on Sunday, July 
20, 2014, for a hearing scheduled for the next 
day.  
 
10. 
In the negotiations leading up to the hearing, the 
state acknowledged the inability to provide my 
identity if the case were to proceed to trial.  
 
 
11. 
On Monday, July 21, 2014, I attended a hearing 
wherein the charge of Possession of Marijuana 
was dismissed and I entered a plea to Disorderly 
Conduct.  
11 
 
 
 
 
12. 
Within 15 minutes of leaving the hearing, I was 
contacted by reporters from Hutchinson, 
Wichita, and Topeka requesting a statement in 
regards [sic] to the plea.  
 
13. 
On July 22, 2014, I made a statement to the 
Dodge City Daily Globe denying facts of the 
case.  
 
14. 
On August 4, 2014, I lost the election.  
 
15. 
I have continued working without incident since 
that time.  
 
I stand ready to cooperate fully with all facets of the investigation and 
look forward to resolving the same.  
 
 
"18. 
On March 21, 2016, the disciplinary administrator filed a formal 
complaint in the instant case. Thereafter, on April 1, 2016, the respondent filed an answer 
to the formal complaint. In the respondent's answer, he admitted to the facts alleged in the 
formal complaint, including admissions that he engaged in dishonest conduct. 
 
 
"19. 
On May 25, 2016, the disciplinary administrator and the respondent 
entered into written stipulations. In the written stipulations, the respondent again admitted 
to the facts alleged including facts which establish that he engaged in dishonest conduct. 
Further, the respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.2 and KRPC 8.4. 
 
12 
 
 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"20. 
Based upon the respondent's stipulations and the above findings of fact, 
the hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 8.2, 
KRPC 8.4, and Rule 4.1(a)(4) of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 8.2 and Rule 4.1(A)(4) of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct 
 
 
"21. 
The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.2(b). KRPC 8.2(b) 
provides that '[a] lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the 
applicable provisions of the code of judicial conduct.' In this case, the applicable 
provision of the code of judicial conduct is Rule 4.1(A)(4). That rule provides that '[a] 
judge or a judicial candidate shall not . . . knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the 
truth, make any false or misleading statement.' 
 
 
"21[a].  The respondent knowingly made false and misleading statements while a 
judicial candidate to the newspaper reporter, at the public forum, and in the post on the 
Dodge City dodgeboard.com. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
violated KRPC 8.2(b) and Rule 4.1(A)(4) of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(c) 
 
 
"22. 
The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.4(c). That rule 
provides that '[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The respondent 
engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he made false statements to the 
newspaper reporter, when he made false statements at the public forum, and when he 
made false statements in the post on the Dodge City dodgeboard.com. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
13 
 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"23. 
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. 
 
 
"24. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public to maintain 
his personal integrity. 
 
 
"25. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duty. 
 
 
"26. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
potential injury to the legal profession. 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"27. 
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 factor present: 
 
 
"28. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct was motivated 
by dishonesty—he provided false information to the newspaper reporter, he provided 
false information at the public forum, and he provided false information in the post made 
on the Dodge City dodgeboard.com. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent's misconduct was motivated by dishonesty. 
 
 
"29. 
Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may 
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its 
14 
 
 
 
recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following 
mitigating circumstances present: 
 
 
"30. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. 
 
 
"31. 
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. 
Additionally, the respondent admitted the facts that gave rise to the violations. 
 
 
"32. 
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 
of Cimarron, 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. 
 
 
"33. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. The respondent took complete 
responsibility for his misconduct. The respondent did not attempt to excuse his 
misconduct. 
 
 
"34. 
In this case, two additional mitigating factors, not previously recognized 
by the ABA or the Kansas Supreme Court, are relevant for consideration. 
 
 
"35. 
Isolated Incident of Misconduct. The situation at hand is an isolated 
situation. While the respondent engaged in dishonest conduct on more than one occasion, 
the situation itself was one situation. Further, the circumstances are likely not to repeat. 
The hearing panel finds this circumstance to be important in considering the discipline to 
be imposed. 
 
15 
 
 
 
 
"36. 
Inexperienced in Elections. The respondent previously has no experience 
in politics and running for election. The nature of the political process, even for judicial 
positions, can be combative. This situation is a case in point—the opposition hired a 
private investigator to review the respondent's past. The respondent's inexperience with 
regard to politics and running for election is also a significant mitigating factor in this 
case. 
 
 
"37. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'5.13 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer's fitness to practice law. 
 
'7.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system. 
 
'7.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system.' 
 
 
"38. 
Thus, based upon the ABA Standards, it appears that censure or 
suspension is typically warranted in cases such as this. 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"39. 
Because the respondent engaged in dishonest conduct while a candidate 
for a judicial office, the disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
16 
 
 
 
suspended for a period of 1 year. The respondent recommended that he be censured and 
that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports. 
 
 
"40. 
Because of the presence of the persuasive mitigating factors, in the 
hearing panel's opinion, suspension is not warranted. The respondent was inexperienced 
in politics and in running for election. While the respondent's dishonest reaction to the 
political pressure is unacceptable, it appears that it was the result of youthful pride. It also 
appears that the respondent has learned important lessons from this experience and that 
the underlying circumstances are unlikely to repeat. 
 
 
"41. 
Accordingly, based upon the respondent's stipulations, the findings of 
fact, the conclusions of law, the Standards listed above, as well as the significant 
mitigating factors, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be 
censured. The hearing panel further recommends that the censure be published in the 
Kansas Reports. 
 
 
"42. 
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 Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). 
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]). 
 
17 
 
 
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer. Respondent was also given adequate notice of the hearing before the panel 
and the hearing before this court. He filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final 
hearing report.  
 
Respondent also did not object to the jurisdiction of the hearing panel or of this 
court. Nevertheless, in light of the unusual circumstance in which the alleged conduct 
potentially violates both the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the 
Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, this court ordered the parties to address the question of 
subject matter jurisdiction at oral argument. See Ryser v. State, 295 Kan. 452, 456, 284 
P.3d 337 (2012) (courts have duty to question jurisdiction on their own initiative). The 
order read: 
 
"The disciplinary complaint filed in this case alleged, and the hearing panel 
found, a violation of Rule 4.1 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct (2015 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 780) (political and campaign activities of judges and judicial candidates in 
general). 
 
"The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct applies to judicial candidates. Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 601B, Application, I(A), (D) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 750) 
(applicability of this code) ('All judges shall comply with the Code . . . The term "judge" 
also includes a judicial candidate.'). The Code specifies that 'Canon 4 applies to judicial 
candidates.' Rule 601B, Application I(D).  
 
"The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 8.2(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 669) (judicial and legal officials) provides that '[a] lawyer who is a candidate for 
judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the code of judicial 
conduct.' 
 
18 
 
 
 
"In light of these provisions, the parties should be prepared to address the 
following issues at oral argument: 
 
"(1) 
Whether the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys and the 
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications have concurrent 
jurisdiction over alleged violations of Canon 4 of the Kansas Code of 
Judicial Conduct when a respondent is an attorney acting as a judicial 
candidate; 
 
"(2) 
Whether either the Board for Discipline or the Judicial 
Qualifications Commission has exclusive jurisdiction; and 
 
"(3) 
Whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the violation of 
Canon 4 as alleged in this action if the Board for Discipline of Attorneys 
lacks jurisdiction."  
 
Responding to these questions at oral argument, the parties agreed the Board for 
Discipline of Attorneys, including the hearing panel that heard this complaint, and the 
Commission on Judicial Qualifications have concurrent jurisdiction over an allegation of 
misconduct arising during an attorney's candidacy for a judicial position. Nevertheless, 
parties may not confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent, wavier, or estoppel. See 
Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 287 Kan. 749, 752, 199 P.3d 781 (2009). 
Rather, courts conduct an independent review of jurisdiction, which presents a question 
of law over which an appellate court exercises unlimited, de novo review. See Ryser, 295 
Kan. at 457.  
 
The jurisdiction of both the Board for Discipline of Attorneys and the Commission 
on Judicial Qualifications is established by this court through its rules. See Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 602(a) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 467) (establishing the Commission on 
Judicial Qualifications); Kansas Supreme Court Rules Relating to Discipline of 
19 
 
 
 
Attorneys, 201-224 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 233-72) (establishing Kansas Board for 
Discipline of Attorneys). 
 
Regarding discipline of attorneys, Kansas Supreme Court Rule 201(a) (2017 Kan. 
S. Ct. R. 233) subjects "[a]ny attorney admitted to practice law in this state . . . to the 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the authority hereinafter established by these 
Rules." Kansas Supreme Court Rule 202 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 233) explains the scope of 
this court's disciplinary power by stating:  "Acts or omissions by an attorney . . . which 
violate the attorney's oath of office or the disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court shall 
constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the acts or 
omissions occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship." As relevant to this 
case, this jurisdiction extends to "[a] lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office," and 
the rules of professional conduct require an attorney who is a judicial candidate to 
"comply with the applicable provisions of the code of judicial conduct." KRPC 8.2(b) 
(2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 378). Nothing in the rules removes an alleged KRPC 8.2(b) 
violation from the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Administrator or the Board for 
Discipline of Attorneys.  
 
Regarding the discipline of judges, as noted, Kansas Supreme Court rules grant the 
Commission on Judicial Qualifications powers related to the investigation of alleged 
violations of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, which consists of four canons that 
"state general principles of judicial ethics all judges must observe." Kansas Supreme 
Court Rule 601B, Scope, (2) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 424). "The term 'judge' also includes a 
judicial candidate. Canon 4 applies to judicial candidates." Kansas Supreme Court Rule 
601B, Application, I(D) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 428).  
 
The rules relating to attorney and judicial discipline create an apparent overlap 
between the two codes:  Both codes explicitly apply to an attorney who is a judicial 
20 
 
 
 
candidate. Where two bodies have subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of a 
controversy and both are proper forums for its resolution, the bodies (whether courts or 
other adjudicative authorities) have concurrent jurisdiction. See State v. Russell, 229 Kan. 
124, 131, 622 P.2d 658 (1981) (stating general proposition of concurrent jurisdiction); 
Eudora v. Hartig, 68 Kan. 742, 747-48, 75 P. 1113 (1904) (discussing concurrent 
jurisdiction in context of deciding whether county commissioners have authority to 
condemn streets within city); Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383, 392, 1872 WL 710 
(1872) (stating general rule that "a mere grant of jurisdiction to a particular court, without 
words of exclusion as to other courts previously possessing the like powers, will only 
have the effect of constituting the former a court of concurrent jurisdiction with the 
latter"). Under these principles, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys and the 
Commission on Judicial Qualifications have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate the 
misconduct involved in this case.  
 
In light of our conclusion that the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys had 
jurisdiction, this court likewise has jurisdiction to consider the report of the hearing panel 
in this case. See Kansas Supreme Court Rule 212 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 255) (regarding 
attorney discipline proceedings before the Supreme Court). As a result, no jurisdictional 
impediment exists to this court's consideration of the hearing panel's report.  
 
The respondent did not file any exceptions to that report. By operation of Supreme 
Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 255), this means the panel's findings of fact 
are deemed admitted. Furthermore, the evidence before the hearing panel establishes the 
charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 8.2(b) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 377) (lawyer 
candidate for judicial office shall comply with applicable provisions of code of judicial 
conduct); Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1(A)(4) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 458) 
(knowingly making any false or misleading statement); and KRPC 8.4(c) (2017 Kan. S. 
Ct. R. 379) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
21 
 
 
 
misrepresentation) by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions 
of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the panel hearing, at which the respondent appeared, the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period 
of 1 year. Respondent recommended published censure. The hearing panel also 
recommended public censure. 
 
At the hearing before this court, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator again 
recommended a 1-year suspension, and the respondent asked us to follow the hearing 
panel's recommendation of public censure. While a minority of this court would impose a 
more severe discipline, a majority of the court agrees with the hearing panel's 
recommendation that published censure is the appropriate remedy in this case.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that MICHAEL J. GIARDINE be and he is hereby 
disciplined by published censure in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3)  
(2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 234). 
 
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.