Title: In re O'Leary (Disbarment) video

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 114,076 
 
In the Matter of JOHN ANDREW O'LEARY, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 18, 2015. Disbarment. 
 
Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Respondent did not appear. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, John Andrew O'Leary, of Luray, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1991. 
 
 
On January 16, 2015, 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 did not file an answer. A hearing was held on the 
complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on April 7, 
2015, where the respondent did not appear. The hearing panel determined that respondent 
violated KRPC 5.5(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 650) (unauthorized practice of law); 
8.4(g) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
lawyer's fitness to practice law); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 363) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). 
 
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 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"6. 
On December 12, 2014, the Court issued an order of temporary 
suspension as a result of the respondent's multiple misdemeanor convictions. The 
respondent's license remains suspended. 
 
"Criminal Cases—Russell County—DA11624, DA11983, and DA12124 
 
"11CR195 
 
 
"7. 
The Russell County Attorney charged the respondent in a four count 
complaint, in case number 11CR195. The charges included possession of 
methamphetamine, a severity level 4 drug felony, possession of hydrocodone, a severity 
level 4 drug felony, possession of marijuana, a class A nonperson misdemeanor, and 
possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Thereafter, on May 
24, 2012, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana and 
possession of drug paraphernalia. In exchange, the prosecutor dismissed the two felonies. 
The court sentenced the respondent to a jail sentence of 12 months, but granted the 
respondent's request for probation. The court ordered the respondent to refrain from 
consuming drugs or alcohol during the 12 month period of probation. 
  
 
"8. 
By virtue of the events of April 11, 2013, detailed below, the respondent 
violated the terms of the order of probation. On April 18, 2013, the respondent admitted 
that he violated his probation by consuming an alcoholic beverage. The respondent 
agreed to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and comply with the recommendations 
contained in the report of evaluation. Further, the respondent's probation was extended.  
 
 
"9. 
Again, the respondent . . . violated the terms of the order of probation in 
11CR195 by engaging in further criminal conduct and by continuing to consume 
3 
 
 
 
alcoholic beverages. On August 1, 2014, the court revoked the respondent's probation and 
ordered him to jail for a period of 120 days. The respondent reported to jail on August 11, 
2014. The respondent remained in custody until December 9, 2014. 
 
"13TR220 
 
 
"10. 
On April 11, 2013, the respondent was charged with speeding, a traffic 
infraction, transporting an open container, a misdemeanor, and driving with an expired 
driver's license, a misdemeanor, in Russell County District Court, case number 13TR220. 
 
 
"11. 
The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge of speeding in return for the 
respondent's guilty plea to the remaining two charges. On March 19, 2014, the 
respondent entered a plea of guilty to transporting an open container of alcohol and 
driving with an expired driver's license in 13TR220. The court ordered the respondent to 
pay a fine. 
 
"13TR577 
 
 
"12. 
On July 13, 2013, the respondent was stopped by law enforcement. The 
prosecutor charged the respondent with driving with defective stop lamps, a traffic 
infraction, transporting an open container, a misdemeanor, and refusal to submit to a 
preliminary breath test, a misdemeanor, in District Court of Russell County, case number 
13TR577. 
 
 
"13. 
On March 19, 2014, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to the 
charges of defective stop lamps and refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test in 
13TR577. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge of transporting an open container 
in exchange for the respondent's guilty pleas. The court assessed $236 in fines and court 
costs. 
 
4 
 
 
 
"14TR75 
 
 
"14. 
On February 3, 2014, the prosecutor charged the respondent with driving 
under the influence of alcohol, a class B nonperson misdemeanor, reckless driving, a 
misdemeanor, transporting an open container, a misdemeanor, and operating a vehicle at 
a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, a traffic infraction, for an incident which 
occurred on December 28, 2013, case number 14TR75. 
 
 
"15. 
On March 19, 2014, the respondent entered a guilty plea to reckless 
driving. The prosecutor dismissed the driving under the influence of alcohol charge, the 
transporting an open container charge, and the speeding charge. 
 
"14TR150 
 
 
"16. 
On March 2, 2014, the respondent was stopped for driving while 
suspended. On March 14, 2014, the prosecutor charged the respondent in a one count 
complaint alleging that the respondent operated a motor vehicle when his license to do so 
was suspended, case number 14TR150. On March 19, 2014, the prosecutor agreed to 
reduce the charge to driving in violation of a restriction, a misdemeanor, in exchange for 
the respondent's guilty plea. The respondent entered a guilty plea to driving in violation 
of a restriction. The court ordered the respondent to pay a fine and the court suspended 
the respondent's privilege to drive for 30 days. 
 
"14CR177 
 
 
"17. 
Based upon a tip from the respondent's administrative assistant, on July 
2, 2014, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the respondent's law 
office. The officers seized aluminum foil with burnt residue, a baggie with a dismantled 
ink pen and residue, two unmarked pill bottles with white powdery residue, and several 
5 
 
 
 
empty beer bottles. Later, the KBI lab determined that the aluminum foil had traces of 
methamphetamine and diazepam and the pill bottles had traces of hydrocodone. 
 
 
"18. 
On July 30, 2014, the prosecutor charged the respondent with possession 
of methamphetamine, a severity level 5 drug felony and possession of drug paraphernalia, 
a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Later, in November, 2014, the prosecutor dismissed 
the possession of methamphetamine charge and the respondent entered a plea of guilty to 
the possession of drug paraphernalia charge. The court ordered the respondent to pay the 
costs of the action. 
 
"Unauthorized Practice of Law–DA11907 
 
 
"19. 
After the respondent's license to practice law was suspended, the 
respondent engaged in settlement negotiations on behalf of a client. The respondent 
admitted to practicing law by engaging in settlement negotiations after his license to 
practice law had been suspended. 
 
"Criminal Case—Rooks County—DA12077 
 
 
"20. 
On March 18, 2014, the respondent provided a check in the amount of 
$4,281.36 to the Rooks County Treasurer. The check was returned for insufficient funds. 
The Rooks County Treasurer afforded the respondent seven days to pay the check. The 
respondent failed to do so. 
 
 
"21. 
On May 2, 2014, the prosecutor charged the respondent with one count 
of delivering a check with the intent to defraud, Rooks County District Court, case 
number 14CR30. On June 10, 2014, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to a reduced 
charge of giving a worthless check, a class A misdemeanor. The court sentenced the 
respondent to 120 days in jail but granted the respondent's request for probation. The 
court ordered the respondent to pay court costs and restitution. 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"22. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 8.4(g), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, 
as detailed below. 
"Service 
 
 
"23. 
The respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the formal complaint. It 
is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a respondent fails to appear only if proper 
service was obtained. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary 
proceedings. That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows: 
 
'(a) 
Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in 
any disciplinary proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary 
Administrator, either by personal service or by certified mail to the 
address shown on the attorney's most recent registration, or at his or her 
last known office address. 
 
. . . . 
 
'(c) 
Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be 
deemed complete upon mailing whether or not the same is actually 
received.' 
 
In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by 
sending a copy of the formal complaint and the notice of hearing, via certified United 
States mail, postage prepaid, to the address shown on the respondent's most recent 
registration. The respondent failed to claim the package. The hearing panel concludes that 
the respondent was afforded the notice that the Kansas Supreme Court Rules require. 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
"KRPC 5.5(a) 
 
 
"24. 
KRPC 5.5(a) prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. After the Kansas 
Supreme Court suspended the respondent's license to practice law, the respondent 
continued to practice law. Specifically, the respondent attempted to negotiate a settlement 
on behalf of a client after his license to practice law had been suspended. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a). 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"25. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). The 
respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law by 
repeatedly engaged in criminal conduct. Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) 
 
 
"26. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file answers to 
formal complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the requirements: 
 
'The respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary 
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint 
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). The respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to 
file a timely written answer to the formal complaint. Accordingly, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"27. 
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. 
 
 
"28. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public to maintain 
his personal integrity. Additionally, the respondent violated his duty to the legal 
profession to comply with the rules of the profession. 
 
 
"29. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"30. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
injury to the legal profession. 
 
 
"31. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances. 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: 
 
 
"32. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by repeatedly engaging in criminal conduct. 
 
 
"33. 
Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. 
The respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 8.4(g), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple 
offenses. 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
"34. 
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 has been practicing law for more than twenty years. 
 
 
"35. 
Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled 
Substances. The respondent repeatedly engaged in criminal conduct. The respondent's 
criminal conduct is an aggravating factor. 
 
 
"36. 
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: 
 
 
"37. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. 
 
 
"38. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct 
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
 
"39. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'5.12 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements 
listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
 
'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.' 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"40. 
Based upon the respondent's misconduct and because the respondent 
failed to appear at the hearing, the disciplinary administrator recommended that the 
respondent be disbarred. 
 
 
"41. 
While the hearing panel appreciates the disciplinary administrator's 
position regarding the respondent's failure to appear, because the respondent has not 
previously been disciplined, the hearing panel concludes that indefinite suspension is 
warranted. Thus, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards 
listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent's license to 
practice law in Kansas be indefinitely suspended. 
 
"42. 
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 
hearing panel, and the arguments of the parties to determine (1) whether violations of the 
KRPC exist and, (2) if they do, the appropriate measure of discipline. 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) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
363). 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]). 
 
The respondent received adequate notice of the formal complaint. He did not file 
an answer; he filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. With no 
exceptions before us, the panel's findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court 
11 
 
 
 
Rule 212(c), (d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 383). Furthermore, the evidence before the 
hearing panel established the charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 5.5(a) (2014 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 650) (unauthorized practice of law); 8.4(g) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law); and Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 363) (failure to file answer in 
disciplinary proceeding) by clear and convincing evidence and supported the panel's 
conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions. 
 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. The hearing panel recommended indefinite suspension. At the hearing before 
this court, at which the respondent did not appear, the office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator recommended disbarment. See e.g., Kansas Supreme Court Rule 212(d) 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 369) (respondent shall appear in person in disciplinary 
proceedings before the Supreme Court). 
 
 
We frequently follow a hearing panel's recommendation. But in this case, we must 
consider the implications of a circumstance that did not exist at the time the hearing panel 
made its recommendation—specifically, the respondent's failure to appear before this 
court. Respondent received notice of the court hearing by certified mail. He signed for the 
mail, showing his receipt and acceptance of service of the notice. A respondent's failure 
to appear before this court after having been given notice may warrant a sanction greater 
than that recommended by the Disciplinary Administrator or panel, even up to 
disbarment. "Certainly, the lack of an appearance at a hearing before this court qualifies 
as an additional aggravator." In re Barker, 302 Kan. 156, 163, 351 P.3d 1256, 1261 
(2015); see In re Batt, 296 Kan. 395, 294 P.3d 241 (2013).  
 
The lack-of-appearance aggravator seems particularly apt in this case because it 
reflects a disturbing pattern—respondent's contempt for orders of this court and for the 
12 
 
 
 
disciplinary process. When this court suspended respondent's license in 2013 for 
administrative reasons, respondent ignored the order and practiced law without a license. 
When this court issued an order for the respondent to appear on December 12, 2014, to 
show cause why his license to practice law should not be temporarily suspended during 
the pendency of this disciplinary proceeding, respondent did not appear. Similarly, 
respondent showed a complete disregard for the disciplinary process when he failed to 
file an answer or respond to the notices to appear before the hearing panel and this court.  
 
Granted, the record suggests there might be mitigating circumstances. From May 
2012 until the time the petition in this case was filed in January of 2015, respondent was 
convicted in four criminal cases and three traffic cases. Many (and perhaps all) related to 
the use or possession of drugs or alcohol, suggesting respondent may suffer from 
dependency issues. Nevertheless, while respondent has phoned or written to the 
Disciplinary Administrator's office on occasion, he never filed an answer or sought to 
formally explain or mitigate his behavior, either before the hearing panel or this court. 
Had he appeared in court, we might have followed the hearing panel's recommendation. 
But a majority of this court views respondent's failure to appear, when viewed in the 
context of his criminal behavior and his previous disdain for the orders of this court and 
the disciplinary process, as a significant aggravator.  
 
 
In light of these circumstances, a majority of the court agrees with the office of 
Disciplinary Administrator that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. A minority of the 
court would follow the hearing panel's recommendation of indefinite suspension. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that John Andrew O'Leary be disbarred from the 
practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in accordance 
with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414) and Rule 219 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 415). 
 
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. 
 
NUSS, C.J., and BEIER, J., not participating. 
THOMAS E. MALONE, Chief Judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals, assigned.1 
MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.2 
                                                 
 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE:  Chief Judge Malone, of the Kansas Court of Appeals, was 
appointed to hear case No. 114,076 vice Justice Beier under the authority vested in the 
Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-3002(c).  
 
2REPORTER'S NOTE:  Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 114,076 
vice Justice Nuss under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616.