Case Title: In re Romious

Citation: 

Docket Number: 104200

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 104,200 
 
In the Matter of CARLOS DUPREE ROMIOUS,  
A/K/A D. CARLOS ROMIOUS, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 8, 2010. Disbarment.  
 
Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Frank D. Diehl, deputy 
disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for petitioner.   
 
No appearance by respondent. 
 
Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Carlos Dupree Romious, a/k/a D. 
Carlos Romious, of Kansas City, Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in 
Kansas in 1997.  
 
 
On September 11, 2009, 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 failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. A 
hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys on November 18, 2009. The respondent failed to appear at this hearing; 
however, he requested a continuance on the evening of November 17, 2009, by email to a 
special investigator to the Disciplinary Administrator, saying he was out of the state and 
could not afford to travel to Kansas. The hearing panel found that the respondent did not 
submit a timely request for a continuance and that good cause did not exist for a 
continuance.  
 
2 
 
 
 
The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2009 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 410) (competence); 1.5(a)  (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 460) (fees); 3.4(c) (2009 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 552) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 3.5(d) (2009 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 558) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal); 
4.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 572) (respect for rights of third persons); 8.4(b) (2009 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct 
involving misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice); 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's 
fitness to practice law); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
321) (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 
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
"2. 
On October 8, 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the 
Respondent's license to practice law for failing to comply with the annual administrative 
requirements to maintain a law license. The Respondent's license remains suspended. 
 
"Count I – DA10509 
"Municipal Court of Shawnee, Kansas, Conduct 
 
 
3. 
The Respondent represented Christopher D. Falkner in a traffic case 
pending in the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal Court, case number T08197971. 
 
 
 
"4. 
On April 16, 2008, after the docket had been concluded in the Municipal 
Court of Shawnee, Kansas, the Respondent approached the Municipal Court Clerk's 
 
3 
 
window and demanded to see the prosecutor, Joshua Allen. The Respondent told the 
clerk to tell the prosecutor to get his 'ass' in the courtroom. 
 
 
 
"5. 
Mr. Allen met with the Respondent in the courtroom. After the meeting, 
the Respondent returned to the Municipal Court Clerk's window. Despite the fact that the 
clerks were already assisting the Respondent, the Respondent repeatedly rang the service 
door bell. 
 
 
 
"6. 
On April 21, 2008, the Respondent returned to the Municipal Court of 
Shawnee, Kansas. The Respondent told the clerk that he wanted to 'fucking' file his 
paperwork. The Respondent presented a pleading entitled, 'Defendant's Application for 
Change of Judge' in Mr. Falkner's case. Tammy Manthei, clerk, told the Respondent that 
the clerks were working on it. 
 
 
"7. 
The Respondent called Ms. Manthei a 'fucking bitch.' The Respondent 
pointed his finger at Ms. Manthei, hitting the glass. The Respondent told Ms. Manthei 
that she better do what he told her to do. The Respondent proceeded to tell Ms. Manthei 
that he is smarter than anyone in the clerk's office. The Respondent repeatedly pointed at 
the clerks, calling them 'fucking bitches.' The Respondent told Ms. Manthei to get her 
'ass' in there to get his signed motion. Ms. Manthei testified she had never experienced 
conduct like the Respondent's in her eight years in the municipal court office. As a result 
of the Respondent's conduct, someone from the clerk's office telephoned the police 
department. The police did not arrive until the time when the Respondent was driving 
away in his vehicle. 
 
 
"8. 
The Defendant's Application for Change of Judge contained several 
defects. First, the Respondent failed to include any reason for the Judge to recuse himself. 
Second, despite the fact that the application was being made in behalf of Mr. Falkner, the 
affidavit was titled 'Affidavit of Defendant Jonathan Johnson.' Finally, while the affidavit 
indicates that it was subscribed and sworn to before a Notary Public, there is no signature 
line nor a signature from a Notary Public. 
 
 
"9. 
The judge summarily denied the Defendant's Application for Change of 
Judge filed by the Respondent. 
 
4 
 
  
 
"10. 
As a result of the Respondent's conduct in the Municipal Court, on May 
1, 2008, the Johnson County District Attorney's office charged the Respondent with 
disorderly conduct. During the pendency of the case, the Respondent failed to appear in 
court as ordered on three occasions. The Respondent failed to appear May 16, 2008, and 
April 10, 2009. In October, 2009, Ms. Manthei and other witnesses appeared in court for 
trial. The Respondent, however, failed to appear. The trial was continued to November 
25, 2009. [Footnote: According to the Johnson County District Court website, on 
November 25, 2009, an attorney appeared in behalf of the Respondent. The attorney 
entered a plea of guilty in behalf of the Respondent. The court sentenced the Respondent 
to serve four days in the county jail. The Respondent received credit for time served and 
the case was closed.] 
 
"Count II – DA10509 
"Federal Court Conduct 
 
 
 
"11. 
On May 6, 2008, the Respondent entered the north door of the United States 
Courthouse at 500 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. At a station manned by court 
security officers inside the doorway, the Respondent removed items from his pockets, 
placed the items in a tray, and walked through the magnetometer. The alarm on the 
magnetometer sounded. 
 
 
"12. 
A court security officer told the Respondent to return to the entry side of 
the magnetometer, remove his wristwatch, and walk through the magnetometer again. 
The Respondent refused. The Respondent became very loud and began using profane 
language to the court security officers. 
 
"13. 
The court security officers repeatedly told the Respondent to return to the 
entry side of the magnetometer or leave the building. The Respondent continued to 
refuse[] to comply and began shouting profanities at the court security officers. Despite 
the fact that the Respondent had not been cleared by the court security officers, the 
Respondent started walking toward the elevators. The court security officers told the 
Respondent to stop and to return to the entry side of the magnetometer. The Respondent 
 
5 
 
did not stop. The court security officers repeated in a louder voice that the Respondent 
should stop and return to the security area. The Respondent stopped walking toward the 
elevators but continued using profane language toward the court security officers. 
 
 
"14. 
The court security officers called the United States Marshal's Office for 
assistance. Several Deputy United States Marshals responded, including Deputy Marshal 
Sean Franklin. 
 
 
"15. 
Deputy Marshal Franklin told the Respondent to leave the courthouse. 
The Respondent refused to do so. The Respondent told Deputy Marshal Franklin that he 
would have to move him. Deputy Marshal Franklin put a hand on the Respondent and the 
Respondent shoved Deputy Marshal Franklin. Deputy Marshal Franklin took the 
Respondent to the floor. The struggle between Deputy Marshal Franklin and the 
Respondent continued, knocking over the magnetometer and going through a set of 
doors. Eventually, the Respondent was placed under arrest. Deputy Marshal Franklin 
received minor injuries in the incident. 
 
 
"16. 
On May 14, 2008, a grand jury of the United States District Court for the 
District of Kansas indicted the Respondent in case number 08-20056CM in a three count 
complaint with (1) failing to comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory, and 
directory nature and with the lawful direction of Federal police officer, (2) exhibiting 
disorderly conduct that created loud and unusual noise and a nuisance and unreasonably 
obstructed the use of an entrance, foyer, and lobby of the United States Courthouse, and 
(3) resisting, opposing, impeding, and interfering with Sean Franklin and Steve 
Makarunis in the performance of their official duties. The first two charges were 
misdemeanors and the third charge was a felony. 
 
 
"17. 
On December 18, 2008, the Respondent entered into a plea agreement. 
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to count one of 
the indictment. The Court sentenced the Respondent to 30 days and gave credit to the 
Respondent for time served. 
 
"Count III – DA10520 
"Representation of Alta V. Vaughn, Sr. 
 
6 
 
 
 
"18. 
The Respondent represented Alta V. Vaughn, Sr. in the Circuit Court of 
Green County, Missouri, case number 31106CF0085. During the period of 
representation, the Respondent engaged in abusive and bizarre behavior. 
 
 
"19. 
On April 24, 2008, the Respondent was in a Green County, Missouri, 
courtroom. During a hearing on a motion to suppress in a case which the Respondent was 
not involved, the Respondent loudly and rudely interrupted the proceeding. The 
Respondent accused the court of having a pattern and history of scheduling the 
Respondent's cases at the end of the docket. 
 
 
"20. 
On June 16, 2008, June 17, 2008, and June 18, 2008, the court in Green 
County, Missouri held a pre-hearing conference in the Vaughn case. Throughout the 
hearing, the Respondent made loud and rude statements. 
 
 
"21. 
On June 16, 2008, the Respondent asserted that the proceeding was a 
'joke' and a 'travesty.' The Respondent accused the judge of 'apparent reckless, bias, 
prejudice, and potentially racist activity and conduct.' The Respondent told the judge that 
the 'proceeding was a joke' and that the judge was 'going to sit [his] ass up there.' The 
Respondent accused the court of 'corrupting and stinking up the case' and 'corrupting the 
system.' Finally, during the hearing on June 16, 2008, the Respondent repeatedly spoke 
over the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and angry manner. The Respondent 
refused to stop talking when so ordered by the judge. 
 
 
"22. 
On June 17, 2008, the Respondent accused the court of 'being anything 
but impartial, justiciable, and anything but incompetent.' The Respondent wadded up a 
copy of a pleading filed by opposing counsel, threw it to the floor, and, using his shoe, 
ground it into the floor. When the court ordered the Respondent to appear the following 
morning at 8:00 a.m., the Respondent refused to appear. The Respondent told the court 
'to not expect him to be here' and that he should not 'hold [his] breath.' Again, the 
Respondent repeatedly spoke over the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and 
angry manner. Again, the Respondent refused to stop talking when ordered to stop by the 
court. 
 
 
7 
 
 
"23. 
The hearing resumed on June 18, 2009, and the Respondent did appear. 
During that hearing, the Respondent asked the court whether he is a 'pedophile.' The 
Respondent also stated to the court that 'you're going to sit up there with the audacity and 
the smugness of your holiness.' Finally, and again, the Respondent repeatedly spoke over 
the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and angry manner. The Respondent, 
again, refused to stop talking over the judge and opposing counsel when ordered to do so 
by the court. 
 
 
"24. 
As a result of the Respondent's conduct on June 16, 2008, June 17, 2008, 
and June 18, 2008, the court held the Respondent in contempt and sentenced the 
Respondent to serve 120 days in jail. The Respondent served the entire sentence. (There 
was no direct testimony on this incident at the hearing. However, Disciplinary 
Administrator's Exhibit 9, Judgment of Contempt and Disciplinary Administrator's 
Exhibit 14, letter from the Respondent to Nancy Wilson, dated April 6, 2009, wherein the 
Respondent admits engaging in complained of conduct, provide the factual basis for this 
count.) 
 
"Count IV – DA10529 
"Representation of [J.J.] 
 
 
"25. 
The Respondent was a captain in the Kansas Army National Guard. As a 
result, from time to time, the Respondent would be appointed to represent soldiers with 
regard to military offenses. 
 
 
"26. 
In the fall of 2007, [J.J.] was charged in a two count complaint in the 
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, case number . . . . The charges were driving 
under the influence of alcohol and possession of drugs, both misdemeanors. [J.J.] was a 
soldier with the Kansas Army National Guard. 
 
 
"27. 
[J.J.], with help from his mother and step-father, hired J. Steven 
Neighbors to represent him in the criminal case.  [J.J.]'s mother paid Mr. Neighbors 
$1,500.00 for the representation in the criminal case. Mr. Neighbors is a very experienced 
criminal law attorney. 
 
 
8 
 
 
"28. 
With regard to military action that could have been taken against [J.J.], 
as a result of the criminal charges, [J.J.] requested that a Judge Advocate General be 
appointed to defend him. As a result, the Respondent was appointed to represent [J.J.] 
with regard to any military action taken against him. The Respondent was not appointed 
to represent [J.J.] in the pending criminal case in the District Court of Johnson County, 
Kansas. 
 
 
"29. 
At some point, [J.J.]'s mother talked with the Respondent about having a 
meeting with the family, Mr. Neighbors, and the Respondent to make sure that everyone 
understood what was happening with regard to [J.J.]'s future. 
 
 
"30. 
Mr. Neighbors negotiated a plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea 
agreement, the Respondent was to enter a plea of guilty to the driving under the influence 
of alcohol charge and in return, the prosecutor would dismiss the possession of drugs 
charge. The plea agreement was satisfactory to [J.J.], his mother, his step-father, and his 
father. 
 
 
"31. 
The Respondent was to enter his plea of guilty to the driving under the 
influence of alcohol charge on April 11, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. 
 
 
"32. 
An hour before the hearing, [J.J.] and his parents were to meet with the 
Respondent about [J.J.]'s future. [J.J.] and his parents were present, but the Respondent 
was not. Instead, the Respondent sent his wife to tell [J.J.] and his parents that he was on 
his way. 
 
 
"33. 
When the Respondent arrived for the meeting, it was just minutes before 
the plea hearing was to occur. The Respondent informed Mr. Neighbors, [J.J.], and [J.J.]'s 
parents that he was going to take over the criminal case. 
 
 
"34. 
In fact, unbeknownst to [J.J.] and his parents, the Respondent filed an 
entry of appearance in the criminal case at 11:30 a.m. that morning. Neither [J.J.] nor his 
parents had retained the Respondent, nor had they discharged Mr. Neighbors. 
 
 
9 
 
 
"35. 
The Respondent promised [J.J.] and his parents that he would obtain a 
dismissal of the pending charges. [J.J.] was uncertain as to how he should proceed. He 
was prepared to enter a plea of guilty to the driving under the influence of alcohol charge 
negotiated by Mr. Neighbors. However, the guarantee of having the charges dismissed 
was compelling. As a result, under a great deal of stress and anxiety caused by the 
Respondent, [J.J.] agreed to have the Respondent represent him. 
 
 
"36. 
Orally, the Respondent and [J.J.] agreed to a flat fee of $3,500.00. [J.J.]'s 
mother paid the Respondent the $3,500.00 for the representation. 
 
 
"37. 
At the hearing, Mr. Neighbors was allowed to withdraw and the 
Respondent was recognized as [J.J.]'s  attorney. At the Respondent's request, the case was 
continued to May 1, 2008. 
 
 
"38. 
On April 21, 2008, the Respondent filed 'Defendant's Affidavit in 
Support of Defendant's Application for Change of Judge.' The document purports to have 
been signed by [J.J.]. However, [J.J.] did not sign the affidavit. 
 
 
"39. 
The Respondent, in his representation of [J.J.] with regard to the 
potential military action, was abusive and arrogant in his dealings with [J.J.]'s chain of 
command. 
 
 
"40. 
One night, the Respondent made arrangements to meet [J.J.] at a 
McDonald's Restaurant in Independence, Missouri, at 11:30 p.m. The Respondent got 
into [J.J.]'s car and handed him papers to review and sign. One of the documents that the 
Respondent handed to him was a written fee agreement. The written fee agreement 
indicated that the Respondent's hourly rate is $3,500.00. The Respondent sought payment 
of $13,250.00 as a 'liquidated fee.' The Respondent directed [J.J.] to drive him to the 
Respondent's wife's place of employment in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, to pick up 
his car. 
 
 
"41. 
[J.J.] was uncomfortable with the very unusual late night meeting with 
the Respondent. According to [J.J.] the meeting 'seemed like a drug deal.' 
  
 
10 
 
 
"42. 
Regarding the $13,250 liquidated fee, [J.J.] told the Respondent that he 
did not have 'that kind of money.' The Respondent assured [J.J.] that the fee was 
negotiable. Subsequently, [J.J.] terminated the representation of the Respondent and 
requested that the $3,500.00 be returned. The Respondent never returned the $3,500.00. 
The Respondent threatened to sue [J.J.]. 
 
 
"43. 
[J.J.] and his parents believe that the Respondent's treatment of [J.J.]'s 
chain of command negatively impacted [J.J.]'s military career. As a result of [J.J.]'s 
criminal case and the Respondent's treatment of [J.J.]'s chain of command, [J.J.] received 
a general discharge from the Kansas Army National Guard. [J.J.]'s family had a long and 
proud history of military service. The Respondent's conduct which materially contributed 
to [J.J.]'s discharge was emotionally devastating to [J.J.] and his family. 
 
 
"44. 
When an army JAG attorney is appointed to represent a soldier in a 
military setting, pursuant to Army regulations, the JAG attorney is prohibited from 
representing that same soldier in a civilian setting if a fee is charged. 
 
 
"45. 
Other than entering his appearance, continuing the April 11, 2008, 
hearing, and filing the Defendant's Affidavit in Support of Defendant's Application for 
Change of Judge, the Respondent did nothing to earn the $3,500.00 fee. 
 
"Count V – DA10529 
"Municipal Court of Grandview, Missouri 
 
 
"46. 
On June 2, 2008, the Respondent appeared in behalf of a client at the 
Municipal Court of Grandview, Missouri. While court was in session, the Respondent 
was speaking in a loud voice and disrupted the court session. Mike Smith, the court 
bailiff asked the Respondent to move to an area that was made available for attorneys to 
meet with their clients and the court bailiff also asked the Respondent to keep his voice 
down. 
 
 
"47. 
The Respondent began yelling at Mike Smith, telling him to get out of 
his face and that he can stand wherever he wanted to stand. A court security officer, Greg 
 
11 
 
Smith, came to where the Respondent was making the commotion and escorted the 
Respondent to the courtroom. 
 
 
"48. 
The Respondent continued to speak in a loud voice. Because he was 
disrupting court, Greg Smith escorted the Respondent to the bench. The Respondent 
stated that the Grandview Municipal Court is a 'kangaroo court.' The Respondent started 
turning his hands around yelling, 'I'm Carlos Romious and I'm an attorney and I'm being 
treated unfairly in this courtroom.' As a result of the Respondent's disruptive behavior, 
the municipal court judge held the Respondent in contempt of court. 
 
 
"49. 
Greg Smith placed the Respondent under arrest and escorted him to the 
detention area. The Respondent's client observed Greg Smith escort the Respondent from 
the courtroom. Greg Smith heard the Respondent's client state, 'That's my attorney and I 
don't want to have anything to do with him.' 
 
 
"50. 
While the Respondent was being detained, the Respondent called Greg 
Smith a snake. The Respondent stated that 'all you guys in Grandview you are all snakes, 
that's all you all are.' 
 
 
"51. 
Approximately fifteen minutes later, the judge called the Respondent 
back from the detention area. The judge admonished the Respondent to behave 
professionally in the courtroom and released him from custody. 
 
 
"52. 
Two days later, Greg Smith observed the Respondent in the Grandview 
Municipal Court again. When the Respondent noticed Greg Smith, the Respondent 
started yelling at him. The Respondent yelled, 'I'm back in Grandview. All the snakes are 
back again.' The Respondent continued to scream that everyone was a snake and that 
Grandview is full of snakes. 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
 
"1. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 3.4, KRPC 3.5, KRPC 
4.4, KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, as detailed below. 
 
12 
 
 
 
"2. 
The Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the Formal Complaint. 
It is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a Respondent fails to appear only if proper 
service was obtained. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary 
proceedings. That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows: 
 
 
'(a) 
Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in any disciplinary 
proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary Administrator, either by personal service or 
by certified mail to the address shown on the attorney's most recent registration, or at his 
or her last known office address. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
'(c) 
Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be deemed complete 
upon mailing whether or not the same is actually received.' 
 
In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by 
sending a copy of the Formal Complaint and the Notice of Hearing, via certified United 
States mail, postage prepaid, to the address shown on the Respondent's most recent 
registration. Additionally, the Disciplinary Administrator sent a copy of the Formal 
Complaint and the Notice of Hearing to several other addresses. Finally, it appears that 
actual service was obtained as the Respondent sent an electronic mail message 
acknowledging the hearing. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent was 
afforded the notice that the Kansas Supreme Court Rules require. 
 
 
"3. 
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.' In representing [J.J.] in the 
Johnson County District Court matter, the Respondent lacked reasonable competence. He 
filed a motion seeking the recusal of a judge without making any factual allegations. 
Because the Respondent was incompetent in representing [J.J.], the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1. 
 
 
13 
 
 
"4. 
According to KRPC 1.5(a), '[a] lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.' The 
Respondent orally agreed to represent [J.J.]  in the criminal case for a flat fee of 
$3,500.00. While that fee was more than double the fee Mr. Neighbors' charged [J.J.] for 
the same representation, that fee was not per se unreasonable. However, later in the 
representation, the Respondent attempted to change the fee agreement from a flat fee of 
$3,500.00 to an hourly rate of $3,500.00. An hourly rate of $3,500.00 is unreasonable. 
 
 
"5. 
KRPC 8.4(a) prohibits attorneys from violating or attempting to violate 
the Kansas Rules of Professional conduct. By attempting to charge [J.J.] $3,500.00 per 
hour, the Respondent attempted to violate KRPC 1.5. As such, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that by virtue of KRPC 8.4(a), the Respondent violated KRPC 1.5. 
 
 
"6. 
Pursuant to KRPC 3.4(c), lawyers shall not 'knowingly disobey an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion 
that no valid obligation exists.' In this case, the Respondent knowingly disobeyed an 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal when he engaged in contemptuous conduct in the 
Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri, and Grandview Municipal Court. Accordingly, 
the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.4(c). 
 
 
"7. 
KRPC 3.5(d) prohibits lawyers from 'engag[ing] in undignified and 
discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.' The Respondent repeatedly engaged in 
undignified and discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal in the Circuit Court of 
Green County, Missouri, and Grandview Municipal Court. Therefore, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.5(d). 
 
 
"8. 
KRPC 4.4(a) provides: 
 
 
'In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no 
substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or 
use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.' 
 
In this case, the Respondent shouted profanities at the clerks of Shawnee, Kansas, 
Municipal Court and at the court security officers and the United States Deputy Marshals. 
In addition, the Respondent was rude and disruptive in the Circuit Court of Green 
 
14 
 
County, Missouri, and the Grandview, Missouri, Municipal Court. The Respondent's 
conduct had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden court personnel. As 
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 4.4(a). 
 
 
"9. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects.' KRPC 8.4(b). In this case, the Respondent engaged in criminal conduct at 
the Municipal Court of Shawnee, Kansas, and in the federal courthouse. As a result, the 
Respondent was convicted of disorderly conduct in the Johnson County District Court 
and was convicted of failing to comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory, 
and directory nature and with the lawful direction of a federal police officer in the United 
States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent committed criminal acts and those criminal acts reflect directly on the 
Respondent's fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b). 
 
 
"10. 
'It 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 drafted the fee agreement and 
asserted that [J.J.] agreed to pay $3,500.00 per hour rather than $3,500.00 as a flat fee. As 
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
 
"11. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this case, the Respondent 
engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' when he disturbed 
the peace of the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal Court clerk 's office, when he created the 
disturbance at the federal courthouse, when he disrupted court in the Circuit Court of 
Green County, Missouri, when he entered his appearance in behalf of [J.J.] without 
authorization, and when he disrupted court in Grandview Municipal Court. As such, the 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
 
"12. 
'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 repeatedly violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
15 
 
 
"13. 
First, shouting profanities while in the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal 
Court clerk's office adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. 
 
 
"14. 
Next, the Respondent's conduct at the federal courthouse adversely 
reflects on his fitness to practice law. Specifically, the Respondent was unwilling to 
remove his watch and walk back through the magnetometer. The Respondent shouted 
profanities at the court security officers and the United States Deputy Marshals. The 
Respondent attempted to gain entrance to the federal courthouse without security 
clearance. Finally, refusing to leave the building and instead, engaging in a brawl with 
the United States Deputy Marshals adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to 
practice law. 
 
 
"15. 
Generally, the Respondent's conduct in the Circuit Court of Green 
County, Missouri, adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. 
Specifically, accusing the judge in the Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri, of being 
a pedophile also adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. 
 
 
"16. 
Without being retained to represent [J.J.] in the criminal case, the 
Respondent entered his appearance. The Respondent's conduct in inserting himself in 
[J.J.]'s criminal case pending before the Johnson County District Court adversely reflects 
on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. Further, the Respondent engaged in conduct 
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law when he failed to return the unearned 
fees of $3,500.00 to [J.J.] or [J.J.]'s mother. 
 
 
"17. 
The Respondent engaged in disruptive behavior while in the Municipal 
Court of Grandview, Missouri. The Respondent's conduct in that court also reflects 
adversely on the Respondent's fitness as an attorney. 
 
 
"[18.] In summary, the Respondent's conduct resulted in two criminal 
convictions, a contempt adjudication that lead to 120 days in jail, minor injuries to a 
United States Marshal, and an adverse impact on a military career. The Respondent's 
treatment of court staff and the judiciary was far below any acceptable standard. The 
Respondent's conduct caused a negative public perception of the legal profession. Finally, 
 
16 
 
the Hearing Panel cannot ascribe any good cause, justifiable reason or mitigating factor to 
the Respondent's conduct in this case. 
 
 
"19. 
Accordingly, the Respondent repeatedly engaged in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the his fitness to practice law. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes 
that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
"20. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file Answers to 
Formal Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provide the requirements: 
 
'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). In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by 
failing to file a 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 
 
 
"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. 
 
 
"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duties to his clients, to the public, to 
the legal system, and to the legal profession. 
 
 
"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused 
actual injury to his client and to the legal system. 
 
17 
 
 
"Aggravating or 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: 
 
 
"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. On May 9, 2001, the Respondent was informally 
admonished for having violated KRPC 1.1 and KRPC 1.3. 
 
 
"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a consistent pattern of 
rude, disruptive, and at times criminal, misconduct. 
 
 
"Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 3.4, 
KRPC 3.5, KRPC 4.4, KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211. As such, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"Refusal to Acknowledge the Wrongful Nature of his Conduct. To a very limited 
extent, the Respondent acknowledged wrongful conduct in Disciplinary Administrator 
Exhibit 14. 
 
 
"Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has not reimbursed 
[J.J.]'s mother for the $3,500.00 that she paid for the representation. [J.J.] and his mother 
made a claim with the Client Protection Fund and, as a result, received $3,500.00 from 
the fund. The Respondent should be required to reimburse the Client Protection Fund 
$3,500.00. 
 
 
"Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled Substances. The 
Respondent was convicted of disorderly conduct and failing to comply with official signs 
of a prohibitory, regulatory, and directory nature and with the lawful direction of a 
federal police officer. Thus, the Respondent engaged in illegal conduct. 
 
 
"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 no mitigating circumstances present. 
 
 
18 
 
 
"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.11 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'6.21 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or 
another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a party, or 
causes serious or potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding. 
 
'7.1 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the 
intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or 
potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.' 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be disbarred. The 
Disciplinary Administrator stated that had the Respondent filed an Answer or otherwise 
participated in the process, indefinite suspension might have been an appropriate 
recommendation. 
 
 
"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed 
above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be disbarred. 
 
 
"Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by the 
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
The Hearing Panel also noted that it would have also concluded respondent 
violated KRPC 1.15 and KRPC 1.16, for failing to refund the unearned fee to J.J. or his 
mother, had violations of those rules not been alleged. 
 
 
19 
 
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 Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 
(2009); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321). Clear and convincing 
evidence is "evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that 'the truth of the facts asserted is 
highly probable.'" 288 Kan. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 
[2008]). The evidence before the hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct of the 
respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of law. We 
therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Carlos Dupree Romious, a/k/a D. Carlos Romious, 
be disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on filing of this 
opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
272). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carlos Dupree Romious comply with Supreme 
Court Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361).  
 
 
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. 
 
PATRICIA MACKE DICK, District Judge, assigned. 1 
 
1 REPORTER'S NOTE:  Pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by art. 3, ' 6(f) 
of the Kansas Constitution, Judge Macke Dick was appointed to hear case No. 104,200 to fill the 
vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Chief Justice Robert E. Davis.