Title: In re Haley - (One-year suspension) video

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 118,378 
 
In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 2, 2018. One-year suspension.  
 
Kate F. Baird, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Lance M. Haley, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Lance M. Haley, of Kansas City, 
Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1991. 
 
 
On January 9, 2017, 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 filed an answer on February 15, 2017. A hearing was 
held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on 
May 24, 2017, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel 
determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 290) (diligence), 3.2 
(2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 341) (expediting litigation), 5.5(a) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 361) 
(unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law). 
 
2 
 
 
 
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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"11. 
In 1990, the Missouri Supreme Court admitted the respondent to the 
practice of law in the state courts of Missouri. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the 
respondent to the practice of law in the state courts of Kansas on October 4, 1991. The 
respondent was also licensed to practice law in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Eighth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and 
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 
 
 
"12. 
In 2006, the respondent was appointed to represent F.M. and R.L.A. in 
criminal appeals pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 
The respondent failed to prosecute the two federal criminal appeals. The Eighth Circuit 
Court issued an order for the respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be 
disciplined for failing to prosecute the two federal criminal appeals. The respondent 
failed to respond to the order to appear and show cause. On November 8, 2006, the 
Eighth Circuit Court directed that the respondent's name be stricken from the [roll] of 
attorneys admitted to practice before the Eighth Circuit Court. (The respondent's licenses 
to practice before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri 
and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas were also suspended.) 
 
 
"13. 
On January 17, 2007, the federal court amended its order of disbarment 
to direct that the respondent's license be suspended for a minimum of one year. The court 
directed that any application for reinstatement be accompanied by a written opinion from 
a mental health provider that the respondent was able to effectively discharge his 
professional responsibilities. 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
"14. 
Following the federal court discipline, on January 30, 2007, in a 
reciprocal case, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an order suspending the respondent's 
license to practice law in Missouri, for having violated Missouri Rules of Professional 
Conduct 1.3, 3.2, and 8.4(d). The Missouri Supreme Court directed that no application 
for reinstatement would be entertained until the respondent was reinstated to practice in 
the federal courts. 
 
 
"15. 
The respondent failed to comply with the annual requirements to 
maintain his Kansas law license. As a result, on October 9, 2007, the Kansas Supreme 
Court issued an order suspending the respondent's license to practice law in the state 
courts of Kansas. 
 
 
"16. 
On April 18, 2008, the Eighth Circuit Court terminated the suspension 
order. However, the respondent did not resume the practice of law at that time. 
 
 
"17. 
In 2009, the respondent filed an application for reinstatement in 
Missouri. Prior to the time the court ruled on the respondent's application, in June 2012, 
the respondent withdrew his application for reinstatement in Missouri. 
 
 
"18. 
On May 3, 2013, the respondent informed the disciplinary administrator 
of the suspensions of his federal license and his Missouri license. The respondent 
indicated in the correspondence that he had not been practicing law, but was beginning 
the process of reinstatement. Even though the respondent was not subject to a disciplinary 
suspension in Kansas, a reinstatement questionnaire was provided to the respondent in 
order to obtain information regarding what the respondent had been doing since he last 
practiced law in Kansas. 
 
 
"19. 
Prior to the respondent's May 3, 2013, letter, the disciplinary 
administrator had not been made aware by the respondent or the other licensing 
authorities that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and his other 
licenses to practice law had been suspended. At that time, the disciplinary administrator 
considered the respondent's correspondence as a self-report of the misconduct which 
occurred in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
"20. 
In a letter dated June 17, 2013, to the disciplinary administrator the 
respondent disclosed that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by drafting a 
codicil to his mother's will. There is no evidence that the codicil was anything other than 
his mother's intent, however, the codicil did benefit the respondent by shielding his future 
inheritance from an outstanding tax obligation he had at that time. Further, the 
respondent's family members understood the purpose of the document. However, later, 
the codicil was nullified in a Johnson County, Kansas, probate proceeding. 
 
 
"21. 
On July 29, 2013, the respondent returned the completed reinstatement 
questionnaire to the disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
"22. 
On August 19, 2013, the respondent informed the disciplinary 
administrator that he wished to withdraw his request for reinstatement of his Kansas 
license. (As an aside, the respondent had not taken the steps necessary to request 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Kansas. In order to seek reinstatement, the 
respondent had to complete continuing legal education hours, submit certain forms, and 
pay fees.) 
 
 
"23. 
Because the respondent had not been disciplined on a reciprocal basis in 
Kansas for the professional misconduct that occurred in the federal courts, the 
disciplinary administrator proceeded with the investigation and continued to correspond 
with the respondent. 
 
 
"24. 
In December, 2013, the respondent filed a second application for 
reinstatement in Missouri. 
 
 
"25. 
On March 10, 2015, in a pleading filed with the Missouri Supreme 
Court, Missouri bar counsel recommended that the respondent's request for reinstatement 
be granted: 
 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
'1. 
The reinstatement report was mailed to Applicant on 
February 19, 2015. Applicant responded in a letter received by OCDC on 
March 5, 2015, stating he has no objection to the report. His application 
is, then ready for decision by the Court. 
 
 
'2. 
Applicant has satisfied the minimum requirements set 
forth in Rule 5.28. He obtained a passing score on the MPRE within the 
timeframe set forth in the rule. The Missouri Bar Director of Continuing 
Legal Education programs confirmed Applicant has reported the 
requisite CLE credits. He has paid the reinstatement fee and owes no 
disciplinary costs. 
 
 
'3. 
The Court's January 30, 2007, order requires that no 
application for reinstatement will be considered by the Court until 
Applicant is reinstated to practice in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Eighth Circuit, which is the court from which the disciplinary 
case originated. The suspension of Applicant's privilege to practice in 
that court was terminated by the Eighth Circuit's order, issued in April 
[of] 2008. While the Eighth Circuit's suspension was terminated by that 
court, Applicant is not eligible for readmission to the Eighth Circuit until 
he is admitted to, among other options, the highest court of a state. See 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 46(a). (FN Aside from 
admission to a state bar, an attorney is eligible for admission to the bar of 
a court of appeals if the attorney is admitted to practice before the U.S. 
Supreme Court, another court of appeals, or a U.S. District Court.) Thus, 
while Applicant's federal suspension is terminated, he must be readmitted 
to a state court bar before he is eligible to apply for readmission to the 
federal court. Under these unique circumstances, the fact that Applicant 
is not reinstated to practice before the Eighth Circuit should not be an 
insurmountable impediment to his reinstatement to Missouri's Bar. 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
'4. 
Applicant's mental health was an issue addressed in the 
Eighth Circuit's order of discipline. He was required to, and did, supply 
that court with a written report from a treating psychiatrist attesting to his 
ability to discharge his professional obligations. Applicant has been 
forthcoming about his mental health struggles in the course of staff 
counsel's investigation in the instant reinstatement case. At OCDC's 
request, Applicant provided letters from his psychiatrist and treating 
psychologist attesting to his ability to discharge his professional 
responsibilities and the stability of his emotional and psychological state. 
 
 
'5. 
Applicant's first application for reinstatement was 
withdrawn by him in large part because he was not compliant with 
federal and state tax laws. He is currently compliant. 
 
 
'6. 
Applicant has established a long-term non-controversial 
work history in the years since his 2006 suspension by the federal court. 
He states that he has maintained proficiency in his preferred area of 
practice, federal criminal defense work, by attending CLEs and 
connections with former colleagues. He professes eagerness to return to 
that area of practice in the federal district court in western Missouri.' 
 
 
"26. 
On April 30, 2015, the Missouri Supreme Court granted the respondent's 
application and reinstated his law license. The court, however, placed the respondent on 
probation for two years. The Missouri bar counsel informed the disciplinary administrator 
that the respondent's license to practice law in Missouri had been reinstated, subject to 
two years['] probation. 
 
 
"27. 
In order to rectify the administrative issues related to his Kansas license, 
the respondent must comply with certain administrative requirements. 
 
 
a. 
At the time of the hearing, the respondent needed to 
complete 120 hours of continuing legal education, with 20 of those hours 
classified as ethics hours. Now, because another registration period has 
7 
 
 
 
passed, the respondent must complete 132 hours of continuing legal 
education, including 22 hours of ethics. Further, the respondent must pay 
a fee of $220 to the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. At 
the time of the hearing, the respondent had completed 55.5 hours. The 
respondent has now completed 127.5 hours, including 21 hours of ethics. 
 
 
b. 
The respondent must also make a written request to the 
Kansas Supreme Court for reinstatement, complete the application for 
reinstatement form and provide associated documentation, and complete 
the 2017-2018 annual attorney registration form. At the time of the 
hearing, the respondent owed $765 to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
Since that time, again, the registration period has passed, so the 
respondent now owes a total of $830 to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
 
 
"28.  
On May 23, 2017, the respondent entered into a voluntary monitoring 
agreement with the Kansas Lawyers' Assistance Program. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"29. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 5.5, and KRPC 8.4, as 
detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.3 and KRPC 3.2 
 
 
"30. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. Further, if an attorney fails to make reasonable 
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client, the attorney 
violated KRPC 3.2. In this case, the respondent failed to diligently and promptly 
represent F.M. and R.L.A. in their appeals before the Eight[h] Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and failed 
to expedite the litigation consistent with the interests of his clients, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3 and KRPC 3.2. 
8 
 
 
 
 
"KRPC 5.5 
 
 
"31. 
KRPC 5.5(a) prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. After the Kansas 
Supreme Court administratively suspended the respondent's license to practice law for 
failing to comply with the annual requirements to maintain a license, the respondent 
drafted a codicil for his mother. Drafting the codicil constituted the practice of law. As 
such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a). 
 
"KRPC 8.4 
 
 
"32. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . [and] engage in any other conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(d) and (g). The 
respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when 
he failed to properly prosecute the federal criminal appeals. The respondent engaged in 
conduct that adversely reflected on the respondent's fitness to practice law when he 
drafted a codicil for his mother when his license to practice law was suspended. As such, 
the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) and (g). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"33. 
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. 
 
 
"34. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation. The respondent also violated his duty to the legal profession. 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
"35. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"36. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
potential injury to his clients. 
 
 
"37. 
Aggravating and 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 factor present: 
 
 
a. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The 
Kansas Supreme Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the 
State of Kansas in 1991. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent 
had been practicing law for more than 25 years. 
 
 
"38. 
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: 
 
 
a. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. While the 
respondent has previously been disciplined in Missouri and the Eighth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, the underlying misconduct is the same as the 
underlying misconduct in this case. Thus, prior to the misconduct in the 
federal appeals, the respondent had not previously been disciplined. 
 
 
b. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The 
respondent's misconduct does not appear to have been motivated by 
dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
 
 
c. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes 
Have Contributed to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct. The respondent underwent unimaginable trauma as a child. As 
a result, the respondent suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Additionally, the respondent suffers from bipolar disorder. It is clear that 
the respondent's mental health conditions contributed to his misconduct. 
 
 
d. 
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. 
 
 
e. 
Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The 
respondent has experienced other sanctions for his conduct. The 
respondent was suspended by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and 
the Missouri Supreme Court. 
 
 
f. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent 
expressed genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
"39. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.42 
Suspension is generally appropriate when: 
 
(a) 
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for 
a client and causes injury or potential injury to a 
client; or 
 
(b) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
11 
 
 
 
 
'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. 
 
'7.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system. 
 
'7.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system.' 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"40. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of one year. The disciplinary administrator further recommended 
that the respondent's request for probation be granted and that he be allowed to again 
practice law in Kansas after he satisfies the administrative requirements to maintain a 
license to practice law. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the term of 
probation be two years. Finally, the disciplinary administrator suggested that additional 
conditions be added to the respondent's probation. 
 
 
"41. 
The respondent recommended that he be placed on probation. The 
respondent agreed to the additional terms outlined by the disciplinary administrator as 
well as the term of 2 years. 
 
 
"42. 
When a respondent requests probation, the hearing panel must first 
consider whether the respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rule 211(g)(3). That 
subsection provides: 
 
12 
 
 
 
 
'(3) 
The Hearing Panel shall not recommend that the 
Respondent be placed on probation unless: 
 
(i) 
the Respondent develops a workable, substantial, and 
detailed plan of probation and provides a copy of the 
proposed plan of probation to the Disciplinary 
Administrator and each member of the Hearing Panel at 
least fourteen days prior to the hearing on the Formal 
Complaint; 
 
(ii) 
the Respondent puts the proposed plan of probation into 
effect prior to the hearing on the Formal Complaint by 
complying with each of the terms and conditions of the 
probation plan; 
 
(iii) 
the misconduct can be corrected by probation; and 
 
(iv) 
placing the Respondent on probation is in the best 
interests of the legal profession and the citizens of the 
State of Kansas.' 
 
In this case, the respondent developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of 
probation. The respondent provided a copy of the proposed plan of probation to the 
disciplinary administrator and each member of the hearing panel well in advance of the 
hearing on the formal complaint. The respondent put the proposed plan of probation into 
effect prior to the hearing and complied with each of the terms and conditions of the 
probation plan. The misconduct, in this case can be corrected by probation. Finally, 
placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of the legal profession and the 
citizens of the State of Kansas. 
 
 
"43. 
Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent's 
license be suspended for a period of one year. The hearing panel further recommends that 
13 
 
 
 
the suspension be suspended and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period 
of two years, made retroactive to the date of the hearing, May 24, 2017. However, the 
hearing panel also recommends that the respondent remain on probation until specifically 
discharged by order of the Kansas Supreme Court. The hearing panel further 
recommends that the respondent's probation be made subject to the following terms and 
conditions: 
 
 
a. 
No Unauthorized Practice of Law. The respondent must 
not engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The respondent 
understands he is unable to practice law in Kansas until the Kansas 
Supreme Court enters an order of reinstatement. The respondent 
understands that the court will not enter an order of reinstatement until 
the respondent satisfies his obligations with the Kansas continuing legal 
education commission and the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
 
 
b. 
Compliance with the KALAP Monitoring Agreement. 
The respondent must comply with the KALAP monitoring agreement. 
 
 
c. 
Missouri Probation. The respondent will continue to 
comply with all terms and conditions of the Missouri probation. The 
respondent will notify the disciplinary administrator, the practice 
supervisor, and KALAP if any action is taken on the respondent's 
Missouri probation. 
 
 
d. 
Kansas Suspension. The respondent will notify the 
disciplinary administrator, the practice supervisor, and KALAP if the 
Kansas Supreme Court reinstates the respondent's license to practice law 
in Kansas. 
 
 
e. 
Inventory of Cases and Clients. After the respondent's 
license to practice law in Kansas is reinstated, the respondent must 
maintain an inventory of all open cases and clients. The respondent must 
update the inventory on a daily basis. The inventory must include the 
14 
 
 
 
client's name, the client's contact information, the client's goal, the tasks 
that remain to be completed, all pending deadlines, and the forum (if 
any) in which the matter is pending. 
 
 
f. 
Practice Supervision. Brian Leininger has agreed to 
serve as the respondent's practice supervisor. The practice supervisor will 
be acting as an officer and an agent of the court while supervising the 
probation and monitoring the respondent's legal practice. As supervising 
attorney, the practice supervisor will be afforded all immunities granted 
by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223 during the course of his supervising activities. 
The respondent and the practice supervisor will meet monthly. Prior to 
the respondent's reinstatement, the practice supervisor will verify on a 
monthly basis that the respondent is not engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law. After the respondent's license to practice in Kansas is 
reinstated, the respondent must provide the practice supervisor with an 
updated copy of the inventory of cases and clients on a monthly basis. 
The respondent must allow the practice supervisor access to his client 
files, calendar, and trust account records. The respondent must comply 
with any requests made by the practice supervisor. 
 
 
g. 
Quarterly Reports. The practice supervisor will prepare 
and forward quarterly reports to the respondent and the disciplinary 
administrator regarding the respondent's status on probation. The reports 
will include the following: 
 
(1) 
any change of address; 
(2) 
any arrests of the respondent; 
(3) 
any criminal charges brought against the respondent; 
(4) 
any civil lawsuit filed against the respondent; 
(5) 
any civil judgment entered against the respondent; 
(6) 
a description of any disputes with clients; 
(7) 
a statement identifying issues the respondent encountered and 
the practice supervisor's recommended remedial measures; 
15 
 
 
 
(8) 
a statement as to whether the respondent has complied with the 
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and all conditions of 
probation since the previous report was submitted; and 
(9) 
any concern the practice supervisor has regarding the 
respondent's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. 
 
 
h. 
Client Communication. The respondent must contact 
each client by letter at least once every three months regarding the status 
of the matter. 
 
 
i. 
Audits. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this report, 
the practice supervisor will conduct an initial audit of the respondent's 
files. Thereafter, every six months, the practice supervisor will conduct 
additional audits. If the practice supervisor discovers any violations of 
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the practice supervisor will 
include such information in his report. The practice supervisor will 
provide the Disciplinary Administrator and the respondent with a copy of 
each audit report. The respondent must follow all recommendations and 
correct all deficiencies noted in the practice supervisor's periodic audit 
reports. 
 
 
j. 
Psychological Treatment. The respondent must continue 
his treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder 
throughout the period of supervised probation, unless the treatment 
provider determines that continued treatment is no longer necessary. The 
treatment provider will notify the practice supervisor and the disciplinary 
administrator in the event that the respondent discontinues treatment 
against the recommendation of the treatment provider during the 
probationary period. The respondent must provide the treatment provider 
with an appropriate release of information to allow the treatment 
provider to share such information [with] the practice supervisor and the 
disciplinary administrator. 
 
16 
 
 
 
 
 
k. 
Continued Cooperation. The respondent must continue 
to cooperate with the disciplinary administrator. If the disciplinary 
administrator requests any additional information, the respondent must 
timely provide such information. 
 
 
l. 
Change of Address or Employment. The respondent will 
notify the disciplinary administrator, practice supervisor, and KALAP 
[of] any change of address or employment within 10 days. 
 
 
m. 
Additional Violations. The respondent must not violate 
the terms of his probation or the provisions of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct. In the event that the respondent violates any of the 
terms of probation or any of the provisions of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct at any time during the probationary period, the 
respondent must immediately report such violation to the practice 
supervisor and the disciplinary administrator. The disciplinary 
administrator will take immediate action directing the respondent to 
show cause why the probation should not be revoked. 
 
 
"44. 
Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). Clear  
 
 
17 
 
 
 
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, and adequate notice of the hearings before the panel and this court for which 
he appeared. The respondent did not file exceptions to the panel's final hearing report. As 
such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c) and (d) (2017 
Kan. S. Ct. R. 255). Furthermore, the evidence before the panel establishes by clear and 
convincing evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.3 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
290) (diligence), 3.2 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 341) (expediting litigation), 5.5(a) (2017 Kan. 
S. Ct. R. 361) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and it supports the panel's 
conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's conclusions. 
 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the panel hearing, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator 
recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law, that respondent's request 
for probation be granted, that respondent be allowed to practice law in Kansas after he 
satisfies the administrative requirements to maintain a license to practice law, and that the 
term of probation be two years. The respondent recommended a two-year probation. The 
panel recommended a one-year suspension, that the suspension be suspended and 
respondent be placed on probation retroactive to the hearing date of May 24, 2017, for a 
period of two years and until specifically discharged by Kansas Supreme Court order, and 
that the terms and conditions in the final hearing report paragraph 43 be met. 
 
18 
 
 
 
At the hearing before this court, the attorney for the office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator recommended a one-year suspension, that the suspension be suspended, 
and respondent be placed on probation for two years following the date that respondent 
satisfies the administrative requirements to maintain a license to practice law in Kansas. 
Similarly, the respondent did not object to this recommendation and assured this court 
that he would satisfy those administrative requirements and emerge from his 
administrative suspension by no later than May 31, 2018.   
 
In light of respondent's continuing administrative suspension and the uncertainty 
concerning when, precisely, that administrative suspension might be lifted, we are unable 
to precisely follow the unanimous recommended disposition of this matter. We are, 
however, in agreement that the recommendation is substantively appropriate. Therefore, 
we conclude the appropriate discipline in this matter is as follows:  (1) a one-year 
disciplinary suspension from the practice of law; and (2) should respondent obtain relief 
from the administrative suspension by satisfying the administrative requirements to 
maintain a license to practice law in Kansas, he may petition this court for an order to 
suspend the disciplinary suspension and the imposition of a two-year probation period 
consistent with the probation plan previously approved by the Disciplinary Administrator 
and continuing until specifically discharged by this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
211(g)(7) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lance M. Haley be and he is hereby disciplined 
by a one-year suspension from the practice of law in accordance with Supreme Court 
Rule 203(a)(2) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 234), effective on the filing of this decision. 
 
19 
 
 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is granted permission, once no longer 
administratively suspended, to petition this court for an order to suspend the one-year 
disciplinary suspension and the imposition of a two-year probation period consistent with 
the probation plan previously approved by the Disciplinary Administrator and continuing 
until specifically discharged by this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 211(g)(7). 
 
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.