Title: In re Works   Per Curiam   Two-year suspension video

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 117,607 
 
In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 17, 2017. Two-year suspension, 
stayed pending successful completion of a three-year period of probation. 
 
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Michael R. Serra, Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Matthew B. 
Works, 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, Matthew B. Works, of Topeka, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1982. 
 
 
On August 14, 2015, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). On September 28, 2015, the respondent filed a motion for additional 
time to file an answer and a motion to continue the hearing; both motions were granted 
by the hearing panel. An amended formal complaint was filed October 7, 2015. The 
respondent filed an answer on October 29, 2015, admitting all facts and rule violations. A 
proposed probation plan was filed on January 7, 2016. A Joint Stipulation was filed on 
February 16, 2017. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas 
2 
 
 
 
Board for Discipline of Attorneys on February 22, 2017, where the respondent was 
personally present and represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that 
respondent violated KRPC 1.2(c) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 288) (scope of representation); 1.3 
(2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 290) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 291) (communication); 
1.16(d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 331) (termination of representation); and 3.2 (2017 Kan. S. 
Ct. R. 341) (expediting litigation). 
 
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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
"Representation of Y.P. 
 
 
"12. 
On February 8, 2011, Y.P. filed a pro se notice of appeal and request for 
appointment of counsel. On April 26, 2011, the court appointed the respondent to 
represent Y.P. in the appeal. The respondent did not file a docketing statement as 
required by Rule 2.04 or take any other action. Because the appeal was not docketed, the 
case languished in the court system. Nearly 2 years later, on March 26, 2013, the court 
dismissed the case. Throughout that period of time, the respondent remained as counsel 
of record for Y.P. 
 
 
"13. 
On January 18, 2013, Y.P. filed a complaint against the respondent. 
During the investigation, the respondent asserted that because the appeal lacked merit, he 
took no action to docket the appeal. The respondent also asserted that he informed Y.P. 
that her appeal had no merit. Despite the respondent's conclusion that the appeal lacked 
merit, he failed to [move] to dismiss or withdraw from the representation. 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
"Representation of J.R. 
 
 
"14. 
In early 2012, J.R. faced multiple felony charges in two separate criminal 
cases in Shawnee County, Kansas. On March 29, 2012, the respondent entered his 
appearance on behalf of J.R. With J.R.'s permission, the respondent entered into plea 
negotiations, on behalf of J.R., in the two cases. The respondent informed J.R. that the 
maximum possible prison sentence he could serve would be 60 months. On August 22, 
2012, J.R. entered the pleas as agreed. 
 
 
"15. 
After the plea hearing, J.R. learned that he faced a substantially longer 
prison sentence. Additionally, J.R. believed that the judge may be biased against him 
based on a previous experience J.R.'s grandparents had with the judge. J.R. 
communicated his concern about the judge to the respondent. The respondent told J.R. 
that the alleged bias was not worth raising. 
 
 
"16. 
The court scheduled sentencing for December 7, 2012. At sentencing, the 
judge ordered J.R. to serve a controlling sentence of 46 months in prison for each case. 
The judge further ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of 
92 months. 
 
 
"17. 
J.R. instructed the respondent to file an appeal on his behalf. The 
respondent filed notices of appeal in each case on December 10, 2012. After filing the 
notices of appeal, the respondent failed to docket the appeal. Additionally, the respondent 
failed to withdraw from the representation. 
 
 
"18. 
Following J.R.'s sentencing hearing, J.R. wrote many letters to the 
district court seeking information. The letters were forwarded to the respondent, as he 
remained as attorney of record. The respondent did not explain to J.R. the necessary next 
steps to perfect the appeal. 
 
 
"19. 
Nothing happened on J.R.'s appeal for 2 years. 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
"20. 
On September 15, 2014, J.R. completed a poverty affidavit, requesting 
appellate counsel. On September 25, 2014, the district court appointed appellate counsel 
for J.R. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"21. 
Based upon the findings of fact and the joint stipulation entered by the 
parties, the hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 
1.2, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.16, and KRPC 3.2, as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.2 
 
 
"22. 
A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation provided that the 
limitation is reasonable [and] the client gives written informed consent to the limitation. 
KRPC 1.2(c). In this case, the respondent violated KRPC 1.2(c) by limiting the scope of 
the representation to representing J.R. before the district court without first obtaining 
J.R.'s written consent to the limitation. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 1.2(c). 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
 
"23. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent Y.P. and J.R. The court appointed the respondent to represent Y.P. in 
her appeal. After reviewing the matter, the respondent determined that the appeal had no 
merit. After reaching that conclusion, however, the respondent failed to take any action to 
dismiss the appeal. The respondent's failure to take action, caused the case to remain 
pending for 2 years. 
 
 
"24. 
The respondent also failed to diligently represent J.R. In that case, the 
respondent filed notices of appeal on behalf of J.R., however, he failed to docket the 
appeals or withdraw from the representation. The respondent's inaction led to a 2-year 
delay in J.R.'s appeal. 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
"25. 
Because the respondent failed to represent his clients with diligence and 
promptness, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3 in 
representing Y.P. and J.R. 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
 
"26. 
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 respond 
to J.R.'s letters and keep J.R. informed about the status of the appeal following the filing 
of the notices of appeal. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
"KRPC 1.16 
 
 
"27. 
KRPC 1.16 governs a lawyer's responsibilities with regard to terminating 
the representation. Specifically, KRPC 1.16, provides in pertinent part, as follows: 
 
'(a) 
Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a 
client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the 
representation of a client if . . . 
 
(1) 
the representation will result in violation of the rules of 
professional conduct or other law; 
 
(2) 
the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the 
lawyer's ability to represent the client; 
 
(3) 
the lawyer is discharged; or 
 
6 
 
 
 
(4) 
the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's 
services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or 
fraudulent. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
'(d) 
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.' 
 
 
"28. 
After the respondent concluded that Y.P.'s appeal lacked merit, under 
KRPC 1.16(a)(1), he should have withdrawn from the representation. The hearing panel 
concludes that because the respondent failed to withdraw, he violated KRPC 1.16(a). 
 
 
"29. 
After J.R. was sentenced, the respondent filed notices of appeal in the 
two criminal cases. However, the respondent failed to inform J.R. that he needed to have 
appellate counsel appointed and that in order to have appellate counsel appointed, J.R. 
needed to complete a poverty affidavit. By failing to fully inform J.R. about the necessary 
steps to take, the respondent failed to adequately protect J.R.'s rights, in violation of 
KRPC 1.16(d). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.16(d). 
 
"KRPC 3.2 
 
 
"30. 
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 Y.P.'s case and J.R.'s case by failing to take any action. As a direct 
result of the respondent's inaction, both appellate cases were delayed by 2 years. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 3.2. 
7 
 
 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"31. 
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. 
 
 
"32. 
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. 
 
 
"33. 
Mental State. The respondent negligently violated his duties. 
 
 
"34. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual and potential injury. 
 
 
"35. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any 
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, 
found the following aggravating factors present: 
 
a. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on five occasions. 
 
1) 
On November 23, 1993, in B5722, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for violating MRPC 1.4(a) and 
MRPC 1.5(d). (At that time, the rules were known as the Model Rules of 
Professional Conduct.) 
 
8 
 
 
 
2) 
On September 22, 1998, in A7127, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for having violated MRPC 1.4. 
 
3) 
On April 7, 2000, in DA7301, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for having violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
4) 
On April 19, 2002, the Kansas Supreme Court placed the 
respondent on supervised probation for a period of 18 months, for having 
violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, and KRPC 3.4. On December 
4, 2003, the court discharged the respondent from probation. 
 
5) 
On January 20, 2004, in DA8870, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for having violated KRPC 1.4 and 
KRPC 1.15. 
 
b. 
Multiple Offenses. In this case, the respondent committed 
multiple rule violations. The respondent violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, 
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.16, and KRPC 3.2. Accordingly, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
c. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas 
Supreme Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of 
Kansas in 1982. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent had been 
practicing law for more than 30 years. 
 
 
"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: 
 
a. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's 
misconduct does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or 
selfishness. 
9 
 
 
 
 
b. 
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. Additionally, 
during the relevant time period, the respondent's house burned and his 
dogs perished in the fire. The respondent has struggled with repairing 
and rebuilding his home. It is clear that the respondent's depression and 
personal difficulties contributed to his misconduct. 
 
c. 
The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His 
or Her Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free 
Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. The respondent fully cooperated 
with the disciplinary process. Additionally, the respondent admitted the 
facts that gave rise to the violations. 
 
d. 
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 Topeka, Kansas. The 
respondent also enjoys the respect of his peers and generally possesses a 
good character and reputation as evidenced by several letters received by 
the hearing panel. 
 
e. 
Mental Disability or Chemical Dependency Including 
Alcoholism or Drug Abuse When: (1) There Is Medical Evidence That 
the Respondent Is Affected by a Chemical Dependency or Mental 
Disability; (2) the Chemical Dependency or Mental Disability Caused 
the Misconduct; (3) the Respondent's Recovery from the Chemical 
Dependency or Mental Disability Is Demonstrated by a Meaningful and 
Sustained Period of Successful Rehabilitation; and (4) the Recovery 
Arrested the Misconduct and Recurrence of That Misconduct Is 
Unlikely. The respondent suffers from major depressive disorder. From 
the evidence presented, it is clear that the respondent's depression 
10 
 
 
 
contributed to the misconduct. The respondent has been in treatment for 
his depression for some time. The respondent has demonstrated a 
meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation. Finally, it 
appears that the respondent's treatment for his depression has arrested the 
misconduct and recurrence of the misconduct is unlikely, provided the 
respondent remains compliant with this treatment plan. 
 
f. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed 
genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
g. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The discipline imposed in 1993, 
1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 is remote in time to the misconduct in this 
case. 
 
 
"37. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.42 
Suspension is generally appropriate when . . . (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. 
 
 . . . . 
 
'4.63 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 
fails to provide a client with accurate or complete information, 
and causes injury or potential injury to the client.' 
 
 
 
11 
 
 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"38. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
placed on probation subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed plan, with an 
underlying period of suspension of 18 months to 2 years. The respondent requested that 
he be allowed to continue to practice law subject to the terms and conditions in the 
proposed plan of probation. The respondent acknowledged that in order to be granted 
probation, an underlying suspension must be included. The respondent did not make a 
recommendation as to the length of the underlying suspension. 
 
 
"39. 
When a respondent requests probation, the hearing panel is required to 
consider Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g)(3), which provides: 
 
'(3) 
The Hearing Panel shall not recommend that the Respondent be 
placed on probation unless: 
 
(i) 
the Respondent develops a workable, substantial, and detailed 
plan of probation and provides a copy of the proposed plan of 
probation to the Disciplinary Administrator and each member of 
the Hearing Panel at least fourteen days prior to the hearing on 
the Formal Complaint; 
 
(ii) 
the Respondent puts the proposed plan of probation into effect 
prior to the hearing on the Formal Complaint by complying with 
each of the terms and conditions of the probation plan; 
 
(iii) 
the misconduct can be corrected by probation; and 
 
(iv) 
placing the Respondent on probation is in the best interests of the 
legal profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas.' 
 
 
"40. 
The respondent developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of 
probation. The respondent provided a copy of the proposed plan of probation to the 
12 
 
 
 
disciplinary administrator and each member of the hearing panel at least 14 days prior to 
the hearing on the formal complaint. The respondent put the proposed plan of probation 
into effect prior to the hearing on the formal complaint by complying with each of the 
terms and conditions of the probation plan. The misconduct, in this case, can be 
corrected by probation. Thus, the respondent has established each of the first three 
requirements in order for the hearing panel to recommend that he be placed on 
probation. 
 
 
"41. 
The final factor, whether placing the respondent on probation is in the 
best interests of the legal profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas requires a 
close look at the respondent, his misconduct, and his past. While the respondent's 
extensive disciplinary history and the serious nature of the misconduct in this case 
support a period of suspension from the practice of law, the hearing panel is impressed 
with the progress that the respondent has made to date. He has regularly met with his 
KALAP monitor, the KALAP staff, his psychiatrist, and his psychologist. The written 
reports from these treatment providers all support the respondent's continued practice 
subject to the terms and conditions in the proposed plan of probation. 
 
 
"42. 
The respondent has the support of his treatment providers and his peers, 
including his KALAP monitor and practice supervisor. With this support in place, the 
hearing panel concludes that placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of 
the legal profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas. According to his peers, the 
respondent does good work for his clients and is a valued member of the bar of Topeka, 
Kansas. As such, the hearing panel recommends that the respondent be placed on 
probation. Thus, based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ABA standards, 
the hearing panel recommends that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law 
for a period of 2 years and that the imposition of the suspension be suspended and the 
respondent be placed on probation for a period of 3 years, subject to the following terms 
and conditions: 
 
a. 
Inventory of Cases and Clients. The respondent shall maintain a 
written inventory of all engagements by client's name. The respondent 
shall update the inventory on a daily basis. The inventory shall include 
13 
 
 
 
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. 
 
b. 
Practice Supervision. Jason Hoffman shall serve as the 
respondent's practice supervisor. The practice supervisor shall be acting 
as an officer and an agent of the court while supervising the probation 
and monitoring the respondent's legal practice. The practice supervisor 
shall be afforded all immunities granted by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223 during 
the course of supervising the respondent's probation. The respondent 
shall allow the practice supervisor access to his client files, calendar, and 
trust account records. The respondent shall comply with any requests 
made by the practice supervisor. 
 
c. 
Audits. Within 30 days of the date of this report, the practice 
supervisor shall conduct an initial audit of the respondent's files. 
Thereafter, every 6 months, the practice supervisor shall conduct 
additional audits. If the practice supervisor discovers any violations of 
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the practice supervisor shall 
include such information in the audit reports. The practice supervisor 
shall provide the disciplinary administrator and the respondent with a 
copy of each audit report. The respondent shall follow all 
recommendations and correct all deficiencies noted in the practice 
supervisor's periodic audit reports. 
 
d. 
Meetings. During the first 18 months of probation, the 
respondent shall meet with the practice supervisor in person on a weekly 
basis. For the final 18 months of probation, the respondent shall meet 
with the practice supervisor in person on a monthly basis, unless in the 
practice supervisor's opinion, the meetings should occur more frequently. 
The respondent shall provide the practice supervisor with an updated 
copy of the written inventory during each meeting. During the meetings, 
the respondent shall discuss a plan of action on each case with the 
14 
 
 
 
practice supervisor. The respondent and the practice supervisor shall 
review the respondent's schedule for the upcoming week (or later, 
month) to determine that notices have been sent to all clients and other 
appropriate parties, that the respondent is adequately prepared, that the 
respondent is in compliance with all requirements of probation, and that 
all files have been properly updated. 
 
e. 
Monthly Reports. The practice supervisor shall provide monthly 
reports to the disciplinary administrator regarding the respondent's 
compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. 
 
f. 
Office Procedures. The respondent shall work with the practice 
supervisor to develop written office procedures. The written office 
procedures shall cover billing, calendaring, and communication. The 
respondent shall also work with the practice supervisor to develop form 
letters to send to clients for regular occurring events. If, at any time 
during the period of probation, the practice supervisor recommends 
changes or additions to the written office procedures or form letters, the 
respondent shall immediately implement the changes. The practice 
supervisor shall detail the changes or additions recommended to the 
respondent in his monthly report to the disciplinary administrator. The 
respondent shall follow the written office procedures and utilize the form 
letters. 
 
g. 
Office Assistance. The hearing panel recommends that the 
respondent employ office staff, on at least a part-time basis. 
 
h. 
Client Communication. The respondent shall respond to 
telephone calls, email messages, and letters within 2 business days of 
receipt of the client contact. The respondent shall provide a copy of 
documents to clients within 5 business days of receipt. On a quarterly 
basis, the respondent shall provide each client a detailed status report of 
the representation. 
15 
 
 
 
 
i. 
Psychological Treatment. The respondent shall continue his 
treatment for depression throughout the period of supervised probation, 
unless his treatment providers determine that continued treatment is no 
longer necessary. The respondent shall follow the treatment providers' 
advice regarding medication. The treatment providers shall 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 shall provide 
the treatment providers with appropriate releases of information to allow 
the treatment providers to provide such information to the practice 
supervisor and the disciplinary administrator. 
 
j. 
KALAP Agreement. The respondent shall continue to comply 
with the monitoring agreement entered into with KALAP. The 
respondent shall meet with his KALAP monitor as detailed in the 
agreement. The respondent shall attend the KALAP resiliency group 
throughout the period of probation. 
 
k. 
Continued Cooperation. The respondent shall continue to 
cooperate with the disciplinary administrator. If the disciplinary 
administrator requests any additional information, the respondent shall 
timely provide such information. 
 
l. 
Additional Violations. The respondent shall 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 shall 
immediately report such violation to the practice supervisor and the 
disciplinary administrator, as required by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g). The 
disciplinary administrator shall take immediate action directing the 
respondent to show cause why the probation should not be revoked. 
16 
 
 
 
 
 
"43. 
The hearing panel recommends that the costs be assessed against the 
respondent in an amount to be certified by 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, the discipline that should be imposed. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). Clear 
and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth 
of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 
(2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). 
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the amended formal complaint, to which 
he filed an answer, and adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing 
before this court. Consistent with his admissions in his answer and the Joint Stipulation, 
the respondent did not file exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. As such, 
the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2017 Kan. S. 
Ct. R. 255). Furthermore, the evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and 
convincing evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.2(c) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
288) (scope of representation); 1.3 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 290) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2017 
Kan. S. Ct. R. 291) (communication); 1.16(d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 331) (termination of 
representation); and 3.2 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 341) (expediting litigation), and it supports 
the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's conclusions. 
 
17 
 
 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the panel hearing, at which the respondent appeared, the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator recommended that respondent be placed on probation subject 
to the terms and conditions of the proposed probation plan for a period of 18 months to 2 
years. The respondent requested that he be allowed to continue to practice law, subject to 
the terms and conditions in the proposed plan of probation; he also acknowledged that a 
period of suspension might be required. The hearing panel recommended that respondent 
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, that the imposition of 
the suspension be suspended, and that respondent be placed on probation for a period of 
three years subject to the terms and conditions listed in paragraph 42, subparagraphs a-l, 
in the final hearing report. 
 
At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator and the respondent both recommended that respondent be 
suspended for two years and that imposition of the suspension be stayed for three years 
pending respondent's successful service of probation governed by the terms and 
conditions set forth in the final hearing report. A majority of the court agrees with that 
recommendation. A minority of the court would impose a harsher sanction, including 
some period of immediate suspension.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Matthew B. Works be and is hereby disciplined 
by suspension for two years, stayed for three years pending respondent's successful 
service of probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth, in the final hearing 
report, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2), (a)(5) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
234) and Supreme Court Rule 211(g) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). 
 
18 
 
 
 
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. 
 
 
LUCKERT and ROSEN, JJ., not participating. 
MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.1 
JOHN J. KISNER, JR., District Judge, assigned.2 
 
                                                 
 
 
1 REPORTER'S NOTE:  Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 117,607 
vice Justice Luckert under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616. 
 
2 REPORTER'S NOTE:  District Judge Kisner was appointed to hear case No. 117,607 
vice Justice Rosen under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by art. 3, § 6(f) of the 
Kansas Constitution.