Case Title: In re Todd   (Disciplinary) - Remanded with directions video

Citation: 

Docket Number: 118742

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2018-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 118,742 
 
In the Matter of ZANE TODD, JR., 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 8, 2018. Remanded with directions. 
 
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. 
 
Zane L. Todd, Jr., respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an unusual uncontested original proceeding in discipline 
filed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator against Respondent Zane Todd, Jr., 
of Olathe, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1994. 
 
This case arose out of Respondent's failure to act promptly on and communicate 
adequately about client A.B.'s request for a recalculation of jail time credit. Although it 
appears that Respondent and the prosecution ultimately agreed that no relief was due the 
client, Respondent entered into a July 22, 2014, diversion agreement with the office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator. Under the agreement, Respondent stipulated to his 
violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
292) (diligence) and 1.4 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 293) (communication) on A.B.'s case. The 
agreement provided that Respondent would avoid sanction for those violations if he met 
certain requirements, one of which was completion of 16 hours of continuing legal 
education, including 6 hours on ethics, within one year. Respondent completed only 15 
hours, and the diversion agreement was terminated.  
2 
 
Once the diversion was terminated, on June 13, 2016, the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Respondent. The original 
hearing date was set for September 20, 2016. The office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator filed an amended formal complaint on August 22, 2016. By this time, 
Respondent had learned he was suffering from what was believed to be a terminal illness. 
With survival as his priority, he did not file an answer to either complaint. At the 
September 20 hearing, on learning of Respondent's illness, the office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator requested a stay of the proceedings so that Respondent could communicate 
with the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program (KALAP) and obtain an evaluation of 
whether placement back on diversion would be appropriate. The hearing panel filed an 
order granting the stay and directing the parties to provide a status report on or before 
January 1, 2017. 
 
Neither party filed a status report by the deadline.  
 
The office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed its status report on January 19, 
2017, stating that KALAP could not confirm or deny whether Respondent had sought its 
assistance. With no word from Respondent, the office also filed an amended notice of 
hearing on March 27, 2017, which set a second hearing for May 8, 2017. Service of the 
notice on Respondent apparently failed.   
 
On April 4, 2017, Anne McDonald of KALAP informed the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator by letter that Respondent had been in contact with her office 
several times during the previous 17 months, that he appeared to be recovering 
physically, that he had received good support from family and friends, and that he had 
been able to return to law practice full-time. She concluded: "I have not at this time asked 
him to get an evaluation or to work with KALAP in a more formal setting. If the panel 
sees fit to re-instate his Diversion and wishes to include a formal contract with KALAP 
3 
 
as one of the conditions, I am certainly happy and willing to do that." Ms. McDonald also 
stated that she had written the letter at Respondent's request. 
 
The office of the Disciplinary Administrator emailed a copy of Ms. McDonald's 
letter to Respondent and to members of the hearing panel. In the email, the Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator stated:  "I accept this as the answer to the Panel's request for a 
status report."  
 
Having received no notice of the hearing setting, the Respondent did not appear on 
May 8. He moved to reopen the record; the office of the Disciplinary Administrator did 
not object; and the hearing panel granted the motion. A third hearing on the amended 
formal complaint was set for August 29, 2017. 
 
At the August hearing, the panel reviewed the evidence, including live testimony 
from Respondent. It concluded that not only had he violated KRPC 1.3 and 1.4, as 
stipulated in the diversion agreement, but also that his conduct in failing to complete the 
diversion CLE requirement and the diversion's termination constituted a violation of 
KRPC 8.1(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (failure to respond to lawful demand for 
information from disciplinary authority) and that he violated Kansas Supreme Court Rule 
211(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). The 
panel determined that Respondent's violations were negligent and that his ill health 
"[c]learly" contributed to them. The panel cited two provisions of the American Bar 
Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions:  
 
"4.43 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and 
does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
"7.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
4 
 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system." 
 
Despite an earlier expressed willingness to place Respondent back on diversion, at 
the panel hearing the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended a sanction of 
suspension. Respondent sought a less severe sanction. The panel ultimately issued the 
following recommendation:  
 
 
"The respondent recently battled cancer. His medical issues significantly 
mitigate the misconduct in this case. Additionally, there was procedural confusion 
at a couple of different junctures in this disciplinary case. The procedural 
anomalies coupled with the significant mitigating facts warrant a less severe 
sanction in this case. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and the Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends 
that the respondent be censured. The hearing panel further recommends that the 
censure be published in the Kansas Reports."  
 
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) (2018 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]). 
 
Respondent has filed no exceptions to the panel's Final Hearing Report. He also 
stipulated to his violations of KRPC 1.3 and 1.4, and there can be no dispute that he did 
not file answers to the formal complaint and amended formal complaint. We therefore 
adopt the panel's findings of fact and its conclusions of law that Respondent violated 
5 
 
KRPC 1.3 and 1.4 and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b). But we reject the panel's 
conclusion of law that Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) because of the "procedural 
confusion" it referenced. This confusion included at least the failed service of notice of 
the second disciplinary hearing and the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator's less-than-
precise email language indicating that Respondent had fulfilled his duty to file a status 
report by requesting Ms. McDonald's letter. We also note that the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator itself does not appear to have met the panel's filing deadline 
for its status report. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for Respondent's 
violations. We agree with the panel that the mitigation in this case is significant. 
Respondent missed successful completion of his diversion requirements by one 50-
minute hour of CLE. It is understandable that such a deficit might arise during his 
treatment for what had been diagnosed as Stage 4 cancer. Rules are important, of course, 
and they must be enforced. But, occasionally, they must bend for truly exceptional 
circumstances. Indeed, at the point that Respondent appeared for his first hearing, the 
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recognized this might be such a case. Had everything 
gone smoothly from that point on, she was prepared to recommend that Respondent be 
returned to diversion. Instead, after procedural and communication irregularities for 
which the office of Disciplinary Administrator must bear at least partial responsibility, 
she sought suspension at the time of the third panel hearing. She now joins in the panel's 
recommendation of the less severe published censure.  
 
Given all of the circumstances before us, we regard even published censure as a 
disciplinary step beyond the one necessary. Rather than imposing any discipline as a 
court, we remand this case to the office of the Disciplinary Administrator for imposition 
of an informal admonition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(4) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. 
R. 234). In addition, the costs of this proceeding will be borne by that office. 
6 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is remanded to the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the office 
of the Disciplinary Administrator.