Title: In re Delaney - (Six-month suspension, which is stayed during a probationary period of 2 years, subject to the terms and conditions specified)

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 
No. 112,169 
 
In the Matter of ANDREW M. DELANEY, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 26, 2014. Six-month suspension, 
which is stayed during a probationary period of 2 years, subject to the terms and conditions specified. 
 
Deborah L. Hughes, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Duston J. 
Slinkard, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, were on 
the formal complaint for the petitioner.  
 
J. David Farris, of J. David Farris Law Offices, of Atchison, argued the cause, and Andrew M. 
Delaney, respondent, argued the cause pro se.  
 
Per Curiam:  This is an uncontested attorney discipline proceeding against 
Andrew M. Delaney of Hiawatha, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 
2002. 
 
On April 3, 2014, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent answered on April 15, 2014, admitting the allegations in 
the formal complaint. In December 2013 and January 2014, counsel for respondent 
submitted drafts of a proposed probation plan to the Disciplinary Administrator for 
comments and suggestions. On April 8, 2014, counsel for respondent finalized the 
2 
 
proposed probation plan and submitted it to the hearing panel and the Disciplinary 
Administrator. 
 
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on May 6, 
2014, at which respondent appeared in person and through counsel. The hearing panel 
determined the respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) (diligence); 
KRPC 1.4 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); KRPC 1.8(e) (2013 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 528) (conflict of interest); KRPC 3.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 587) 
(expediting litigation); KRPC 8.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) (timely response to 
disciplinary inquiry); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
336) (duty to aid Disciplinary Administrator in investigation of complaints). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact by 
clear and convincing evidence and then made its conclusions of law, together with its 
recommendation to this court: 
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
…..  
 
 
"8. 
Andrew M. Delaney (hereinafter 'the respondent') is an attorney at law, 
Kansas attorney registration number 20476. His last registration address with the clerk of 
the appellate courts of Kansas is . . . Hiawatha, Kansas . . . . The Kansas Supreme Court 
admitted the respondent to the practice of law in the State of Kansas on April 26, 2002. 
 
"DA11078 and DA1152 
 
 
"9. 
In 2010, two complaints were filed against the respondent. Following the 
investigation, the respondent entered into the attorney diversion program in connection 
3 
 
with the two disciplinary complaints. The respondent did not successfully complete the 
diversion program.  
 
 
"10. 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(d)(2)(vii) provides the procedure to follow when an 
attorney fails to complete the terms and conditions of diversion: 
 
'Failure to Complete the Attorney Diversion Program. If the Respondent 
fails to complete the agreed tasks in a timely manner at any point in the 
diversion process, he or she may be terminated from the program. If such 
a termination occurs, traditional formal disciplinary procedures will 
resume. When the complaint is returned to the formal disciplinary 
process, the Respondent's termination from the Attorney Diversion 
Program may be cited as an additional aggravating factor in 
recommending discipline and as a violation of Supreme Court Rule 207 
and KRPC 8.1.'   
 
 
"11. 
Additionally, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(d)(2)(i), '[b]y entering 
into [the] diversion agreement, the Respondent stipulate[d] to the factual allegations and 
rule violations . . . that can be mutually agreed upon by the Disciplinary Administrator 
and the Respondent.' In the diversion agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and the 
respondent agreed to the following facts and rule violations: 
 
 
'8. 
The Disciplinary Administrator and the Respondent 
stipulate to the following facts: 
 
DA 11,078 
a. [C.B.] retained Respondent in October 2007 for a 
divorce. 
 
b. The case was heard in February 2008. There was 
difficulty getting a hearing date. 
 
4 
 
c. Respondent prepared a journal entry and sent it to 
opposing counsel. 
 
d. Respondent did not receive the signed journal entry 
back, so on March 31, 2008, he sent opposing counsel 
another copy. 
 
e. The journal entry was filed April 7, 2008. 
 
f. The QDRO provided Respondent's client receive 
100% of a 401K that was administered by Albaugh, Inc. 
The same day as the hearing, February 29, 2008, 
Respondent sent a request to Albaugh asking for advice 
on how to proceed. 
 
g. The QDRO paperwork was complete on August 14, 
2008. 
 
h. Respondent admits he forgot about the QDRO until 
the next January. 
 
i. Respondent contacted Albaugh on how to withdraw 
the funds. By this time, the account had lost $3000 due 
to the decline in the stock market. However, at the time 
of the divorce, the ex-husband was only 60% vested and 
there was a 10% early withdrawal penalty. The actual 
financial harm to the client from the delay is estimated to 
be less than $2,000. 
 
j. The same client, in the spring of 2009, engaged in a 
relationship with a man who was willing to adopt her 
son. 
5 
 
 
k. The ex-husband consented to the adoption and signed 
a consent form in April 2009. 
 
l. Complainant requested the adoption be completed 
before the child started school, so he could enter school 
with his name already changed. 
 
m. Respondent suggested they wait on the adoption until 
after they were married. 
 
n. Complainant got married in September 2009. 
 
o. The adoption case was not set until December 2009. 
The court would not accept the consent form signed by 
the ex-husband because it had been signed in April 2009. 
 
p. The Respondent tracked the ex-husband down and got 
another consent form signed. The adoption was 
completed. 
 
q. The Respondent waived his fee and did not require 
Complainant to pay the filing fee. Respondent refunded 
$300.00 of his $500.00 retainer and gave Complainant 
$500.00 in cash to be used to buy Christmas presents. 
 
DA 11,152 
 
a. [C.M.B.] engaged Respondent in February 2009 for 
help in dissolution of a partnership. No fee was paid. 
 
6 
 
b. A petition for dissolution of partnership and for 
partition was filed in April 2009. 
 
c. Motions for default judgments were filed in June 
2009. 
 
d. Respondent had difficulty obtaining service on all 
parties. 
 
e. In December 2009, Respondent apologized to 
Complainant for the delay. This was one of the very few 
contacts Respondent had with Complainant, despite 
Complainant's attempts to contact him.  
 
f. In February 2010, Complainant attempted to secure 
new counsel. 
 
g. In March 2010, Complainant threatened to file a 
disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent did 
not contact Complainant. A complaint was filed in July 
2010. 
 
'9. 
The Disciplinary Administrator and the Respondent 
agree that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(e) and 3.2.' 
 
"DA11784 
 
 
"12. 
On March 13, 2013, N.R. filed a complaint against the respondent for 
issues arising out of the respondent's representation of N.R. in a child in need of care 
proceeding. It appears that N.R. complained that the respondent failed to appear in court 
for a hearing, that he failed to return her telephone calls, and that he provided her with 
bad advice on how to get her children returned to her custody. [The review committee of 
7 
 
the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys determined that probable cause did not 
exist to conclude that the respondent violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 
with regard to the respondent's representation of N.R. Case number DA11784 is before 
the hearing panel solely on the allegation that the respondent failed to cooperate in the 
disciplinary investigation.]  
 
 
"13. 
On March 22, 2013, Ms. Knoll wrote to the respondent, enclosed a copy 
of N.R.'s complaint, and directed the respondent to provide a written response to the 
complaint within 20 days. The respondent failed to provide a written response to the 
complaint.  
 
 
"14. 
Thereafter, the disciplinary administrator referred N.R.'s complaint to the 
Topeka Ethics and Grievance Committee for investigation. Lucky DeFries, chair of the 
Topeka Ethics and Grievance Committee, appointed Stephen W. Cavanaugh to 
investigate the complaint. On April 16, 2013, and on May 7, 2013, Mr. Cavanaugh wrote 
to the respondent, directing the respondent to provide a written response to the complaint 
filed by N.R. The respondent failed to provide a written response as directed by Mr. 
Cavanaugh. 
 
 
"15. 
On June 3, 2013, William C. Delaney, special investigator for the 
disciplinary administrator was assigned to attempt to locate the respondent. On June 6, 
2013, Mr. Delaney personally contacted the respondent at the Brown County Courthouse 
in Hiawatha, Kansas. Mr. Delaney met with the respondent at the courthouse to discuss 
the complaint filed by N.R. The respondent informed Mr. Delaney that he was aware of 
the complaint and had no excuse for failing to provide a written answer to the complaint. 
The respondent promised to provide a written response to the complaint within the next 
few days. The respondent stated that he was not 'snubbing' the disciplinary 
administrator's office but that he had a number of issues at that time. Mr. Delaney 
provided the respondent with 10 additional days to provide a written response to N.R.'s 
complaint. 
  
8 
 
 
"16. 
On June 13, 2013, the respondent forwarded a written response to the 
complaint filed by N.R., to Mr. Delaney.  
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"17. 
Based upon the respondent's admissions in his answer, the respondent's 
stipulations in the diversion agreement, and the findings of fact above, the hearing panel 
concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 
1.8(e), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
 
"18. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent C.B. by failing to take action on the QDRO and by failing to timely 
complete the adoption. The respondent failed to diligently represent C.M.B. by failing to 
timely get service on the defendant and prosecute the dissolution of partnership case. 
Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing his clients, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 
1.3. 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
 
"19. 
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 remain in 
contact with C.M.B., despite C.M.B.'s attempts to contact the respondent. Accordingly, 
the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
   
"KRPC 1.8(e) 
 
 
"20. 
The respondent also violated KRPC 1.8(e). KRPC 1.8(e) provides:  
9 
 
  
 
'A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in 
connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:  
 
'(1) 
a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses 
of litigation, the repayment of which may be 
contingent on the outcome of the matter; and 
 
'(2) 
a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay 
court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf 
of the client.' 
  
In his representation of C.B., the respondent paid the filing fee and gave C.B. $500 in 
cash to be used to purchase Christmas presents. As such, the hearing panel concludes that 
the respondent violated KRPC 1.8(e).   
 
"KRPC 3.2 
 
 
"21. 
An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if he fails to make reasonable efforts to 
expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client. The respondent caused 
unnecessary delay in C.B.'s adoption case and in C.M.B.'s dissolution of partnership case. 
Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 3.2. 
   
"KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) 
 
 
"22. 
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 
10 
 
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 forward a written 
response to the initial complaints—he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in writing 
by Ms. Knoll and Mr. Cavanaugh. Because the respondent knowingly failed to provide a 
timely written response to the initial complaint filed by N.R., the hearing panel concludes 
that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 
   
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"23. 
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. 
 
 
"24. 
Duty Violated.  The respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. The respondent also violated his 
duty to the legal system to expedite litigation. Finally, the respondent violated his duty to 
the legal profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations. 
 
 
"25. 
Mental State.  The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"26. 
Injury.  As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to C.B., C.M.B., the legal system, and the legal profession. The harm to 
C.B. can be quantified at less than $2,000. 
  
11 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"27. 
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: 
 
 
"28. 
A Pattern of Misconduct.  The respondent has engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct. 
 
 
"29. 
Multiple Offenses.  The respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, 
KRPC 1.8(e), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207. Accordingly, the hearing 
panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"30. 
Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally 
Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The respondent 
failed to comply with requests for information made by the disciplinary administrator. As 
such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent obstructed the disciplinary 
proceeding. 
  
 
"31. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 2002. At the time 
of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 10 years. 
   
 
"32. 
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: 
 
 
"33. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct 
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
   
12 
 
 
"34. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent suffers from 
major depressive disorder. It is clear that the respondent's depression contributed to his 
misconduct.  
 
 
"35. 
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. While the respondent failed to cooperate during the disciplinary 
investigation, he fully cooperated with the disciplinary process during the prosecution of 
the formal complaint. Additionally, the respondent admitted the facts that gave rise to the 
violations. 
   
 
"36. 
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. The respondent is an active and productive member of the bar 
of Hiawatha, Kansas. The respondent also enjoys the respect of his peers and generally 
possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by the testimony of a number of 
attorneys. 
  
 
"37. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
"38. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards:  
 
'4.32 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a 
 
conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the 
 
possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential 
 
injury to a client.   
 
'4.33 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in 
 
determining whether the representation of a client may be 
13 
 
 
materially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether the 
 
representation will adversely affect another client, 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.   
 
'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.'   
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"39. 
The disciplinary administrator and the respondent recommended that the 
respondent be placed on probation, under the respondent's proposed plan of probation. 
The disciplinary administrator would have recommended that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of six months followed by a reinstatement hearing, under Kan. 
Sup. Ct. R. 219, had the respondent not taken so many proactive steps to get his house in 
order. 
   
 
"40. 
Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent 
14 
 
 
 
be suspended for a period of six months. The hearing panel further recommends that the 
suspension be suspended and the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 2 
years, subject to the following terms and conditions: 
 
 
"a. 
KALAP. The respondent will comply with the terms and 
conditions of the monitoring agreement, executed on September 20, 
2013. If the monitoring attorney or Anne McDonald determines that the 
monitoring agreement should be changed or extended, the respondent 
will consent to the changes or extensions. The respondent will provide 
the monitoring attorney and KALAP with an appropriate release of 
information to allow the monitoring attorney and KALAP to provide 
information to the practice supervisor, the counselor, and the disciplinary 
administrator.  
 
 
"b. 
Inventory of Cases and Clients. The respondent will 
maintain an inventory of all open cases and clients. The respondent will 
update the inventory on a daily basis. The inventory will include the 
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.  
 
 
"c. 
Client Communication. The respondent will return all 
telephone calls within 48 business hours. The respondent will contact 
each client by letter at least once every three months regarding the status 
of the matter.  
 
 
"d. 
Restitution. The respondent will refund $2,000 to C.B. 
within 90 days of the date of this report.  
 
 
"e. 
Practice Supervision. William R. McQuillan will serve 
as the respondent's practice supervisor. The respondent will provide the 
practice supervisor with an updated copy of the inventory of cases and 
clients on a monthly basis. The respondent will allow the practice 
15 
 
 
 
supervisor access to his client files, calendar, and trust account records. 
The respondent will meet with the practice supervisor once a week. The 
meetings will be face-to-face or by telephone, in the judgment of the 
practice supervisor. The respondent will comply with any requests made 
by the practice supervisor. The practice supervisor will prepare a 
quarterly report to the disciplinary administrator regarding the 
respondent's status on probation. The respondent will provide the 
practice supervisor with an appropriate release of information to allow 
the practice supervisor to provide such information to the counselor, 
KALAP, the monitoring attorney, and the disciplinary administrator. 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. 
 
 
"f. 
Psychological Treatment. The respondent will continue 
his treatment for depression throughout the period of supervised 
probation, unless the counselor determines that continued treatment is no 
longer necessary. The counselor will notify the practice supervisor and 
the disciplinary administrator in the event that the respondent 
discontinues treatment against the recommendation of the counselor 
during the probationary period. The respondent will provide the 
counselor with an appropriate release of information to allow the 
counselor to provide such information to the practice supervisor, 
KALAP, the monitoring attorney, and the disciplinary administrator.  
 
 
"g. 
Medication. The respondent will comply with the 
prescription medication plan developed by this primary care physician or 
psychiatrist.  
 
 
"h. 
Office Procedures. Within ten days of this report, the 
respondent will provide the practice supervisor and the disciplinary 
16 
 
 
 
administrator with written office procedures designed to monitor the 
status, deadlines, and court appearances of all matters in which he has 
undertaken representation. The respondent will modify that procedure if 
directed to do so by the practice supervisor or the disciplinary 
administrator. The respondent will follow the written office procedures.  
 
 
"i. 
Calendar. On a weekly basis, the respondent and the 
supervising attorney will review the respondent's calendar to ensure that 
appropriate notices have been sent, that the respondent is properly 
prepared for all events on his scheduled, and that all files have been 
properly updated.  
 
 
"j. 
Mail. Someone, other than the respondent, should be 
charged with opening the respondent’s mail on a daily basis.  
 
 
"k. 
Billing, Fee Agreements, and Conflict List. The 
respondent will review all billing procedures with the practice 
supervisor. The respondent will have a written fee agreement on each 
and every case in his inventory. A conflict list will be prepared and kept 
at the office to ensure that no conflicts arise in any of the new cases the 
respondent undertakes. The conflict list will be reviewed by the 
supervising attorney.  
 
 
"l. 
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 will follow all recommendations and 
correct all deficiencies noted in the practice supervisor's periodic audit 
reports. At the conclusion of the period of probation, the respondent will 
17 
 
 
 
submit to the practice supervisor a detailed account of his active files and 
the practice supervisor will conduct a final audit.  
 
 
"m. 
Continued Cooperation. The respondent will continue to 
cooperate with the disciplinary administrator. If the disciplinary 
administrator requests any additional information, the respondent will 
timely provide such information.  
 
 
"n. 
Additional Violations. The respondent will 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 will 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. 
 
 
"41. 
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 disciplinary 
panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations 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) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356). Clear and 
convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of 
the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 
(2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). 
18 
 
 
 
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer. The Disciplinary Administrator's office and respondent entered into a written 
stipulation upon which the panel's final hearing report was based in part. Respondent 
filed no exceptions to the final hearing report. As such, the panel's findings of fact are 
deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375). 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) 
(diligence); 1.4 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 1.8(e) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 527) (conflict of interest); 3.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 587) (expediting 
litigation); 8.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) (timely response to disciplinary inquiry); 
Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 336) (duty to disciplinary 
administrator), and it supports the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's 
findings and conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue for this court is determining the appropriate discipline 
for respondent's violations. At the hearing before this court, the Disciplinary 
Administrator and respondent jointly requested that this court adopt the hearing panel's 
recommended discipline, as recited in the hearing panel's report at Paragraph 40. The 
hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us from imposing 
greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375); 
see In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). 
 
We agree with the parties that hearing panel's recommendation as recited in 
Paragraph 40 of its report is the appropriate discipline, with the modification that if the 
probation is revoked and a suspension invoked due to respondent's failure to comply with 
19 
 
 
 
the terms and conditions in the probation plan, he must have a reinstatement hearing 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 407). 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Andrew M. Delaney be suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) 
and (5) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 300), for a 6-month period but imposition of this 
discipline shall be stayed and respondent placed on probation under the terms and 
conditions set out in Paragraph 40 of the hearing panel report as modified by this court in 
this decision for a 2-year period beginning the date this opinion is filed. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Andrew M. Delaney during his probationary 
period fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation, a show cause order 
shall issue and this court will take whatever disciplinary action appears just and proper 
without further formal proceedings. 
 
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. 
 
MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.1  
 
 
                                              
 
 
1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 112,169 
to fill the vacancy on the court created by the appointment of Justice Nancy Moritz to the 
United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.