Case Title: In re Riebschlager video

Citation: 

Docket Number: 114098

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 114,098 
 
In the Matter of GARY RIEBSCHLAGER, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 20, 2015. Indefinite prohibition from 
appearing pro hac vice before any Kansas court, administrative tribunal, or agency. 
 
Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Gary 
Riebschlager, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Gary Riebschlager 
of Houston, Texas. Respondent is not licensed to practice law in Kansas. 
 
 
On January 14, 2015, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 
complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent filed an answer on March 2, 2015. The parties entered into 
a joint factual stipulation and agreed to a suggested disposition on March 30, 2015. 
 
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on April 1, 
2015, at which the respondent appeared personally and was represented by counsel. The 
hearing panel determined respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
2 
 
 
 
670) (failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by 
respondent). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and disciplinary recommendation. Respondent took no exceptions to 
the hearing panel's report. We quote the report's pertinent parts below. 
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"11. 
In 2008, H.P. retained the respondent to represent him in an action 
against BNSF Railway Co. On March 2, 2013, the respondent, through Rachel Mackey, 
local counsel, filed a verified application for admission pro hac vice, in H.P. v. BNSF 
Railway Co., 09CV305 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. In the 
petition, the respondent stated, 'I have been the subject of prior public discipline, but not 
suspension or disbarment, in any jurisdiction.' However, previously, the respondent had 
been sanctioned by the State Bar of Texas by a partially probated suspension. 
 
 
"12. 
After the verified application was filed, opposing counsel filed a motion 
to disqualify the respondent. On July 25, 2013, the court took up the motion to disqualify 
counsel. At the hearing on the motion to disqualify counsel, the respondent appeared on 
behalf of H.P., however, Ms. Mackey did not appear. During the hearing on the motion to 
disqualify, the respondent explained: 
 
'MR. RIEBSCHLAGER:  My name is Gary Riebschlager. I am 
the focus of a Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by Burlington Northern 
Railway Santa Fe Company which I received five minutes ago. 
 
'The basis for the Motion is that I was suspended from the 
practice of law in 2006. The suspension was a partially probated 
suspension during a rough part of my life. 
3 
 
 
 
 
'I had been told by my grievance counsel—because this comes 
up a lot. I practice not only in Kansas. I practice in California. I practice 
in New York. I practiced in Florida. I practiced in Louisiana. And I 
practiced in Arkansas, in Colorado once. 
 
'I have been advised that, unless it's a full suspension where you 
are unable to practice at all, that I don't report that under a pro hac vice 
motion. I was told I have a partially probated suspension with three 
months active. And I was told that, because it's a partially probated 
suspension, that I don't have to declare that as a full suspension. That is 
what I've been told and that's what I've told many judges. That would be 
my response, Your Honor.' 
 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent testified that he had no intention 
of misleading anyone and that he was mistaken regarding the language of the Kansas rule 
regarding suspension. 
 
 
"13. 
The court concluded that the respondent's attorney disciplinary record 
was contrary to the information he included in the verified petition for admission pro hac 
vice. Accordingly, the court disqualified the respondent. Because Ms. Mackey failed to 
attend the hearing as required by court rule, the court also disqualified Ms. Mackey. 
 
 
"14. 
On July 29, 2013, the court memorialized his order in a journal entry. 
 
'1. 
On February 28, 2012, plaintiff's Kansas attorney, 
Rachel Mackey, filed her motion, pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court 
Rule No. 116, seeking admission pro hac vice of out-of-state Texas 
Attorney Gary M. Riebschlager; 
 
'2. 
As further required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule No. 
116(e), pro hac vice applicant Riebschlager prepared as an attachment to 
the Mackey motion his verified application in which he represented to 
4 
 
 
 
the Court and defense counsel in Paragraph 6 of that application, that he 
had "been the subject of prior public discipline, but not disbarment or 
suspension in any jurisdiction" . . . ; 
 
'3. 
It has been brought to the Court's attention that the 
public disciplinary records of the State Bar of Texas disclose that 
contrary to the express representation made by Attorney Riebschlager in 
Paragraph 6 of his verified application for admission pro hac vice, 
Attorney Riebschlager was sanctioned by the State Bar of Texas on May 
3, 2006 by a partially probated suspension of his law license from June 1, 
2006—May 31, 2008. 
 
'4. 
As defined by the State Bar of Texas, a "partially 
probated suspension" is specifically defined as follows:  "This type of 
discipline is a combination of an active suspension [from the practice of 
law], followed by a period of probated suspension and is public." 
 
 
'5. 
According to the Texas Bar Journal, Vol. 69, No. 7, p. 
691, Attorney Riebschlager "accepted the two-year partially probated 
suspension, effective June 1, 2006, with the first three months (of the 
suspension) actively served"; 
 
'6. 
The Court also notes that Kansas Supreme Court Rule 
116(b) provides that the Kansas attorney of record must, inter alia, be 
present throughout all court or administrative proceedings, and Attorney 
Rachel Mackey has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements 
imposed upon her by this rule; 
 
'7. 
As a result of the conduct delineated hereinabove the 
Court finds that there is good cause that both Gary M. Riebschlager and 
Rachel Mackey should be and are disqualified and removed forthwith as 
counsel for plaintiff in this case, and defendant's motion is sustained; 
 
5 
 
 
 
'8. 
The Court further finds that plaintiff should be and is 
hereby given to the deadline of September 1, 2013, by which date to hire 
new counsel and have such attorney enter his or her appearance; 
 
'9. 
The Court will mail a copy of this journal entry to the 
plaintiff [H.P.] at his last known residential address . . . Lawrence, 
Kansas  66049; 
 
'10. 
In the event plaintiff retains new counsel by the deadline 
imposed by the Court, the case will proceed in its current posture with 
respect to all deadlines and orders previously entered; 
 
'11. 
The current jury trial date of September 9, 2013, is 
hereby cancelled, and this matter is continued for trial by the Court, 
subject to call.' 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"15. 
In the formal complaint, the disciplinary administrator alleged that the 
respondent violated KRPC 8.1(a). In the parties' stipulation, the disciplinary administrator 
and the respondent agreed that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(a). However, based 
upon a careful review of the stipulation and evidence presented, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
 
"16. 
KRPC 8.1 provides: 
 
'An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection 
with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary 
matter, shall not: 
 
6 
 
 
 
(a) 
knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or  
 
(b) 
fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or 
knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an 
admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this rule does not require 
disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.' 
 
 
"17. 
In the verified application for admission pro hac vice, the respondent 
stated that he had 'been the subject of prior public discipline, but not suspension or 
disbarment, in any jurisdiction.' Despite his statement in the application, the respondent 
had been the subject of a prior public discipline which included a suspension. 
 
 
"18. 
However, in order to establish a violation of KRPC 8.1(a), evidence must 
be presented that the respondent knowingly made a false statement of material fact. The 
uncontroverted evidence is that the respondent called the Texas disciplinary authorities 
and was told that he was not required to disclose the partially probated suspension in 
applications for admission pro hac vice. 
 
 
"19. 
Thus, based upon the respondent's testimony, the hearing panel 
concludes that the evidence was not presented to establish that he knowingly made false 
statement of material fact. Rather, the hearing panel concludes that the evidence supports 
a conclusion that the respondent failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known by the respondent. The hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"20. 
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 
7 
 
 
 
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
factors. 
 
 
"21. 
Duty Violated.  The respondent violated his duty to the public to 
maintain his personal integrity. 
 
 
"22. 
Mental State.  The respondent should have known he was violating his 
duty to the public. 
 
 
"23. 
Injury.  As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual harm to the administration of justice. Based upon the respondent's misconduct 
H.P.'s trial was delayed. 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"24. 
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: 
 
 
"25. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses.  The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on three occasions. In 1998, the Texas Supreme Court publicly reprimanded 
the respondent. In 2004, the Texas Supreme Court again publicly reprimanded the 
respondent. In 2006, the Texas Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the 
practice of law for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, for failing to carry out the 
obligations owed to clients, for failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter, for failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information, for failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, failing to take steps to 
the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, and failing to respond to a 
lawful demand for information from the disciplinary authority. Following a short 
suspension, the Texas Supreme Court placed the respondent on probation. The Texas 
Supreme Court referred to this discipline as partially probated suspension. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
"26. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The Texas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in 1983. At the time of the misconduct, the 
respondent has been practicing law for nearly 30 years. 
 
 
"27. 
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: 
 
 
"28. 
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. Finally, 
the respondent stipulated that his conduct violated a Kansas Rule of Professional 
Conduct. 
 
 
"29. 
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 Houston, Texas. 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. 
 
 
"30. 
Remorse.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed 
genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
"31. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses.  The misconduct which gave rise to the 
discipline imposed in Texas is remote in character to the misconduct in this case. 
Additionally, the misconduct which gave rise to the 1998 reprimand is remote in time to 
the misconduct in this case. 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
"32. 
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. 
 
'6.12 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that 
false statements or documents are being submitted to the court 
or that material information is improperly being withheld, and 
takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to 
a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or 
potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding. 
 
'6.22 
Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a 
court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a 
client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a 
legal proceeding.' 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"33. 
The disciplinary administrator and the respondent jointly recommended 
that the respondent be indefinitely prohibited from appearing in any Kansas court, 
administrative tribunal, or agency of the state, pro hac vice. 
 
 
"34. 
Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards 
listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be 
indefinitely prohibited from appearing in any Kansas court, administrative tribunal, or 
agency of the state, pro hac vice. 
 
 
"35. 
Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
10 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the hearing panel's 
findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations 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) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 363). 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]). 
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer. Respondent filed no exceptions to the final hearing report. As such, the panel's 
findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c) and (d) (2014 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 383). That said, we note some discrepancy between the panel's findings in 
paragraph 25 concerning actions attributed to the Texas Supreme Court and the record, 
which shows sanctions were imposed by Texas State Bar District Grievance Committees 
and the Harris County, Texas, District Court. But after inquiry at oral argument, the 
parties agree these discrepancies are immaterial.    
 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) 
(failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by respondent), 
and it supports the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's findings and 
conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue is determining the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the hearing before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office and 
11 
 
 
 
respondent both recommended that respondent be indefinitely prohibited from appearing 
pro hac vice before any Kansas court, administrative tribunal, or agency. The hearing 
panel agreed with that joint recommendation. 
 
The hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us 
from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 383); see In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). But after careful 
consideration, the court agrees with the recommendations and holds that respondent be 
indefinitely prohibited from appearing pro hac vice before any Kansas court, 
administrative tribunal, or agency. See In re Franco, 275 Kan. 571, 579, 66 P.3d 805 
(2003) (Missouri attorney indefinitely prohibited from appearing in Kansas pro hac vice). 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gary Riebschlager be and is hereby disciplined by 
indefinite prohibition from appearing pro hac vice before any Kansas court, 
administrative tribunal, or agency, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(5) 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306). 
 
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.