Title: In re Samsel

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 
No. 127,197 
 
In the Matter of MARK A. SAMSEL, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held May 8, 2024. Opinion filed June 14, 2024. 
Two-year suspension stayed, conditioned upon successful participation and completion of two-year 
probation period. 
 
Matthew J. Vogelsberg, Chief Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Amanda 
G. Voth, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Mark A. Samsel, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Mark A. Samsel, 
of Wellsville. Samsel received his license to practice law in Kansas on September 24, 
2010. Samsel is also a licensed attorney in Missouri, admitted in 2011.  
 
On October 31, 2023, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 
complaint against Samsel alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct. The complaint stemmed from Samsel's behavior and actions as a substitute 
teacher for an art class at Wellsville High School and subsequent conduct during 
administrative proceedings regarding his substitute teaching license.  
 
On December 7, 2023, the parties entered into a summary submission agreement 
under Supreme Court Rule 223(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 275) (summary submission is  
 
2 
 
 
 
"[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent," which 
includes "a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or 
conclusions of law will be taken").  
 
In the summary submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and Samsel 
stipulate and agree that Samsel violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC): 
 
• KRPC 8.4(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (misconduct—criminal act reflecting 
adversely on fitness); 
• KRPC 8.4(e) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (misconduct—ability to influence 
improperly); and  
• KRPC 8.4(g) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (misconduct—reflecting adversely 
on fitness to practice law). 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission below.  
 
"Findings of Fact—Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent 
engaged in the following misconduct: 
 
. . . .  
"DA 13,711 
 
"3. 
On April 28, 2021, Respondent Mark Samsel substitute taught in art class at 
Wellsville High School. Respondent, then working as an attorney and state 
representative, had also obtained his emergency substitute teaching license on May 
12, 2020.  
"4. 
During fifth hour art class, Respondent started the class by playing music as the 
students entered the classroom and telling the students that he 'had the floor' unless 
 
3 
 
 
 
someone else raised their hand and was recognized, and that it was going to be 'the 
most uncomfortable class of [their] life.' He then proceeded to do many things 
throughout the class period that made some students uncomfortable.  
"5. 
Respondent talked about God, the devil, suicide, and mental health. He told the 
class that God was speaking through him. Some students later reported feeling 
uncomfortable, to the point that some of them left the room for a break.  
"6. 
Respondent seemed focused on one student in particular:  T.E. Respondent 
acknowledges this and states that he had known T.E. for many years. Respondent 
stated T.E. was disrupting the classroom without being recognized and repeatedly 
disregarded Respondent's requests, including to leave the classroom and calm down 
or go to the principal's office. At one point, Respondent grabbed T.E. from behind 
and lifted him up.  
"7. 
During the class period, Respondent also pushed T.E. against the wall. T.E. reported 
this caused him to get a mark(s) on his back.  
"8. 
Respondent also kicked or kneed T.E. in the groin area. T.E. laid on the ground 
after Respondent kicked him.  
"9. 
Respondent asked T.E. if it hurt and told T.E. he could go to the nurse to have her 
check 'it' for him. Respondent also told D.W., a classmate, he could 'check [T.E.'s] 
nuts for him.'  
"10. In an interview with law enforcement, T.E. stated that Respondent grabbed him by 
the shoulders and shoved him against the wall. T.E. stated he did not want to be 
touched and was scared by what had happened. He stated that about ten minutes 
later, Respondent approached him and told him he was going to kick him in the 
'balls.' T.E. stated that another ten minutes went by when Respondent kicked T.E. in 
the groin with his right foot. T.E. winced over in pain and felt confused.  
"11. J.G. stated that during the class period, Respondent bent over and grabbed J.G. by 
the shoulders, asking her whether she had mental health problems. J.G. stated she 
felt scared because she had PTSD and did not like people grabbing her. She thought 
Respondent was going to hurt her.  
"12. While the class period progressed, one of the students texted her mom, who was a 
teacher at the middle school, stating that Respondent was 'crazy,' and that he had 
'just hardcore kicked [T.E.] in his balls.' Even though the student's mom was 
teaching, she alerted administration.  
 
4 
 
 
 
"13. As part of its investigation, law enforcement interviewed Respondent the following 
day, April 29, 2021.  
 
"a. 
Respondent advised law enforcement he believed it was his mission from 
God to save kids from suicide. He identified numerous kids he believed to 
be struggling with anxiety and depression.  
"b. 
Respondent demonstrated that he 'barely grabbed' T.E. by the shoulders, 
told him to stop, and then let go when T.E. got close to the wall. 
Respondent stated he heard T.E. had a bruise, opined that T.E. bruises 
'softly,' but that 'God works in mysterious ways.'  
"c. 
He told law enforcement:  'Even though I didn't want to do any of the things 
I did right there and this is what's going to end me up in a manic hospital 
probably, because it has all the appearances of a psychotic episode, or 
manic episode and I know because I did have them in the past but I went 
through doctors . . . and I've been healthy for, shoot, probably almost a full 
year now.'  
"d. 
Respondent explained he had a crystal-clear moment, and believed God 
was telling him what he was supposed to do. He believed God had told him 
'twice' that he could act physically toward T.E.  
 
"14. Law enforcement arrested Respondent and he was charged with three counts of 
misdemeanor battery, all class B person misdemeanors. The criminal complaint 
listed the victims of the batteries as T.E. (two counts) and J.G. Both victims were 
[minors].  
"15. Following the incident in the classroom, Respondent posted a story on SnapChat, 
stating the entire incident was planned to send a message about mental health and 
teenage suicide. The message stated that God planned it and that many of the kids 
were in on it. However, according to interviews conducted by law enforcement, 
none of the students interviewed knew about any 'plan' or staged the event ahead of 
time.  
"16. On May 24, 2021, Respondent emailed the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator 
(ODA), advising the ODA that he had been formally charged with three counts of 
misdemeanor battery.  
 
5 
 
 
 
"17. Respondent pled guilty on September 13, 2021, to an Amended Complaint that 
contained three counts of disorderly conduct, all class C nonperson misdemeanors.  
"18. On that same day, the district court placed Respondent on 12 months' probation 
with a 90-day underlying sentence. As conditions of probation, Respondent could 
not have contact with the victims and had to write them apology letters. He was also 
ordered to comply with mental health treatment and to take all prescribed 
medications.  
"19. In Respondent's response, dated October 29, 2021, he stated he was suffering from 
'a manic episode with psychotic effects (break from reality) in the classroom caused 
by the stress, agitation, and pressure of both the events leading up to that day in the 
classroom and the day of.' Due to this, he believed he was supposed to 'stage an 
outrageous event to bring attention to mental health, especially for kids.' He 
continued:  'After asking the student to stop several times and even backing away 
from him, the agitation and stress continued and created a grandiose scheme in my 
mind that I—working along with these kids—was supposed to stage an outrageous 
event to bring attention to mental health, especially for the kids. Because I told the 
student exactly what I was going to do before I did anything . . . , and then he 
continued to step at me to push me in the chest again, my mind interpreted all this 
as part of the grandiose plan.'  
"20. During an interview with Mr. Tom Stratton (former Director of Investigations with 
the ODA) in April 2022, Respondent advised he had been in a manic bipolar state 
for a few days before April 28, 2021, and for a few months after.  
"21. Respondent successfully completed probation in his Franklin County criminal case 
on September 13, 2022.  
"22. T.E., through his father, filed a civil case against Respondent, Board of Education 
Unified School District of Franklin County, and Morgan Hunter Corporation. The 
case was filed in Franklin County District Court, court case number FR-2022-CV-
000039. The case settled around September 2023, and no documents or admissions 
were filed as part [of] the settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement are 
confidential and not known to the ODA.  
 
"DA 13,748 
 
"23. Respondent obtained an emergency substitute teaching license on May 12, 2020.  
 
6 
 
 
 
"24. Based on the foregoing incident that had occurred on April 28, 2021, Dr. Mischel 
Miller, Director of the Kansas State Department of Education's Teacher Licensure 
and Accreditation team, filed a complaint with the Kansas State Board of 
Education's Professional Practices Commission, alleging that Respondent had 
engaged in professional misconduct. The complaint from the Kansas State 
Department of Education (KSDE) was dated June 15, 2021.  
"25. The filing of the KSDE complaint triggered administrative proceedings. These 
administrative proceedings are investigated and prosecuted by KSDE. Scott Gordon 
serves as counsel to KSDE. The Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) acts as 
the decision-maker regarding the license.  
"26. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel on behalf of himself and requested a 
hearing.  
"27. Respondent also filed a request for discovery, request for settlement, and request to 
dismiss the complaint. The date on the certificate of service for these requests was 
July 5, 2021. None of these motions were on his State of Kansas legislative 
representative letterhead.  
"28. On July 20, 2021, during a prehearing conference, certain deadlines in the 
administrative proceedings were set, in addition to the date and time of the hearing.  
"29. That same afternoon or shortly thereafter, Gordon and Respondent spoke via phone. 
Gordon reported that he advised Respondent that his client's position was that 
Respondent's misconduct was severe enough that it was not appropriate for 
Respondent to remain licensed as a teacher. Gordon reported that he also explained 
that he represented the Kansas State Department of Education as the complainant, 
and that it was the Kansas State Board of Education that would make a 
determination regarding his license. Gordon stated that Respondent seemed to 
understand the distinction, and appreciated the clarification on the relationship 
between his client and the Board.  
"30. A little over a week later, on July 30, 2021, Respondent sent an email to Gordon, 
Commissioner of Education Dr. Randy Watson, and Dr. Miller. As the 
Commissioner of Education, Dr. Watson was the appointed Chief Administrative 
Officer over the Kansas State Department of Education. Dr. Watson and Dr. Miller 
are the employees of Gordon's client, the KSDE (the investigative and prosecution 
entity).  
 
 
7 
 
 
 
"a. 
The body of the email stated:  'Please find attached a letter for your 
consideration.' It was signed:  'Mark A. Samsel, Samsel Law LLC' with his 
law firm's logo.  
"b. 
Attached to the email was a letter on Respondent's legislative letterhead. 
The top of the letterhead stated:  'State of Kansas House of Representatives' 
with 'Mark Samsel' and '5th District.' The subject line was 'Kansas 
(Emergency) Substitute Teaching License and Renewal.'  
"c. 
In his letter, Respondent welcomed an opportunity to speak with the three 
of them in person, noting that Gordon 'expressed that KSDE might not be 
interested in such a meeting, so I don't want to seem as though I'm 
undercutting him. However, I also know we must work together, including 
in the Kansas Legislature and House Education Committee.' (Emphasis 
added.)  
"d. 
He continued:  'Either way, I pray this letter sheds some light on what 
transpired and may help lead all of us to work collaboratively for positive 
change in Kansas, hopefully to a day where we can again lead the nation in 
mental health, service, and education, as Osawatomie State Hospital 
proudly did over a century ago.' (Emphasis added.)  
"e. 
Respondent's 11-page letter detailed his personal mental health struggles. 
He stated that he shared the information about his mental health not asking 
for sympathy, but for perspective and the reason he believed God had called 
him to shed light on mental health issues. He continued:  'In my frequent 
work in this area, it is partly why we focus on "the whole child." If we work 
together in this moment, I genuinely believe we can bring so much good to 
Kansas and the world.' (Emphasis added.)  
"f.  Respondent referenced his legislative work throughout the letter.  
 
"i. 
Following a paragraph about his mental health, he stated:  'I hope 
you will thoroughly consider the surrounding circumstances. Those 
days both before and after the incident are the most stressful of the 
entire legislative session. By way of example, on April 8, 2021, I 
forcefully opposed Senate Bill (SB) 55, which Governor Laura 
Kelly described as "send[ing] a devastating message . . . to children 
 
8 
 
 
 
and their families . . . who are already at a higher risk of bullying, 
discrimination, and suicide."'  
"ii. 'I publicly—in speech and vote—took a powerful position in 
support of our kids, LGBT community, and mental health, this truth 
was of no concern to those controlling the media channels.'  
 
"g. 
After asking 'whether KSDE has a policy involving mental health or other 
conditions,' Respondent requested the KSDE to 'give serious consideration 
to these public policy questions of great importance. As I noted above, it is 
difficult to accept that a single incident of a mental health injury should 
warrant a permanent, lifelong sanction and ban. My concern is amplified 
considering my longstanding commitment and record of supporting the very 
things for which KSDE stands, namely the kids and our public educators, at 
times working alongside Deputy Commissioner Dale Dennis.' (Emphasis 
added.)  
"h. 
He concluded the letter by stating:  'Given the circumstances, I genuinely 
would like to work with KSDE to promote our common and shared goals 
rather than remain in an adversarial position.'  
 
"31. Respondent voluntarily surrendered his substitute teaching license on August 3, 
2021, and the Board accepted the voluntary surrender.  
"32. Gordon filed a complaint with the ODA, received on August 19, 2021, related to the 
letter outlined above.  
"33. Respondent responded to the complaint on September 16, 2021. He noted in his 
response that he surrendered his substitute teaching license on his legislative 
letterhead, and generally denied wrongdoing.  
 
"Conclusions of law—Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that  
Respondent violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct: 
 
"KRPC 8.4(b) (misconduct—criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness); 
"KRPC 8.4(g) (misconduct—reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law); [and] 
"KRPC 8.4(e) (misconduct—ability to influence improperly)[.]  
 
 
9 
 
 
 
"Applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances—Petitioner and Respondent 
stipulate and agree that the following aggravating and mitigating factors apply: 
 
"34. Aggravating circumstances:  
 
"a. 
Multiple offenses:  Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(b), KRPC 8.4(g), and 
KRPC 8.4(e).  
"b. 
Vulnerability of victim:  Two recognized ABA subparts are relevant:  1) the 
victims were high school children; 2) Respondent had a fiduciary duty to 
the students he was substitute teaching; there was an unequal power 
relationship.  
 
"i. 
Respondent was initially charged with three counts of battery 
against two high school students, but later pled to three counts of 
disorderly conduct. Both high school students were [minors]. 
Respondent was the only adult in the classroom of high school 
students and was responsible for the classroom as the substitute 
teacher.  
 
"c. 
Illegal conduct:  Respondent was charged with three counts of 
misdemeanor battery, which was later pled down to three counts of 
disorderly conduct, class C nonperson misdemeanors. The Franklin County 
District Court sentenced Respondent to 90 days underlying and 12 months 
probation. Respondent was successfully discharged after serving one year 
of probation.  
 
"35. Mitigating circumstances:  
 
"a. 
Absence of a prior disciplinary record:  Respondent has been an active 
member of the Kansas bar and in good standing since September 10, 2010, 
with no prior instance of professional misconduct. 
"b. 
Absence of dishonest or selfish motive:  Evidence shows Respondent was 
suffering from undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder at the time of the incidents 
and there is no evidence to suggest he had a dishonest or selfish motive.  
 
10 
 
 
 
"c. 
The present and past attitude of the attorney as shown by his cooperation 
during the proceeding and his full and free acknowledgment of the 
transgressions, evidenced as follows:  
 
"i. 
Respondent self-reported the April 28, 2021, incident, and has been 
fully cooperative in the disciplinary process.  
"ii. In 2018 and prior to the instances giving rise to professional 
misconduct, Respondent had voluntarily sought treatment for 
unknown mental health problems—later determined to be Bipolar 
Disorder—and cooperated fully with medical providers. Prior to the 
instances giving rise to professional misconduct, Respondent had 
no knowledge of the predominant mental defect, Bipolar Disorder, 
or its manic or psychotic symptoms, underlying or causing the 
professional misconduct. Prior to the instances giving rise to 
professional misconduct, Respondent had sought help from and 
cooperated with KALAP, a pattern which has continued. 
Respondent has consistently sought help from Dr. Lambert since 
August 2018, and aside from the timeframe which underlies the 
professional misconduct in which Respondent was suffering from 
severe, prolonged manic and psychotic effects, he has fully relied 
on and followed his doctor's recommendations.  
"iii. Respondent has worked with a KALAP monitor since April 2023. 
 
"d. 
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. Respondent was a Missouri Valley 
College outstanding alumni in 2015. He also had previously made partner at 
Lathrop and Gage.  
"e. 
Mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug 
abuse when: 
 
"i. 
there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a 
mental disability;  
 
 
11 
 
 
 
"1. 
On October 2, 2023, Respondent's psychiatrist ('Doctor') provided a 
written report indicating that Respondent has been under his 
consistent care and treatment since August 7, 2018. 
"2. 
Doctor stated that he was aware of Respondent's active disciplinary 
matters as a licensed attorney including those matters pertaining to 
events on April 28, 2021, and July 30, 2021. 
"3. 
Doctor indicates that his letter is intended to address certain 
specific issues that pertain to the disciplinary matters and provide 
his professional opinion regarding Respondent's mental health 
during the timeframe that includes those courses of events. 
"4. 
First, Doctor opines that Respondent is affected by mental 
disability, Bipolar Affective Disorder—Type I. 
"5. 
Prior to March 2021, Doctor notes that he treated Respondent 
principally for depression, anxiety, and insomnia, but had also 
diagnosed Respondent with Unspecified Mood Disorder. Doctor 
further indicates that he discussed with Respondent the possibility 
that he may have Bipolar Disorder, but that Respondent had not yet 
demonstrated a clear period of hypomania or mania to justify a 
diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. 
"6. 
Beginning in March 2021, Doctor reports that he began receiving 
information from collateral sources describing symptoms that 
raised concern that Respondent was experiencing a manic episode. 
"7. 
Toward late March 2021, Doctor describes additional reports from 
collateral sources of changes in Respondent's behavior that were 
atypical of Respondent, most notably impulsively spending money. 
"8. 
On April 2, 2021, Doctor notes that he visited with Respondent, 
who downplayed the concerns. Respondent reported a few 
symptoms potentially consistent with mania, most notably 
irritability and a decreased need for sleep, but also reported that the 
symptoms lasted only a couple days occurring during an increased 
period of stress at the Legislature. Doctor reports that they 
discussed the possibility of manic symptoms and the potential need 
for treatment changes. 
 
12 
 
 
 
"9. 
Then, in late April 2021, Doctor notes that Respondent's family 
phoned in reporting worsening of Respondent's condition and a 
desire for him to be seen at a psychiatric facility with concerns 
about his state of mind. 
 
"ii. the mental disability caused the misconduct;  
 
"1. 
On April 29, 2021, Doctor reports that he spoke with Respondent, 
which was the day after Respondent's incident while substitute 
teaching on April 28, 2021. During the phone call, Doctor reports 
that Respondent demonstrated no insight into his condition, which 
Doctor states that he attempted to explain to Respondent is often a 
significant problem during a manic episode (i.e. by definition, 
without sufficient insight patients are effectively unaware of an 
active mental health change/decline and the need for treatment). 
"2. 
During the April 29, 2021, visit, Doctor states that Respondent's 
lack of insight was most evident when Respondent informed 
Doctor that he could understand why others around him might think 
he was experiencing mania, but felt he was fine and did not need 
treatment. 
"3. 
Over the next few days, Doctor received continued reports from 
Respondent's family and friends of concerns about Respondent's 
mental health and erratic behavior, including statements and actions 
that were categorically bizarre for Respondent. 
"4. 
During a telehealth visit on May 4, 2021, while accompanied by 
another state legislator, Doctor reports that Respondent explicitly 
exhibited mania with psychosis during the visit, such as identifying 
'divine province' as the explanation for the incident on April 28, 
2021. Doctor recommended that Respondent immediately present 
for psychiatric evaluation, hospitalization, and initiation of 
medication treatment for mania with psychosis. Doctor notes that 
Respondent expressed appreciation for Doctor's concern, but 
Respondent's lack of insight and impaired reasoning and judgment 
led Respondent to defer treatment. 
 
13 
 
 
 
"5. 
On May 11, 2021, Doctor states that he met with Respondent again, 
but Respondent continued to display lack of decision-making 
capacity by deferring medication treatment and denying 
authorization for Doctor to speak with any family members about 
his condition or treatment. Respondent's family had continued to 
report behavior and statements consistent with an ongoing manic 
episode and a hope to pursue involuntary hospitalization or other 
measures. 
"6. 
Second, Doctor opines that during the time of the events in 
question, predominately on April 28, 2021, and thereafter, 
Respondent was experiencing a manic episode with psychotic 
symptoms, most notably grandiose delusions. In Doctor's opinion, 
Respondent's 'misconduct,' as well as other conduct over the course 
of time, occurred because he was experiencing severe, prolonged 
manic symptoms as well as delusional grandiosity. 
"7. 
Doctor concludes that, in other words, Respondent's mental 
disability caused the misconduct. According to Doctor's opinion, 
due to the disabling mental health condition, Respondent did not 
recognize that he was experiencing manic or psychotic symptoms 
and was unable to understand the nature of his action during the 
symptomatic period and the potential consequences of those 
actions. 
 
"iii. the respondent's recovery from the mental disability is 
demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful 
rehabilitation; and  
 
"1. 
Third, Doctor opines that Respondent's recovery from the mental 
disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of 
successful remission of symptoms. 
"2. 
After May 11, 2021, Doctor reports that Respondent had several 
appointments with him during which the manic symptoms began to 
improve. Doctor indicates that Respondent regained some degree of 
insight and started medication treatment in September 2021. 
 
14 
 
 
 
"3. 
Doctor reports that although the manic episode and related 
psychotic symptoms eventually resolved, Respondent began to 
experience a depressive episode as part of Bipolar Disorder. Doctor 
notes that Respondent continued to experience impairment caused 
by Bipolar Disorder until he started the medication lithium on 
February 16, 2022, after other medication treatments proved 
ineffective. 
"4. 
Since February 16, 2022, Doctor reports that Respondent has 
responded well to the prescribed treatment and has demonstrated a 
meaningful and sustained period of successful remission of 
symptoms (rehabilitation would not be the appropriate 
psychiatric/medical term in this context as no 'chemical 
dependency' was ever involved). 
 
"iv. the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that 
misconduct is unlikely; 
 
"1. 
Fourth and finally, Doctor opines that Respondent's recovery has 
arrested the misconduct and recurrence of any misconduct is 
unlikely. Doctor notes that treatment has proven effective to 
achieve remission of Bipolar Disorder symptoms. Doctor observes 
that, in other words, Respondent has not experienced any periods of 
depression or mania since starting lithium. 
"2. 
Doctor further opines that a recurrence of the underlying 
'misconduct' is unlikely for two primary reasons. First, Respondent 
has experienced a clearly beneficial and sustained response to 
lithium, which Doctor anticipates will continue. Second, having 
now experienced severe manic symptoms with psychosis and being 
aware of his diagnosis/condition, Respondent is much more aware 
of his need for ongoing treatment for Bipolar Disorder and more 
receptive to treatment changes, if needed. 
 
"f. 
Imposition of other penalties or sanctions:  1) Franklin County case FR-
2021-CR-000129; and 2) Franklin County case FR-2022-CV-000039.  
 
15 
 
 
 
 
"i. 
The Franklin County Attorney's Office filed charges against 
Respondent on May 17, 2021. The complaint charged Respondent 
with three misdemeanor counts of battery naming two of the high 
school students as victims. The Franklin County Attorney's Office 
filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2021, which charged 
Respondent with three counts of disorderly conduct, which 
Respondent pled to. Respondent was placed on 12 months['] 
probation with Court Services, which he successfully completed on 
September 13, 2022.  
"ii. T.E., through his father C.E., filed a civil suit on April 27, 2022, 
against Respondent, Board of Education Unified School District 
No. 289 Franklin County, and Morgan Hunter Corporation d/b/a 
Morgan Hunter Education. That suit was settled around September 
2023, with the terms of the settlement agreement remaining 
confidential and unknown to the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator.  
 
"g. 
Remorse  
 
"i. 
Respondent apologized to the two high school students and further, 
after remission of the Bipolar Disorder symptoms, publicly 
apologized, including in an interview and lengthy article published 
by the Kansas City Star. The apology included a transparent 
account of his mental health.  
 
"Recommendation for Discipline—Petitioner and Respondent stipulate  
and agree that the following discipline should be imposed: 
 
"36. A period of suspension of Respondent's license to practice law for a period of 12 
months, STAYED, and placement on probation for 12 months. Probation would be 
subject to the terms and conditions of Respondent's plan of probation and KALAP 
monitoring agreement, which are incorporated herein by reference.  
 
 
 
16 
 
 
 
"37. Terms and conditions of the 12 months of probation shall include:  
 
"a. 
Compliance with Rules of Professional Conduct  
 
"i. 
Respondent shall not engage in conduct that violates the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  
"ii. Receipt of a complaint by the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator during the probation term alleging that Respondent 
has violated the Rules of Professional conduct does not, in itself, 
constitute a violation of the terms of probation; and  
"iii. In the event the ODA receives a complaint during Respondent's 
participation in the probation program or otherwise opens or 
commences a disciplinary investigation, the term of the probation 
shall be extended until such charge has been investigated and a 
determination made by the ODA or regional disciplinary committee 
regarding disposition of such matter.  
 
"b. 
Mental Health Treatment  
 
"i. 
Respondent has been under the care of a clinician already at the 
time of the inception of probation. Respondent will comply with 
the treatment recommendations prescribed by Dr. Garrett Lambert, 
M.D.  
"ii. Respondent shall remain under the care of Dr. Lambert for 
treatment of Bipolar I Disorder or any other mental health issues 
that are identified throughout the term of his probation. Respondent 
shall comply with any counseling or medication directives given by 
his treatment provider.  
"iii. Respondent will sign releases so that any records can be provided 
to the Disciplinary Administrator's Office and to his KALAP 
monitor at any time. Respondent will provide documentation 
confirming his compliance with treatment recommendations as 
directed by the assigned Deputy Disciplinary Administrator.  
 
17 
 
 
 
"iv. Prior to any change of treatment providers, Respondent shall obtain 
the approval from his KALAP monitor and director of KALAP.  
 
"c. 
Voluntary KALAP Monitoring Agreement  
 
"i. 
Respondent has been monitored by Calvin 'Cal' Williams since 
April 28, 2023. Cal Williams is a full-time lawyer in private 
practice located in Salina, Kansas, and has practiced law for 45 
years. He graduated from Washburn School of Law in 1978. 
Although the monitoring agreement is effective through April 
2024, Respondent agrees that it will be effective throughout the 
duration of his probation in the disciplinary matter.  
"ii. Respondent agreed to use alcohol in a moderate and legal manner, 
to take medications only as prescribed, and to comply with the 
directions of the prescribing health professional.  
"iii. Respondent agreed to report to the director of KALAP and to the 
monitor, any incidences of his failure to abide by any provision of 
the agreement.  
"iv. Respondent agreed to meet with the monitor monthly, or as 
otherwise directed by the monitor, throughout the duration of the 
agreement.  
"v. 
Respondent agreed to continue therapy with Dr. Lambert, as he 
deems appropriate and necessary. Respondent agreed to not 
discontinue therapy without first consulting both the doctor and the 
KALAP program director. However, as part of the Probation Plan, 
Respondent agrees to continue therapy with Dr. Lambert 
throughout the duration of probation.  
"vi. Respondent agreed to continue medication management with his 
current prescribing physician and to follow recommendations.  
"vii. Respondent agreed to a release of information to the director of 
KALAP and for his monitor to make written or oral reports 
regarding Respondent's compliance or noncompliance.  
 
 
18 
 
 
 
"viii. Respondent agreed to a daily regimen of self-care, as outlined in 
the monitoring agreement.  
"ix. Respondent shall deliver a copy of the probation plan to KALAP.  
"x. 
Should the monitor discover any violations of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct, he shall include such information in a report 
to the Disciplinary Administrator's Office in order for the 
Disciplinary Administrator's Office to investigate these violations.  
 
"d. 
Standard Terms 
 
"i. 
Respondent shall attend any scheduled meetings with the Office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator and meet any deadlines set by the 
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator.  
"ii. Respondent certifies he has read and is familiar with his obligations 
under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent shall 
not violate the provisions of his probation or the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct. In the event Respondent violates any of the 
terms of his probation or any of the terms of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct during the probationary period, Respondent 
shall immediately report such violations to the Disciplinary 
Administrator.  
"iii. The KALAP monitor shall be acting as an agent and volunteer of 
the Court while monitoring Respondent, and is afforded all 
immunities by Supreme Court Rule 233(j).  
"iv. Respondent shall continue to cooperate with the Disciplinary 
Administrator's Office. If the Disciplinary Administrator requires 
any further information, Respondent shall timely provide said 
information.  
"v. 
Respondent shall pay the costs in an amount to be certified by the 
Disciplinary Administrator's Office.  
 
. . . . 
 
 
 
19 
 
 
 
"Additional stipulations agreed to by the Petitioner and Respondent: 
 
"42. Respondent waives his right to a hearing on the formal complaint as provided in 
Supreme Court Rule 223(b)(4).  
"43. The parties agree that no exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
will be taken.  
"44. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 223(d), a copy of this Summary Submission 
Agreement will be provided to complainant Scott Gordon. Gordan will have 21 
days to provide the disciplinary administrator with his position regarding the 
agreement.  
"45. A copy of this Summary Submission Agreement, along with a copy of the 
complainant's position, will be forwarded to the Chair of the Board for the 
Discipline of Attorneys for his review under Supreme Court Rule 223(e). The 
parties understand and agree that if the Summary Submission Agreement is rejected 
by the Board chair, this matter will proceed to a disciplinary hearing pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 222.  
"46. The parties agree that if the Summary Submission Agreement is approved by the 
Board chair, the hearing on the formal complaint will be cancelled, and the case will 
be docketed with the Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 228. The parties 
will be required to appear before the Supreme Court for oral argument.  
"47. Respondent understands and agrees that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 223(f), 
this Summary Submission Agreement is advisory only and does not prevent the 
Supreme Court from making its own conclusions regarding rule violations or 
imposing discipline greater or lesser than the parties' recommendation. 
"48. The parties agree that the exchange and execution of copies of this Agreement by 
electronic transmission shall constitute effective execution and delivery of the 
Agreement and that copies may be used in lieu of the original and the signatures 
shall be deemed to be original signatures." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court generally considers the evidence, the 
disciplinary panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC 
 
20 
 
 
 
violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see also Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
279) (a misconduct finding must be established by clear and convincing evidence). "Clear 
and convincing evidence is 'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth 
of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Morton, 317 Kan. 724, 740, 538 P.3d 
1073 (2023). 
 
The Disciplinary Administrator provided Samsel with adequate notice of the 
formal complaint. The Disciplinary Administrator also provided Samsel with adequate 
notice of the hearing before the panel, but he waived that hearing after entering into the 
summary submission agreement. The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved 
the summary submission and canceled the formal hearing under Rule 223(e)(2). As a 
result, the factual findings in the summary submission are deemed admitted. See Supreme 
Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 285) ("If the respondent files a statement . . . 
that the respondent will not file an exception . . . the findings of fact and conclusions of 
law in the final hearing report will be deemed admitted by the respondent."). 
 
Rule 223 establishes the following requirements for a valid summary submission 
agreement:  
 
"An agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent to proceed by 
summary submission must be in writing and contain the following: 
 
(1) an admission that the respondent engaged in the misconduct; 
(2) a stipulation as to the following: 
(A) the contents of the record;  
(B) the findings of fact; 
 
21 
 
 
 
(C) the conclusions of law, including each violation of the Kansas Rules 
of Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys, or the 
attorney's oath of office; and  
(D) any applicable aggravating and mitigating factors; 
(3) a recommendation for discipline; 
(4) a waiver of the hearing on the formal complaint; and 
(5) a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or 
conclusions of law will be taken." Rule 223(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 275).  
 
Here, the written summary submission agreement contained all the information 
required under Rule 223. See Rule 223(b). And the summary submission and the parties' 
stipulations before us establish by clear and convincing evidence the charged conduct 
violated KRPC 8.4(b), (e), and (g). Thus, we adopt the findings and conclusions set forth 
in the summary submission. 
 
The remaining issue is deciding the appropriate discipline. The parties jointly 
recommend a one-year suspension of Samsel's license, and that the suspension be stayed 
and Samsel be placed on probation for one-year. But an agreement to proceed by 
summary submission is advisory only and does not prevent us from imposing discipline 
greater or lesser than the parties' recommendation. Rule 223(f). 
 
After full consideration, we hold that a two-year suspension is the appropriate 
discipline under the circumstances. We acknowledge respondent's mental health was a 
contributing factor to his misconduct, and he has made significant progress in this respect 
upon diagnosis and adherence to a successful treatment protocol. But given the nature 
of the underlying conduct, we believe a suspension of more than one year is warranted. 
Cf. In re Harrington, 296 Kan. 380, 394, 293 P.3d 686 (2013) (imposing two-year 
suspension on attorney convicted of battery, driving under the influence, and obstruction  
 
22 
 
 
 
of official duty); In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 531, 241 P.3d 1010 (2010) (imposing three-
year suspension on attorney convicted of driving under the influence and two counts of 
aggravated battery). Respondent's license is thus suspended for two years.  
 
The suspension is stayed conditioned on respondent's successful performance and 
completion of two years' probation, subject to the terms and conditions of the probation 
plan and KALAP monitoring agreement. Additionally, to ensure that respondent is best 
positioned to succeed and that the public is adequately safeguarded while respondent 
practices law in a solo practice setting, the two years' probation is also subject to a 
practice supervision plan approved by the Disciplinary Administrator's office.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mark A. Samsel is suspended for two years, 
effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(3) 
(2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 278) for violations of KRPC 8.4(b), (e), and (g). The suspension 
is stayed conditioned upon Samsel's successful participation and completion of a two-
year probation period. Probation will be subject to the terms set out in the probation plan 
and KALAP monitoring agreement referenced in the parties' summary submission 
agreement and the practice supervision plan as approved by the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office. No reinstatement hearing is required upon successful completion 
of probation.  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.