Title: In re Whinery

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 
No. 124,958 
 
In the Matter of DAVID S. WHINERY, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 15, 2022. One-year suspension, stayed 
pending successful completion of the agreed 18-month probation plan. 
 
Kathleen Selzler Lippert, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Gayle B. Larkin, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
N. Trey Pettlon, of Law Offices of Pettlon & Ginie, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the 
answer to the formal complaint, and David S. Whinery, 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, David S. Whinery, of Liberty, 
Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2000. 
 
On October 4, 2021, the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against Whinery alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent filed a timely answer to the formal complaint on October 
20, 2021. On February 18, 2022, Whinery and the Disciplinary Administrator entered 
into a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. 
R. at 277). Under the agreement the parties stipulate and agree that Whinery violated the 
following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct: 
 
 
2 
 
• KRPC 1.2 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 323) (scope of representation); 
 
• KRPC 1.3 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 325) (diligence); 
 
• KRPC 8.4(d) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 427) (conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice); and  
 
• KRPC 8.4(g) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 427) (conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer's fitness to practice law). 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission agreement 
below.  
 
"4. On February 21, 2020, Disciplinary Administrator's Office received a complaint 
expressing concern that Respondent had been verbally and possibly physically 
aggressive with G.O., who was his client and incarcerated at the time. This 
complaint was docketed and investigated.  
 
"5. On April 3, 2020, Respondent provided a written response and several attachments.  
 
"Background of Client G.O.'s Case 
 
"6. In 2019, Client G.O. was incarcerated on felony charges related to a dispute with his 
neighbor; Johnson County District Court 19 CR 1810. Client G.O. also had 
municipal charges pending in Mission, Kansas and Prairie Village, Kansas related to 
city ordinance violations.  
 
 
3 
 
"7. On October 14, 2019, Client G.O. signed a Power of Attorney (POA) to R.W., an 
acquaintance of Client G.O. Client G.O. hoped his acquaintance would help him 
take care of his property while he was incarcerated. This POA to acquaintance R.W. 
included the home address for R.W.  
 
"Respondent's Representation of Client G.O. 
 
"8. In November 2019, Client G.O. retained Respondent to represent him in the felony 
case and on the municipal charges. Respondent is not able to provide the exact date 
he was retained because he did not document the date in his file.  
 
"9. On November 12, 2019, Respondent exchanged emails with the prosecutor for 
Client G.O.'s felony criminal case in Johnston [sic] County. Respondent notes that 
he may be taking on the case for Client G.O. and hopes to get the prosecutor's initial 
assessment of the situation. The prosecutor notes the community is very concerned 
that Client G.O. is dangerous.  
 
"10. On November 19, 2019, Respondent filed an entry of appearance in Client G.O.'s 
felony criminal case; Johnson County District Court 19 CR 1810.  
 
"11. Respondent did not have any written fee agreement with Client G.O. Respondent 
verbalized his hourly billing rate and estimated his legal fees to Client G.O. 
Respondent knew Client G.O. did not have funds to pay a retainer but he did have a 
house, furs, or other assets that could pay Respondent's legal fees. However, 
Respondent did not keep contemporaneous time records that documented his legal 
services. During the course of the disciplinary investigation, Respondent did create 
an estimated time record.  
 
"12. On December 2, 2019, after Client G.O. bonded out of jail, Respondent exchanged 
text messages with G.O. In these text messages, they discussed whether Client G.O. 
is getting ripped off by R.W. serving as POA. Client G.O. was concerned that R.W. 
had taken cars, jewelry, furs, and/or watches from his home while he was 
incarcerated. Client G.O. wanted Respondent to help protect his assets. Additionally, 
 
4 
 
Respondent told Client G.O. that he was sending a person over to get fur coats to 
use as collateral for his legal fees.  
 
"13. In December 2019, Respondent advised Client G.O. to (1) revoke the POA 
previously given to acquaintance R.W. and (2) give POA to Respondent so 
Respondent could protect Client G.O.'s property. Client G.O. followed Respondent's 
advice.  
 
"14. Client G.O. asked Respondent to revoke the Power of Attorney previously given to 
acquaintance R.W. At Respondent's direction, Client G.O. revoked, in writing, the 
Power of Attorney to R.W. Client G.O. crossed out and marked 'Revoked' on the 
signed Power of Attorney to R.W. and wrote a letter confirming that, all dated 
December 14, 2019. Client G.O. directed Respondent to convey that the Power of 
Attorney had been revoked to both acquaintance R.W. and the Mission Police 
Department. 
 
"15. Based on Respondent's advice, Client G.O. gave Power of Attorney to Respondent 
so Respondent could protect his property. On December 14, 2019, Client G.O. wrote 
a handwritten note stating that he gave Respondent durable power of attorney. 
 
"16. On the same date, December 14, 2019, Respondent sent Client G.O. a text that said, 
'There's an Office Max in that shopping center on Johnson Drive . . . and we can 
execute a Limited Power of Attorney so I can protect your assets.' 
 
"17. Between December 16th and 18th, 2019, Respondent exchanged emails with the 
prosecutor for the felony criminal case in Johnston [sic] County. In his emails, 
Respondent noted that his client was selling his house to raise funds to comply with 
court requirements, that his client's business partners robbed him blind, and his 
client is in need of treatment; Respondent asked that the warrant be stayed.  
 
 
5 
 
"18. Respondent's efforts to notify acquaintance R.W. that the POA from Client G.O. had 
been revoked included the following: 
 
"a. Respondent called a telephone number for R.W. on one or more occasions 
to tell him the POA had been revoked; however, these efforts were 
unsuccessful. 
 
"b. Respondent gave City of Mission law enforcement a copy of the revoked 
POA for R.W. to help protect Client G.O.'s property. 
 
"c. Respondent did not take other steps to notify R.W. that Client G.O. had 
revoked the previously granted POA, despite the fact R.W.'s physical 
address was listed on the documents G.O. had given him. 
 
"19. Respondent made no attempt to serve notice of the revoked POA on acquaintance 
R.W. at his home address which was listed on the POA document. 
 
"20. A subsequent attorney for Client G.O. successfully served R.W. with notice that the 
POA from Client G.O. had been revoked. This notice was served on R.W. at his 
home address, which was listed on the POA document that Respondent had in his 
possession.  
 
"21. Between December 20th and 23rd, 2019, Respondent exchanged emails with the 
City of Mission Court Clerk and Mission Police Department. Respondent advised 
City of Mission officials that Client G.O. revoked the Power of Attorney previously 
given to R.W.  
 
"22. On or about December 30, 2019, R.W., using the purported POA that Client G.O. 
had asked Respondent to revoke as part of his representation, signed a quick [sic] 
claim deed for Client G.O.'s home over to another person without the knowledge of 
Client G.O. Client G.O. had to engage in litigation to resolve title and deed issues to 
his home. 
 
 
6 
 
"23. On or about January 9th and 10th, 2020, Respondent helped to facilitate an 
exclusive real estate listing agreement between Client G.O., who was incarcerated at 
the time, and a Real Estate Service with E.D. as the 'Listing Agency'. This document 
has Client G.O.'s signature with a date of January 9, 2020, and the signature of the 
listing agency dated January 10, 2020.  
 
"24. On January 15, 2020, Client G.O. signed a 'General Durable Power of Attorney' for 
Respondent. Client G.O. gave Respondent POA to safeguard assets and to help him 
sell his home so he would have funds to pay his court costs, fines, bond out on his 
felony case, and pay Respondent's attorney fees.  
 
"25. On February 18, 2020, at 9:36 p.m., Respondent sent an email to the prosecutor and 
asked if Client G.O. can plead to 'Criminal Threat.' Criminal threat is a lower-level 
felony charge than the Aggravated Assault that Client G.O. was charged with and is 
not subject to the special rule of presumptive prison due to the firearm. At the time 
of this email, Client G.O. did not want to plead to a felony charge. . . . 
 
"26. On February 19, 2020, the next afternoon, the prosecutor emailed a plea offer to 
Respondent on the felony Johnson County case, 19 CR 1810. The plea offer 
included Client G.O. entering a plea to two counts of Criminal Threat. Later that 
day, Respondent clarified the offer.  
 
"27. On February 20, 2020, Respondent and the prosecutor exchanged several emails, 
including:  
 
"a. February 20, 2020, at 8:05 a.m. an email from the prosecutor clarified the 
possible sentence. 
 
"b. February 20, 2020, at 8:43 a.m. Respondent stated, 'I spoke with him about 
the deal last night . . . and will go to JOCO after my Lenexa date at 1030am 
[sic] . . . and will contact him from the phone at the courthouse . . . will let 
you know ASAP.' 
 
 
7 
 
"28. On February 20, 2020, at 8:19 a.m., the court's administrative assistant emailed the 
parties and asked whether Client G.O.'s case would be a preliminary hearing that 
afternoon.  
 
"a. Respondent replied at 8:47 a.m., 'I informed (Client G.O.) about the plea 
offer that has been extended by the State . . . will come to JOCO . . . after 
my 1030 [sic] in Lenexa, and call him from the phones at the courthouse, 
and get an answer to Judge Cameron and ADA Shannon . . . ASAP . . . .' 
 
"b. Respondent replied at 12:10 p.m., 'Scrap the Prlim (sic) . . . we should be 
able to advance to Plea. I just need to find him as soon as he is transferred 
from Gardner . . . to go over the details . . . see everyone at 3 pm.' 
 
"29. On February 20, 2020, Respondent spoke to Client G.O. prior to the designated 
court hearing time. During this conversation, Client G.O. was in custody, escorted 
by two law enforcement officers, and seated in the jury box waiting for his hearing. 
G.O. was in handcuffs and ankle shackles. The deputies each were equipped with a 
body camera and audio. 
 
"30. On February 20, 2020, Respondent can be seen on the body camera video of an 
officer entering the court room and approaching Client G.O. who is cuffed and 
seated in the jury box.  
 
"a. Respondent placed documents on the jury box railing as he talked to Client 
G.O. about waiving his preliminary hearing and setting a plea date for a plea 
to criminal threat a felony. Client G.O. did not understand or want to waive 
his preliminary hearing and did not want to plead to a felony. 
 
"b. After a period of time, Respondent can be heard using expletives in his 
conversation with Client G.O. and appeared to be frustrated and irritated 
with Client G.O. 
 
"c. Client G.O. can be heard on the video stating in part to Respondent, '. . . you 
should tell me, you work for me, I don't know . . . .' 
 
8 
 
 
"d. Respondent reached over the jury box railing and touched Client G.O. by 
grabbing his shoulder/arm to pull him closer to speak in an aggressive 
fashion. 
 
"e. The interaction between Respondent and his client alarmed officers. One 
officer immediately intervened physically and moved to stand between 
Respondent and Client G.O. to provide a physical barrier to protect Client 
G.O. from Respondent. The officer stated to Respondent, 'No, negative, no, 
step away from him, no, leave, I've had enough, you've cussed him out, 
you're not allowed to touch him, go out to the hallway and cool down.' 
 
"f. This event happened before the judge took the bench. 
 
"31. The officers completed offense reports for the event between Respondent and his 
client. 
 
"a. Respondent was interviewed by officers on February 26, 2020. 
 
"b. Respondent told the officer during the telephone interview that he was 
trying to pull his client forward to discuss sensitive information. 
 
"c. Respondent stated during the interview that he was trying to sell his client's 
house and car. 
 
"d. The officer advised Respondent an offense report charging him with battery 
would be sent to the District Attorney's office. Respondent said, 'If you 
think that I battered my client, then I am guilty of battery.' The officer 
indicated the report would be submitted to the District Attorney's Office for 
their consideration of whether charges should be filed. As of this date, no 
criminal charges have been filed against Respondent. 
 
 
9 
 
"32. Client G.O. was interviewed by S.I. Terry Morgan. During this interview he told S.I. 
Terry Morgan that as he talked to Respondent in the jury box, G.O. told Respondent 
that he worked for him (Client G.O.). Respondent became angry, cursed, and 
grabbed Client G.O.'s shoulder. 
 
"33. Another inmate was sitting in the jury box and observed the conversation between 
Respondent and Client G.O. Inmate T.R. was interviewed by S.I. Terry Morgan. 
 
"34. Inmate T.R. said he heard portions of the conversation and observed Respondent's 
conduct. Inmate T.R. heard Client G.O. say 'You work for me; I don't work for 
you.'; then he heard Respondent say, 'Fuck this' and reached out and grabbed Client 
G.O. 
 
"35. The judge called Client G.O.'s criminal case and noted the Court understood that 
Client G.O. was waiving his preliminary hearing. Respondent told the Court that 
Client G.O. did not wish to waive; and because the State had called off their 
witnesses on Respondent's representation that G.O. wanted to waive his right to a 
preliminary hearing, the matter was continued. The Court noted that an hour had 
been set aside for a preliminary hearing. 
 
"36. Immediately after the hearing, Deputies who observed Respondent's conduct with 
Client G.O. advised the judge about the events that happened in the court room. The 
Court recalled Client G.O.'s case, removed Respondent as counsel and appointed the 
public defender. 
 
"37. Respondent was interviewed by an investigator for the ODA.  
 
"38. Respondent asserted during his interview that he did explain Constitutional rights, 
the effects of waiver of preliminary hearing, and consequences of pleas to Client 
G.O.; however, Respondent does not have any contemporaneous notes in his file 
reflecting these communications. 
 
 
10 
 
"39. Client G.O. had asked Respondent to sell four fur coats to try to raise money to help 
him post his bond. Respondent was not able to sell the fur coats for Client G.O. and 
did return to G.O. the four fur coats, a brief case and paperwork that constituted all 
of the property G.O. placed in his possession. 
 
"Conclusions of Law:  Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent 
violated the following Supreme Court Rules and Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. 
Respondent engaged in misconduct as follows: 
 
"40. KRPC 1.2 (Scope)—Respondent failed to clearly define his scope of representation 
particularly with what his obligations were with the Power of Attorney G.O. granted 
him. Respondent contacted the police department to advise them that a previous 
Power of Attorney G.O. had granted to R.W. had been revoked, but Respondent did 
not communicate that to R.W. G.O. believed Respondent was retained to convey the 
Revocation of the POA to R.W. and expected Respondent to do that. There was no 
written agreement clarifying Respondent's Scope of Representation. 
 
"41. KRPC 1.3 (Diligence)—Respondent failed to make adequate efforts to convey his 
client G.O.'s revocation of the Power of Attorney to R.W. Respondent did not serve 
or attempt to serve R.W. with the Revocation despite having his address. After 
advising Client G.O. to give POA to Respondent, Respondent did not take adequate 
steps to protect his client's assets. Respondent was aware Client G.O. was 
unsophisticated and did not document his communication to his client on important 
rights, or explain issues related to granting POA to Respondent. 
 
"42. KRPC 8.4(d) (Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)—By engaging in 
unprofessional interaction with client in the jury box prior to a hearing including use 
of profanity and aggressive physical contact, Respondent caused the Court to 
remove him from the case and appoint another lawyer. Respondent's actions 
necessitated unduly delaying the proceedings further and delayed the resolution for 
the client who was in custody at the time. 
 
"43. KRPC 8.4(g) (Conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice 
law)—By engaging in unprofessional interaction with client in the jury box prior to 
 
11 
 
a hearing including use of profanity and aggressive physical contact, Respondent 
caused law enforcement officers to intercede, and his conduct was observed by 
another inmate. 
 
"Applicable Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances: 
 
"44. Aggravating circumstances include: 
 
"a. Prior disciplinary offenses, including: 
 
"i. 
DA 8,718:  2003 Informal Admonition for violation of Rule 8.4 
(Misconduct). Respondent was administratively suspended for 
failure to pay his registration fee. During that time, he entered pleas 
on behalf of two (2) clients. Both pleas had to be set aside when the 
judges realized that Respondent was suspended. 
 
"ii. DA 9,894:  2008 Diversion for violation of Rule 1.1 (Competence). 
Respondent's client was charged with three (3) counts of aggravated 
robbery and was convicted on all three (3) counts. Respondent filed 
a motion for a new trial based on his ineffective assistance of 
counsel; noting that he failed to object to jury instructions, was not 
prepared for trial, was deficient in not filing pretrial motions. 
 
"iii. DA 13,272:  2019 Informal Admonition for violation of Rule 
1.7(a)(2) (Conflict, current client) and 1.8(b) (Conflict, special 
rules). Respondent represented a mother in a criminal case where 
she was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors. 
Respondent's client struggled with substance abuse issues. 
Subsequently, Respondent filed a petition for Third Party Custody 
of his client's child; Respondent was seeking custody of his client's 
child because Respondent had a long-term relationship with the 
child. Respondent cited to his client's substance abuse struggles as 
part of the grounds for intervention. 
 
 
12 
 
"b. A pattern of misconduct—Respondent has previously been disciplined for 
his conduct in criminal cases. In this case, Respondent's lack of diligence 
created misunderstandings by his client and culminated in Respondent's 
aggressive physical and verbal conduct in the jury box. 
 
"c. Multiple offenses—Respondent violated KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 8.4(d) and 8.4(g). 
 
"d. Vulnerability of victim:  Client G.O. was incarcerated and unsophisticated. 
Client G.O. trusted Respondent to effectuate revoking the POA for 
acquaintance R.W. Respondent's limited efforts of attempting to call R.W. 
and failure to make attempts to serve R.W. or attached a notice his POA had 
been revoked extended R.W.'s ability to take advantage of Client G.O. 
Client G.O. followed Respondent's advice and gave Respondent general 
POA to protect his assets while incarcerated but Respondent did not take 
steps to protect Client G.O.'s assets while he was incarcerated. 
 
"e. Substantial experience in the practice of law—Respondent was admitted to 
practice law in Kansas in 2000 and has substantial experience in the practice 
of law. 
 
"45. Mitigating circumstances include: 
 
"a. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive—Respondent's actions appear to 
have been motivated from a genuine desire to help a client who was in 
custody and unable to help himself at the time Respondent's estimated fees 
were modest. He performed legal work prior to receiving any payment. 
Ultimately, when Respondent was removed from the felony case, he did not 
submit an invoice to Client G.O. for legal services or request payment for 
any of his time. Respondent did not exhibit any dishonesty during the 
violations or the subsequent investigation. 
 
"b. Cooperation during the investigation and full and free acknowledgement of 
the transgressions. Respondent submitted to interviews and provided 
information in a timely manner whenever requested. 
 
13 
 
 
"c. Good character and reputation in the community. Respondent submitted 
character letters from attorneys and other clients attesting to his character. 
 
"d. Remorse. Respondent exhibited genuine remorse for his conduct before and 
during the investigation. Respondent wrote a letter of apology to the judge 
in G.O.'s case and completed that. 
 
. . . . 
 
"Recommendations for Discipline: 
 
"48. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend Respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law in the State of Kansas for one year; that the imposition of this 
suspension from the practice of law be stayed and Respondent be placed on 
probation according to the terms in Respondent's Exhibit C for a period of eighteen 
months (18) months or as directed by the Supreme Court. 
 
"49. Respondent waives his right to a hearing on the formal complaint as provided in 
Supreme Court Rule 222(c). 
 
"50. Petitioner and Respondent agree that no exceptions to the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law will be taken. 
 
"51. The complainant in this matter is Judge Cameron. Notice of the Summary 
Submission will be provided to the complainant and given 21 days to provide the 
disciplinary administrator with their position regarding the agreement as provided in 
Supreme Court Rule 223(d). 
 
"52. Respondent understands and agrees that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 223(f), this 
Summary Submission Agreement is advisory only and does not prevent the Supreme 
Court from making its own conclusions regarding rule violations or imposing 
discipline greater or lesser than the parties' recommendation. 
 
 
14 
 
"53. Respondent also understands and agrees that after entering into this Summary 
Submission Agreement he will be required to appear before the Kansas Supreme 
Court for oral argument under Supreme Court Rule 228(i)." 
 
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, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 
375 (2011); see also Kansas Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
281) (a misconduct finding must be established by clear and convincing evidence). "Clear 
and convincing evidence is 'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth 
of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 
(2009).  
 
The Disciplinary Administrator provided Whinery with adequate notice of the 
formal complaint. The Disciplinary Administrator also provided Whinery with adequate 
notice of the hearing before the panel. The parties agreed to waive the hearing on the 
formal complaint, and Whinery made a statement that if the summary submission was 
approved, the parties will not take exceptions to the findings of fact or conclusions of 
law. Under Rule 223(b), a summary submission agreement is: 
 
"[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent to proceed by 
summary submission must be in writing and contain the following: 
 
"(1) an admission that the respondent engaged in the misconduct; 
 
"(2) a stipulation as to the following:   
 
 
15 
 
(A) the contents of the record;  
(B) findings of fact; 
(C) and conclusions of law, including each violation of the Kansas Rules 
of Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to Discipline of 
Attorneys, or the attorney's oath of office; and  
(D) any applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. 
 
"(3) a recommendation for discipline; 
 
"(4) a waiver of the hearing on the formal complaint; and 
 
"(5) a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or 
conclusions of law will be taken." Rule 223(b) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 278). 
 
The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission 
and canceled a hearing under Rule 223(e)(2). As a result, the factual findings in the 
summary submission are admitted. See Kansas Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2022 
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 288) ("If the respondent files a statement . . . that the respondent will not 
file an exception . . . , the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final hearing 
report will be deemed admitted by the respondent."). 
 
When signed by the parties, the written summary submission agreement contained 
all the information required by Rule 223. The summary submission and the parties' 
stipulations before us establish by clear and convincing evidence the charged conduct 
violated KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 8.4(d), and 8.4(g). We adopt the findings and conclusions set 
forth by the parties in the summary submission and at oral argument. A minority of the 
court, after reviewing the body camera footage, would find that the undisputed evidence 
does not establish a violation of KRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(g). 
 
 
16 
 
The remaining issue is deciding the appropriate discipline. The parties jointly 
recommend that Whinery be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for 
one year and that the imposition of this suspension be stayed and Whinery be placed on 
probation according to the terms of "Respondent's Exhibit C" for a period of 18 months. 
We adopt and impose the jointly recommended discipline. A minority of the court would 
impose a lesser discipline. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that David S. Whinery is, effective the date of this 
opinion, suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for one year; and that 
this suspension is stayed and Whinery is on probation according to the terms of 
"Respondent's Exhibit C" for a period of 18 months for violations of KRPC 1.2, 1.3, 
8.4(d), and 8.4(g). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.