Title: In re Thomas.

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 104,340 
 
In the Matter of BOBBY LEE THOMAS, JR., 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 29, 2010. Indefinite suspension. 
 
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Frank D. Diehl, Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Bobby Lee Thomas, Jr., 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, Bobby Lee Thomas, Jr., of Olathe, 
Kansas, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2000. 
 
 
On October 16, 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 filed an answer to the formal complaint on October 29, 
2009. The respondent and the office of the Disciplinary Administrator entered into a 
stipulation of certain facts and violations on December 10, 2009. A hearing was held on 
the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on 
December 15, 2009, where the respondent was personally present. The hearing panel 
determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.2 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 421) (scope of 
representation); 1.3 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 426) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 443) (communication); 1.5(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 460) (fees); 1.5(d) (2009 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 460) (contingent fees); 1.15(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 507) 
(safekeeping property); 1.16(d) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 522) (terminating 
representation); 8.1(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) (failing to respond to disciplinary 
2 
 
authority); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 303) (failure to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigation); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2009 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361) (failure to notify clients upon suspension). 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 17, 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the 
Respondent's license to practice law for a period of six months. The Respondent has not 
sought reinstatement. As a result, the Respondent's license remains suspended. 
 
 
 "DA10273: [M.H.] 
 
 
 "3. 
In the Spring of 2006, [M.H.] retained the Respondent to file suit in her 
behalf as a result of a car accident. The Respondent entered into an oral contingency fee 
agreement that the Respondent would receive a 30% fee prior to trial and a 40% fee if the 
Respondent prevailed at trial in behalf of [M.H.]. The contingency fee agreement was not 
reduced to writing. 
 
 
 "4. 
The Respondent failed to properly answer discovery. As a result, 
opposing counsel filed a motion to enforce discovery in [M.H.]'s case. The Respondent 
failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to enforce discovery. 
 
 
"5. 
Despite the fact that the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, the 
Court extended the time for the Respondent to comply with the discovery requests. The 
Respondent, however, failed to provide answers to the discovery within the extended 
time period. 
 
 
"6. 
On December 11, 2006, because the Respondent failed to comply with 
discovery, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. 
 
3 
 
 
"7. 
On December 14, 2006, the Respondent refiled the action. However, the 
Respondent did not obtain service of process on the defendant. Thereafter, on November 
13, 2007, the Court dismissed [M.H.]'s second case. 
 
 
"8. 
[M.H.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary 
Administrator. On August 8, 2007, the Disciplinary Administrator directed the 
Respondent to provide a written response to the complaint filed by [M.H.]. The 
Respondent did not provide a written response to the complaint. 
 
 
"9. 
On August 20, 2007, Terry Morgan, Special Investigator for the 
Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the Respondent and directed him to provide a written 
response to the complaint filed by [M.H.]. Again, the Respondent did not provide a 
written response to the complaint. 
 
 
"10. 
Thereafter, Mr. Morgan attempted to contact the Respondent on a 
number of occasions, to no avail. Eventually, on December 20, 2007, the Respondent 
provided a written response to the complaint. 
 
 
"11. 
In a written stipulation, the Respondent admitted that he violated KRPC 
1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, in relation to [M.H.]'s complaint. 
 
 
"DA10297: [D.G.] 
 
 
"12. 
In July, 2007, [D.G.] retained the Respondent to appeal a driving under 
the influence conviction to the Kansas Court of Appeals. [D.G.] also retained the 
Respondent to represent him in a pending driving under the influence of alcohol charge. 
 
 
"13. 
On December 7, 2006, the Respondent filed [D.G.'s] brief. Thereafter, 
the Kansas Court of Appeals issued an order that oral arguments would be held on July 
10, 2007. 
 
 
"14. 
On July 10, 2007, the Respondent failed to appear at the arguments. On 
July 12, 2007, the Respondent filed a motion to waive oral arguments without [D.G.'s] 
4 
 
permission. In the motion, the Respondent asserted that he was recovering from back 
surgery. 
 
 
"15. 
In the pending driving under the influence of alcohol charge, the 
Respondent failed to timely submit an administrative hearing request. 
 
 
"16. 
[D.G.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary 
Administrator. 
 
 
"17. 
On August 31, 2007, the Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the 
Respondent, directing the Respondent to provide a written response to the complaint filed 
by [D.G.] within 10 days. The Respondent failed to provide a written response as directed 
by the Disciplinary Administrator. 
 
 
"18. 
On September 24, 2007, Mr. Morgan wrote to the Respondent directing 
the Respondent to provide a written response to the complaint filed by [D.G.]. The 
Respondent failed to provide a written response to [D.G.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"19. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, 
KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, in regard to [D.G.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"DA10584: [G.L.] 
 
 
"20. 
[G.L.]'s parents retained the Respondent to represent [G.L.] in two 
pending matters. [G.L.]'s parents paid the Respondent a $10,000 fee. 
 
 
"21. 
Throughout the period of the representation, the Respondent failed to 
adequately communicate with [G.L.] personally or through his parents. Because the 
Respondent failed to provide adequate communication, the Respondent's representation 
was terminated. 
 
 
"22. 
Upon termination, the Respondent failed to provide [G.L.] or his parents 
with an accounting of the fee. Additionally, the Respondent failed to refund the unearned 
5 
 
fees. Given the amount of work the Respondent completed, a fee of $10,000 is 
unreasonable. 
 
 
"23. 
[G.L.]'s father filed a complaint against the Respondent. Thereafter, 
Gregory D. Kincaid was appointed to investigate [G.L.]'s father's complaint. On 
September 4, 2008, Mr. Kincaid directed the Respondent to call him to schedule a time to 
meet regarding the complaint. 
 
 
"24. 
Later, the Respondent requested additional time to file a response to the 
complaint. Mr. Kincaid granted the Respondent's request for additional time. The 
Respondent, however, did not provide a written response within the time extended by Mr. 
Kincaid. 
 
 
"25. 
Finally, on February 23, 2009, the Respondent provided a written 
response to [G.L.]'s father's complaint. 
 
 
"26. 
As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Client Protection Fund 
paid [G.L.]'s parents $10,000. 
 
 
"27. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, 
KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, regarding his 
representation of [G.L.]. 
 
 
"DA10617: [T.B-P] 
 
 
"28. 
[T.B-P] retained the Respondent to represent her in a direct appeal of her 
conviction for murder in the first degree. The Respondent represented her and provided 
her with adequate representation. Later, [T.B-P] retained the Respondent to file a motion 
pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. 
 
 
"29. 
On March 9, 2007, [T.B-P] filed a complaint against the Respondent 
with the Disciplinary Administrator. Misconduct related to [T.B-P]'s 2007 complaint 
served as part of the misconduct which led to the Respondent's October, 2008, suspension 
from the practice of law. 
6 
 
 
 
"30. 
Later, in 2008, but prior to the Respondent's suspension, [T.B-P] filed a 
second complaint against the Respondent. In her second complaint, [T.B-P] alleged that 
the Respondent failed to adequately communicate with her regarding the K.S.A. 60-1507 
motion. 
 
 
"31. 
Mr. Kincaid was also appointed to investigate [T.B-P]'s second 
complaint against the Respondent. On October 15, 2008, Mr. Kincaid wrote to the 
Respondent and directed him to call and schedule a time to discuss the complaint. 
 
 
"32. 
Approximately a month later, the Respondent wrote to Mr. Kincaid and 
requested additional time to provide a written response to [T.B-P]'s second complaint. 
The Respondent assured Mr. Kincaid that he would provide the response by November 
23, 2008. The Respondent failed to provide the written response as promised. 
 
 
"33. 
Finally, on February 23, 2009, the Respondent provided a written 
response to the second complaint filed by [T.B-P]. 
 
 
"34. 
The Respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. Ct. 
R. 207 by failing to timely cooperate in the disciplinary investigation of [T.B-P]'s second 
complaint. 
 
 
"DA10683: [D.C.] 
 
 
"35. 
The Respondent represented [D.C.]. [D.C.] filed a complaint against the 
Respondent with the Disciplinary Administrator. Mr. Kincaid was again appointed to 
investigate the complaint. 
 
 
"36. 
On December 11, 2008, the Disciplinary Administrator sent a letter to 
the Respondent directing him to provide a written response to the complaint within 20 
days. The Respondent did not provide a written response to the complaint as directed. 
 
7 
 
 
"37. 
On December 18, 2008, Mr. Kincaid wrote to the Respondent and 
directed him to call and schedule a time to discuss the complaint filed by [D.C.]. The 
Respondent did not respond to Mr. Kincaid's letter. 
 
 
"38. 
Finally, on April 21, 2009, the Respondent provided a written response 
to the complaint filed by [D.C.]. 
 
 
"39. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. 
Ct. R. 207, during the investigation of [D.C.]'s complaint. 
 
 
"DA10689: [A.Z.] 
 
 
"40. 
In October, 2008, [A.Z.] retained the Respondent to represent him in a 
pending criminal case. [A.Z.] agreed to pay the Respondent a $3,000 flat fee. [A.Z.] 
initially paid the Respondent $1,500 of the flat fee. 
 
 
"41. 
The Court held [A.Z.]'s first appearance on October 17, 2008, the same 
day the Respondent's license to practice law was suspended. The Respondent was unable 
to appear at the hearing because of the suspension of his license. 
 
 
"42. 
The Respondent refused to refund the unearned fee paid by [A.Z.]. 
 
 
"43. 
[A.Z.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary 
Administrator. On December 19, 2008, the Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the 
Respondent and directed him to provide a written response to the [A.Z.]'s complaint 
within 20 days. The Respondent failed to provide a written response to [A.Z.]'s complaint 
as directed. 
 
 
"44. 
Eventually, on April 27, 2009, the Respondent provided a written 
response to [A.Z.]'s complaint. 
 
 
"45. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, 
and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, with regard to [A.Z.]'s complaint. 
 
8 
 
 
"DA10695: [T.M.] 
 
 
"46. 
In May, 2008, [L.M.] retained the Respondent in behalf of his son, 
[T.M.], to research an issue related to [T.M.]'s federal criminal sentence. [L.M.] paid the 
Respondent $750 for the representation. After being retained, the Respondent failed to 
provide diligent representation and adequate communication. Given the amount of work 
the Respondent completed, a $750 fee is unreasonable. 
 
 
"47. 
Following the Respondent's suspension from the practice of law, the 
Respondent failed to inform [T.M.] or [L.M.] that he was no longer able to practice law. 
 
 
"48. 
[L.M.] learned of the Respondent's suspension by searching the Internet.  
After learning of the Respondent's suspension, [T.M.] filed a complaint against the 
Respondent with the Disciplinary Administrator. On January 16, 2009, the Disciplinary 
Administrator wrote to the Respondent directing him to provide a written response within 
20 days. The Respondent failed to provide a timely written response. 
 
 
"49. 
Mr. Kincaid was also appointed to investigate [T.M.]'s complaint. On 
January 26, 2009, Mr. Kincaid wrote to the Respondent directing him to make contact 
within the next 10 days. The Respondent failed to contact Mr. Kincaid as directed. 
 
 
"50. 
Finally, on May 22, 2009, the Respondent provided a written response to 
the complaint filed by [T.M.]. 
 
 
"51. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.16, 
KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218, regarding [T.M.]'s complaint. 
 
 
"DA10699: [B.B.] 
 
 
"52. 
In August, 2008, [B.B.] retained the Respondent to represent him in a 
pending criminal case. [B.B.] agreed to pay the Respondent $5,000. Initially, [B.B.] paid 
$2,500 and agreed to pay the remaining $2,500 in 60 days. 
 
9 
 
 
"53. 
Because the Respondent's license to practice law in the State of Kansas 
was suspended, he was unable to complete [B.B.'s] representation. 
 
 
"54. 
On October 27, 2008, [B.B.] sent the Respondent an electronic mail 
message. [B.B.] received a form response from the Respondent which stated: 
 
'I regret to inform you that due to circumstances beyond my control I will 
not be practicing law for the next six months. If you are a client, I will be 
making arrangements for your future representation. I apologize deeply 
for any inconvenience that this has caused you. I will be in contact with 
you soon with more information.' 
 
The Respondent did not notify [B.B.], by letter, that his license was suspended nor did he 
provide [B.B.] with more information. 
 
 
"55. 
The Respondent failed to provide an accounting of the fee to [B.B.]. 
Additionally, the Respondent failed to refund the unearned fees to [B.B.]. 
 
 
"56. 
[B.B.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary 
Administrator. On January 16, 2008, the Disciplinary Administrator wrote to the 
Respondent and directed him to provide a written response to the complaint within 20 
days. The Respondent failed to provide a timely response to [B.B.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"57. 
On April 27, 2009, the Respondent finally provided a written response to 
[B.B.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"58. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, 
KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218, relating to [B.B.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"DA10730: [M.T.] 
 
 
"59. 
[M.T.]'s family retained the Respondent to represent [M.T.] in an appeal 
of a criminal conviction to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The appeal was unsuccessful. 
 
10 
 
 
"60. 
Later, the Respondent suggested that he might be able to obtain relief by 
filing an action in federal court or by filing a petition for review before the Kansas 
Supreme Court. [M.T.]'s mother and step-father, [P.R.] and [J.R.] paid the Respondent 
$5,000 to file a federal court action or a petition for review before the Kansas Supreme 
Court. 
 
 
"61. 
During the period of representation, the Respondent failed to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. 
 
 
"62. 
Thereafter, the Respondent was unable to complete the representation 
because of his suspension from the practice of law. Following his suspension, the 
Respondent did not provide [P.R.] and [J.R.] with an accounting of the fees paid, nor did 
the Respondent refund unearned fees. The Respondent's fee was unreasonable, given the 
amount of work that he completed. 
 
 
"63. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, 
KRPC 1.5, and KRPC 1.16, in connection with his representation of [M.T.]. 
 
 
"DA10743: [R.D.] 
 
 
"64. 
In 2008, [R.D.] retained the Respondent to represent him in a criminal 
non-support case. [R.D.] paid the Respondent $1,500 for the representation. 
 
 
"65. 
On October 28, 2008, the Respondent notified [R.D.] in writing that he 
was unable to continue to represent him. 
 
 
"66. 
Thereafter, [R.D.] wrote to the Respondent twice requesting an 
accounting and a refund of unearned fees. The Respondent failed to provide an 
accounting of the fee. Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide a refund of the 
unearned fees. Eventually, the Client Protection Fund reimbursed [R.D.] for the $1,500 
that he had previously paid to the Respondent. 
 
 
"67. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15 in his 
representation of [R.D.]. 
11 
 
 
 
"DA10746: [D.H.] 
 
 
"68. 
Following [C.J.]'s entry of a guilty plea, [D.H.] retained the Respondent 
in behalf of [C.J.]. [D.H.] retained the Respondent to investigate the possibility of filing a 
motion to withdraw the guilty plea. If the motion was unsuccessful, then the Respondent 
was to take a direct appeal of [C.J.]'s conviction. 
 
 
"69. 
[D.H.] agreed to pay the Respondent $1,800. [D.H.] was not able to pay 
the entire amount at once. However, over time, [D.H.] paid the Respondent over $1,000. 
By the time [D.H.] had paid the Respondent over $1,000, the Respondent's license to 
practice law was suspended and the Respondent was not able to provide [C.J.] with the 
representation that he had agreed to provide. 
 
 
"70. 
A $1,000 fee is unreasonable for the work the Respondent completed. 
 
 
"71. 
The Respondent did not provide [D.H.] or [C.J.] with an accounting of 
the fees paid or a refund for the unearned fees. 
 
 
"72. 
[D.H.] filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Disciplinary 
Administrator. Thereafter, the Client Protection Fund reimbursed [D.H.] $1,000. 
 
 
"73. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.5 and KRPC 
1.16, in connection with [D.H.'s] complaint. 
 
 
"DA10767: [J.B.] 
 
 
"74. 
[J.B.] retained the Respondent to represent his son. [J.B.] paid the 
Respondent $500 for the representation. 
 
 
"75. 
Because the Respondent's license to practice law was suspended, the 
Respondent was unable to complete the representation. The Respondent failed to provide 
a refund of the unearned fees. 
 
12 
 
 
"76. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.16 by failing to 
refund the unearned fees to [J.B.]. 
 
 
"DA10769: [N.W.] 
 
 
"77. 
[N.W.] retained the Respondent to represent him in a criminal case. 
[N.W.] agreed to pay the Respondent $3,000 for the representation. [N.W.] paid $2,000 
of the fee prior to the Respondent entering his appearance. 
 
 
"78. 
The Respondent made a couple of appearances with [N.W.] on the case. 
The preliminary hearing on the case was scheduled by the Court for November 13, 2008. 
Because the Respondent's license to practice law was suspended on October 17, 2008, the 
Respondent was unable to complete the representation. 
 
 
"79. 
After the Respondent notified [N.W.] that he would not be able to 
continue the representation, [N.W.] requested an accounting and a refund of the unearned 
fees. The Respondent failed to provide [N.W.] with an accounting and a refund of the 
unearned fees. 
 
 
"80. 
The Respondent has stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15 by failing to 
provide an accounting and a refund of the unearned fees to [N.W.] 
 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
 
"1. 
Based upon the Stipulation, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter of 
law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 
1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218, as detailed 
below. [Footnote: In addition to KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 
1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218, the 
Disciplinary Administrator also alleged that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c) for 
failing to return unearned fees. The Hearing Panel concludes that clear and convincing 
evidence was not presented to establish that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
 
"2. 
KRPC 1.2 provides: 
13 
 
 
 
'(a)  A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the 
lawful objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), 
and shall consult with the client as to the means which the lawyer shall 
choose to pursue. . . .' 
 
The Respondent waived the oral argument before the Kansas Court of Appeals without 
[D.G.'s] knowledge or authorization. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent violated KRPC 1.2. 
 
 
"3. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent his clients. The Respondent failed to provide diligent representation to 
[M.H.], [G.L.], and [M.T.]. In [M.H.]'s case, the Respondent's lack of diligence resulted 
in a dismissal of [M.H.]'s case. The Respondent was retained by [G.L.]'s family for two 
purposes. The Respondent failed to take any action to accomplish what he was retained 
and paid to do for [G.L.]. Finally, the Respondent failed to either file an action in federal 
court or a petition for review before the Kansas Supreme Court, in behalf of [M.T.]. The 
Respondent did not diligently represent [M.T.]. Because the Respondent failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
 
"4. 
KRPC 1.4(a) provides that  '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he failed to 
adequately communicate with [M.H.], [G.L.], and [M.T.]. Accordingly, the Hearing 
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
 
"5. 
'A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.' KRPC 1.5(a). In this case, the 
Respondent repeatedly accepted fees and failed to perform the work that he was paid to 
perform. Specifically, with regard to [G.L.], [T.M.], [M.T.], and [C.J.], the Respondent 
accepted fees and failed to complete the representation. The fees paid by or in behalf of 
[G.L.], [T.M.], [M.T.], and [C.J.], were unreasonable. Therefore, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.5(a). 
14 
 
 
 
"6. 
Contingent fee agreements must be in writing. KRPC 1.5(d) provides the 
requirement in this regard: 
 
 
'A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which 
the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is 
prohibited by paragraph (f) or other law. A contingent fee agreement 
shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be 
determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to 
the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, and the litigation 
and other expenses to be deducted from the recovery. . . .' 
 
The Respondent entered into a contingency fee agreement with [M.H.] but failed to 
reduce the agreement to writing. Thus, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
violated KRPC 1.5(d). 
 
 
"7. 
Lawyers must safeguard their clients' property. Specifically, KRPC 1.15 
provides: 
 
 
'(b)  Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or 
third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 
third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law 
or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third 
person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third 
person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.' 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b) in two ways. First, the Respondent failed to 
provide accountings of fees as required by KRPC 1.15(b). Second, the Respondent failed 
to refund unearned fees. Retaining unearned fees is tantamount to conversion. If a fee has 
not been earned, it should remain available to be refunded to the client. The respondent 
failed to so account to and failed to refund unearned fees that were paid by or in behalf of 
[G.L.], [B.B.], [R.D.], and [N.W.]. Because the Respondent failed to properly account for 
15 
 
fees and refund unearned fees, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
repeatedly violated KRPC 1.15(b). 
 
 
"8. 
KRPC 1.16 requires lawyers to take certain steps to protect clients after 
the representation has been terminated. 
 
 
'Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to 
the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as 
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of 
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is 
entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been 
earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent 
permitted by other law.' 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d) when he failed to return unearned fees that were 
paid by or in behalf of [G.L.], [A.Z.], [T.M.], [B.B.], [M.T.], [C.J.], and [J.B.]. The 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d). 
 
 
"9. 
Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) and 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provide the requirements in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection 
with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand 
for information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority, . . .' KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
 
'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid 
the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary 
Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, 
and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information 
he or she may have affecting such matters.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). The Respondent knew that he was required to timely forward a 
written response to the complaint —he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in writing 
by the Disciplinary Administrator and by the attorney investigator. Because the 
Respondent knowingly failed to provide a timely written response to the complaint filed 
by [M.H.], [D.G.], [G.L.], [T.B-P], [D.C.], [A.Z.], [T.M.], and [B.B.], as requested by the 
16 
 
Disciplinary Administrator and the attorney investigator, the Hearing Panel concludes 
that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 
 
 
"10. 
Upon suspension or disbarment, an attorney is required to take specific 
steps to notify his clients. 
 
 
'(a)  In the event any attorney licensed to practice law in Kansas 
shall hereafter be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law 
pursuant to these Rules, or shall voluntarily surrender his or her license, 
such attorney shall forthwith notify in writing each client or person 
represented by him or her in pending matters, of his or her inability to 
undertake further representation of such client after the effective date of 
such order, and shall also notify in writing such client to obtain other 
counsel in each such matter. As to clients involved in pending litigation 
or administrative proceedings, such attorney shall also notify in writing 
the appropriate court or administrative body, along with opposing 
counsel, of such inability to further proceed, and shall file an appropriate 
motion to withdraw as counsel of record.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(a). The Respondent failed to properly notify [T.M.] and [B.B.] 
following the Respondent's suspension from the practice of law. As such, the Hearing 
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(a).  
 
 
"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 duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. The Respondent violated his duty to 
17 
 
his clients to properly safeguard their property. The Respondent violated his duty to the 
legal profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. 
 
 
"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his duties. 
 
 
"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused 
serious actual injury to many of his clients. 
 
 
"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 October 17, 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court 
suspended the Respondent for a period of six months for having violated KRPC 1.1, 
KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.15, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 3.4(c), KRPC 8.4(d), Kan. Sup. Ct. 
R. 207(b), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). In re Thomas, 287 Kan. 88, 193 P.3d 907 (2008). 
 
 
"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
This case involves complaints filed by or in behalf of 13 clients. The Respondent was 
previously disciplined in a case that involved complaints filed by or in behalf of seven 
clients. The 20 complaints involve similar misconduct. Thus, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
 
"Multiple Offenses. In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, 
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.1, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, and 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218. The Respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally Failing 
to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. In eight of the 13 cases 
presently pending, the Respondent failed to provide a timely written response to the 
complaint. Failing to provide a timely written complaint obstructs the disciplinary 
investigators' ability to conduct and conclude the investigation. Therefore, the Hearing 
18 
 
Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in a bad faith obstruction of the 
disciplinary investigation by failing to comply with KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207. 
 
 
"Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court 
admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 2000. At the time of the misconduct, 
the Respondent had been practicing law for eight years. Eight years of practice 
constitutes substantial experience in the practice of law. 
 
 
"Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has made no effort 
to refund unearned fees to clients or to reimburse the Client Protection Fund. 
 
 
"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: 
 
 
"Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed to 
Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent continues to 
struggle with alcohol abuse. At the time of the hearing, he had been sober for 
approximately six weeks. Additionally, the Respondent continues to struggle with 
depression. Alcohol abuse and depressions certainly may have contributed to the 
Respondent's misconduct. 
 
 
"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 entered into a stipulation, admitting much of the 
misconduct. The Respondent fully cooperated during the hearing on the Formal 
Complaint. 
 
 
"Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for engaging in the misconduct. 
 
 
"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
19 
 
 
'4.12 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or 
should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'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. 
 
'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. 
 
'8.1 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer: 
(a) 
intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior 
disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a 
client, the public, the legal system, or the profession; or 
(b) 
has been suspended for the same or similar misconduct, and 
intentionally or knowingly engages in further acts of misconduct that 
cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or 
the profession.' 
 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas and that the 
Respondent be required to reimburse the Client Protection Fund, prior to reinstatement. 
The Respondent recommended that he be suspended for a period of one year. The 
Respondent recognizes that he will have to undergo a reinstatement hearing. 
 
20 
 
 
"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed 
above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time. If the Respondent applies for 
reinstatement in the future, the Hearing Panel recommends that he provide evidence of a 
variety of factors. First, the Respondent should be required to establish that he has 
sustained his sobriety for a substantial period of time. Next, the Respondent should be 
required to establish that he has successfully completed all recommended treatment and 
aftercare and that he regularly attends some sort of relapse prevention treatment. Third, 
the Respondent should be required to establish that his depression is properly treated and 
that he is mentally fit to practice law. The Respondent's requirement in this regard should 
consist of testimony from a treatment professional. Also, the Respondent should be 
required to establish that he has developed a solid business plan for running the business 
side of practicing law. Finally, as a condition precedent to applying for reinstatement, the 
Respondent should be required to establish that he has refunded all unearned fees to his 
clients and that he has fully reimbursed the Client Protection Fund for claims that it paid 
in his behalf. 
 
 
"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 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. 
21 
 
 
At the hearing before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator asked the court to 
administer an indefinite suspension as recommended by the hearing panel, while the 
respondent again requested a 1-year suspension.  This court finds that the number and 
severity of violations warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Kansas. 
Further, we require that, if respondent wishes to seek reinstatement, a hearing under 
Supreme Court Rule 219 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 376) be held to consider, among other 
issues set out in Rule 219(f), whether:  
 
 
1. 
Respondent has demonstrated a substantial period of sustained sobriety, 
completed all recommended treatment, and regularly participates in a relapse prevention 
program; 
 
 
2. 
Respondent has established that any mental health issues have been 
properly treated and that he is mentally fit to practice law as verified by a mental health 
professional; 
 
 
3. 
Respondent has established that he has made full and complete restitution 
to the Client Protection Fund for claims paid due to respondent's actions; and 
 
 
4. 
Respondent's practice should be monitored by another attorney, and if so, 
any appropriate terms and conditions, including the time period for monitoring.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that BOBBY LEE THOMAS, JR., be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective the date of this order 
in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 272). 
 
22 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361), and in the event the respondent would seek 
reinstatement, he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 with consideration of the 
issues noted above in addition to any others provided under this rule. 
 
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. 104,340 to fill the 
vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Chief Justice Robert E. Davis.