Title: In re Maughan

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 127,196 
 
In the Matter of CARL F.A. MAUGHAN, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held May 10, 2024. Opinion filed June 14, 2024. 
One-year suspension.  
 
Alice L. Walker, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Gayle B. Larkin, Disciplinary 
Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
No appearance by respondent. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an original attorney discipline proceeding against the 
respondent, Carl F.A. Maughan, of Wichita, an attorney admitted to practice law in 
Kansas in September 1997. 
 
On October 6, 2023, the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) filed a 
formal complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct (KRPC). On that same day, the ODA filed a notice of hearing 
advising the respondent that a hearing on the formal complaint was scheduled for 
December 7, 2023.  
 
On October 27, 2023, the respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint. On 
November 23, 2023, the respondent filed a proposed probation plan.   
2 
 
 
 
 
On December 7, 2023, a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys 
held the hearing on the formal complaint. The respondent appeared pro se. At the 
beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the panel of their stipulation to the facts 
alleged in the complaint and that, based on those facts, the respondent's conduct violated 
KRPC 1.7 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 342) (shall not represent a client if the representation 
involves a concurrent conflict of interest), KRPC 1.8 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 350) (shall 
not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, 
possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to client), KRPC 1.15 (2023 
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 372) (shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's 
possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property), 
and KRPC 8.4(d) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 433) (engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice). As a result of the stipulation, the panel received evidence to 
consider aggravating and mitigating factors to assist in making recommendations for 
discipline. The panel set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with its 
recommendation on disposition, in a final hearing report, the relevant portions of which 
are set forth below. 
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
. . . . 
 
"2016-CR-001428 Criminal Case 
 
"10. 
On May 6, 2016, a vehicle occupied by B.B. and T.A. struck another 
vehicle, killing two occupants and seriously injuring the other occupants. B.B. was 
charged in Sedgwick County District Court criminal case number 2016-CR-001428 with 
two counts of involuntary manslaughter, severity level four felonies; three counts of 
aggravated battery, severity level five felonies; one count of aggravated battery, a 
3 
 
 
 
 
severity level eight felony; and one count of driving while license is suspended, a class B 
nonperson misdemeanor. 
 
 
"11. 
T.A. was injured in the crash and identified as a victim in the criminal 
complaint. 
 
 
"12. 
After the May 6, 2016, crash, T.A. and her husband, G.A., contacted the 
respondent and offered to pay the respondent to represent B.B. in 2016-CR-001428. 
 
 
"13. 
The respondent agreed to represent B.B., and G.A. paid the respondent a 
flat fee of $30,000.00. The respondent deposited the payment directly into his operating 
account, not his trust account. 
 
 
"14. 
When the respondent's representation of B.B. began in May 2016, the 
respondent also represented T.A. On April 11, 2016, T.A. hired the respondent to 
represent her in a Sedgwick County traffic case. That representation concluded on 
February 16, 2017. The respondent had also represented T.A. in previous criminal cases. 
 
 
"15. 
On May 20, 2016, a first appearance was held in the 2016-CR-001428 
matter. Sean Hatfield, an associate with the respondent's firm at the time, observed the 
first appearance but did not enter his appearance. 
 
 
"16. 
On May 23, 2016, the respondent and Mr. Hatfield were listed in the 
court's records as attorneys for B.B. in the criminal matter. That same day, Mr. Hatfield 
entered an appearance on B.B.'s behalf. The respondent filed an entry of appearance on 
B.B.'s behalf on September 20, 2016. Although the respondent's entry of appearance was 
filed much later, he was the attorney who primarily handled the representation of B.B. 
from May 2016 forward. 
 
 
"17. 
On October 5, 2016, a preliminary hearing was held. At the beginning of 
the hearing, the State notified the district court that at the conclusion of the presentation 
of evidence, the State planned to ask the court to bind B.B. over on the crimes charged, 
4 
 
 
 
 
and, if the evidence established probable cause, two alternative counts of second-degree 
reckless murder, severity level two person felonies. 
 
 
"18. 
T.A. testified for the State during the preliminary hearing, identifying 
B.B. as the driver of the vehicle that caused the crash. 
 
 
"19. 
During the preliminary hearing, the respondent argued that the State's 
charges against B.B. should be dismissed because T.A. was driving the vehicle when the 
crash occurred. 
 
 
"20. 
The district court authorized the State to file the new second-degree 
reckless murder charges, found probable cause, and ultimately set the case for trial. 
 
 
 
"21. 
On May 5, 2017, a motion hearing was held, during which the 
respondent disclosed to the district court his previous representation of T.A. The 
respondent said that he had signed waivers from both T.A. and B.B. The court 
encouraged the respondent to file the waivers; however, the respondent did not do so. 
 
 
"22. 
During the motion hearing, the respondent moved to suppress T.A.'s 
testimony. The respondent stated, '[e]ven through [sic] I have a written waiver and I don't 
represent her—I have represented her in the past. I felt sort of residual, needed [sic] to 
kind of protect her.' The motion to suppress was denied. 
 
 
"23. 
During the disciplinary hearing, the respondent testified that T.A. was in 
the courtroom when he made that statement to the district court. The respondent testified 
that he made the above statement during the motion hearing to send a signal and to 
encourage T.A. to seek counsel for advice on asserting her Fifth Amendment right not to 
testify in the proceeding. The respondent said he believed it would be to both B.B.'s and 
T.A.'s benefit if T.A.'s testimony was suppressed. 
 
 
 
"24. 
T.A. did ultimately testify during the jury trial. The respondent said 
during the disciplinary hearing that he thoroughly cross-examined T.A. and did not hold 
5 
 
 
 
 
back during cross-examination because T.A. was a former client. 
 
 
"25. 
B.B. testified at the jury trial that he had pulled the vehicle over and 
moved to the backseat of the car prior to the crash. B.B. further testified that while he was 
in the backseat, he felt the car accelerate and assumed T.A. had moved into the driver's 
seat. 
 
 
"26. 
B.B. was found guilty of all counts and sentenced to 728 months in 
prison and 6 months in jail. 
 
 
"27. 
B.B. appealed the conviction. During the appeal, B.B. moved to stay 
appellate briefing and remand the matter to the district court for a Van Cleave hearing to 
determine if the respondent provided ineffective representation based on the conflict of 
interest. The Court of Appeals granted the motion. 
 
"Van Cleave Proceeding and Client Waivers 
 
 
"28. 
The Van Cleave hearing was held on June 13, 2019. The issue of client 
waivers came up during the Van Cleave hearing. 
 
 
"29. 
During the disciplinary investigation, the respondent provided his 
computer file for the B.B. case to the disciplinary administrator's office. A document 
titled '2017_01_25_waiver of conflict_[B.B.]' was found in the respondent's file. This 
document was a waiver signed b[y] T.A. on September 21, 2026, which stated: 
 
'I, [T.A.], am a former client of the Maughan law group and a potential witness in 
the above captioned case. I am aware that the above named defendant is being 
represented by the Maughan Law Group. I am aware that this creates a potential 
for a conflict of interests and have been fully apprised of the nature of the 
potential conflict of interest. Specifically, I have been advised that if I cam [sic] 
called as a witness in the above captioned case the Maughan Law Group will 
have an obligation to represent the best interests of the defendant and that the 
6 
 
 
 
 
interests of the defendant in this case may conflict with my personal interests. 
Being fully aware of the nature of this conflict and having been advised that I 
have a right to seek independent counsel for advice on this matter, I hereby waive 
any potential conflict of interest arising from the Maughan Law Group's 
representation of [B.B.] and me.' 
 
 
"30. 
In his file, the respondent also had a draft document titled 
'2016_05_23_Client Consent to 3rd Party Payment,' which included B.B[.]'s name and 
reference to the 2016-CR-001428 case. This document was unsigned. 
 
 
"31. 
Further, there was a draft in the respondent's file titled '2016_05_23_new 
engagement letter FLAT FEE_1,' which included B.B.'s name and reference to the 2016-
CR-001428 case. This document was also unsigned. 
 
 
"32. 
The engagement letter stated that the flat fee of $30,000.00 was 
considered a minimum fee and was earned immediately upon undertaking the 
representation. The letter further advised B.B. that G.A. and T.A. had agreed to pay the 
$30,000.00 retainer on B.B.'s behalf. 
 
 
"33. 
Finally, there was a draft document titled '2016_05_23+Third party fee 
agreement ltr,' which included G.A. and T.A.'s names and referenced B.B. and the 2016-
CR-001428 case. This document was not signed. 
 
 
"34. 
In his response to the initial complaint, the respondent described his 
defense strategy and acknowledged that it created a conflict of interest between his 
representation of B.B. and T.A. The respondent described the defense strategy as: 
 
 
'[T]he only alternative explanation was to suggest that [T.A.] May [sic] have 
been driving. Such a suggestion is inherently adverse to [T.A.]. It is also adverse 
to [T.A.] as it would require, the use of my past representation of her 
(specifically on prior DUI and other traffic cases) in order to help bolster the 
7 
 
 
 
 
defense and suggest to the jury that the theory was plausible enough to create 
reasonable doubt.' 
 
 
"35. 
The respondent further stated, 'I clearly believed, and acted, as if the 
waiver freed me from loyalty to [T.A.] and thereby allowed me to zealously, diligently 
and competently represent [B.B.].' Also, 'the prior representation of [T.A.] afforded me a 
knowledge of her history and record which others may not have had. This allowed me to 
be more aggressive on cross examination.' 
 
 
"36. 
Moreover, the respondent said that 'the waiver I had from [T.A.] allowed 
me to discard any prior duty of loyalty which may have prevented me from zealous 
representation of [B.B.] and therefore alleviated any taint of adversity the prior 
representation may have had.' 
 
 
"37. 
When asked about T.A.'s waiver during the Van Cleave hearing, the 
respondent was unable to remember what day T.A. signed the waiver. However, the 
respondent testified, 'I don't recall exactly when it was done. I know that it was done. I 
had the signed waiver, and I was not going to be proceeding in any substantive manner 
without it.' 
 
 
"38. 
In the respondent's computer file for the B.B. [sic] there were also two 
draft documents titled '2016_0921_WAIVER OF CONFLICT [B.B.]' and '20170518 
[B.B.] WAIVER OF CONFLICT.' 
 
 
"39. 
The '2016_0921_WAIVER OF CONFLICT [B.B.]' draft included a case 
caption for the 2016-CR-001428 case in Sedgwick County District Court and stated: 
 
'I, [B.B.], am being represented by the Maughan Law Group in the above 
captioned case. I am aware that a potential witness in this case, [T.A.], is a 
former client of the Maughan law group. I am aware that this creates a potential 
for a conflict of interests and have been fully apprised of the nature of the 
potential conflict of interests. Specifically, I am aware that Maughan Law Group 
8 
 
 
 
 
has a certain obligation of loyalty to their clients and their former clients. If [sic] 
[T.A.'s] interests and my own interests may be in conflict. Being fully aware of 
the nature of this conflict and having been advised that I have a right to seek 
independent counsel for advice on this matter, I hereby waive any potential 
conflict of interest arising from the Maughan Law Group's representation of 
[T.A.] and me.' 
 
 
"40. 
The '20170518 [B.B.] WAIVER OF CONFLICT' draft included a case 
caption for the 2016-CR-001428 case in Sedgwick County District Court and stated: 
 
'I, [B.B.], am a client of the Maughan law group and the defendant in the above 
captioned case. I am aware that the a [sic] key witness, [T.A.], is a long time 
former client of Carl Maughan and the Maughan Law Group. I am aware that this 
creates a potential for a conflict of interests and have been fully apprised of the 
nature of the potential conflict of interest. Specifically, I have been advised that 
[T.A.'s] status as a client generally creates an obligation of loyalty to her on the 
part of the lawyers of the Maughan Law Group. It is my understanding that 
[T.A.] waived any conflict of interest that may arise as a result of Maughan Law 
Group's representation of me and I am satisfied that the attorneys of the Maughan 
Law Group have been released from their duty of loyalty to [T.A.]. Nevertheless 
an appearance of a conflict of interest exists[.] Being fully aware of the nature of 
this conflict and having been advised that I have a right to seek independent 
counsel for advice on this matter[,] I hereby waive any potential conflict of 
interest arising from the Maughan Law Group's prior representation of [T.A.] and 
their current representation of me in this matter.' 
 
 
"41. 
Neither of the drafts were signed by B.B. The respondent did not have 
any waiver signed by B.B. in his file. 
 
"42. 
The respondent testified during the disciplinary hearing that he knew that 
he had written waivers for both T.A. and B.B., but did not know why a signed waiver for 
B.B. was not in his file. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
"43. 
The respondent testified similarly during the Van Cleave hearing. 
Further, during that hearing, the respondent testified that: 
 
'It was discussed multiple times, because I know it was even brought up in the 
midst of trial when [T.A.] took the stand, and I believe also at the prelim where I 
wanted her to be on the record as to what the relationship between [T.A.] and I 
was and that we had a signed waiver from both parties, but, yeah, my recollection 
is that we had this discussion about a waiver of conflict several times throughout 
the case.' 
 
 
"44. 
When asked during the Van Cleave hearing about the respondent's 
discussion with B.B. about a conflict of interest, B.B. testified that the respondent 'just 
mentioned that since he represented [T.A.] before numerous times that there might be a 
conflict, but he was going to talk to the judge about it and see what would transpire after 
that.' 
 
 
"45. 
B.B. further said that the respondent used the words 'conflict of interest' 
in a meeting but never really elaborated on it. B.B. said he did not 'understand what a 
conflict of interest was.' 
 
 
"46. 
When asked during the Van Cleave hearing why the respondent did not 
file the waivers he said he had with the district court in May 2017 when the court directed 
him to do so, the respondent testified, 'I guess I have no real excuse, other than I was a 
single attorney working a murder case on my own and there are lots of the movie [sic] 
parts, and I simply didn't get around to actually complying with the Court's order.' 
 
 
"47. 
On July 14, 2020, the district court heard oral arguments and ruled that 
B.B. and T.A. both freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived the conflict after being 
adequately informed of the conflict of interest. Further, the district court held that B.B. 
and T.A. both waived the respondent's conflict both orally and in writing. The court 
found that the respondent obtained conflict waivers from both B.B. and T.A. consistent 
10 
 
 
 
 
with the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.  
 
 
"48. 
Further, the district court ruled that the fee charged for B.B.'s 
representation and paid by T.A. and G.A. was not unreasonable and did not create a 
conflict of interest. 
 
 
"49. 
The respondent testified during the disciplinary hearing that he would not 
have moved forward with any substantive representation of B.B. without a signed waiver 
from both T.A. and B.B. The respondent further said that he may have shredded the paper 
copy of B.B.'s signed waiver before saving it. 
 
 
"50. 
The respondent further testified that in 2016 and 2017, he experienced 
several professional and personal issues that impacted his ability to practice law. In mid-
2016, the respondent's longtime assistant left for another job. After that, the respondent 
employed several part time assistants, but those assistants were not familiar with his 
scanning and filing procedures for client files. The respondent suspected that some of the 
waivers may not have been saved because his typical filing process was interrupted by 
staffing changes during this time. 
 
 
"51. 
In addition, in early 2017, the sole other attorney at the respondent's firm, 
an associate, left the practice for other employment. This left the respondent as the sole 
attorney at his firm. 
 
 
"52. 
Also, in 2016 the respondent's wife was deployed as part of her army 
reserve unit, leaving the respondent to care for their two children on his own. The 
respondent had also filed to run for a district court judge position around that time, was in 
the process of having a new house built, was moving to the new residence, and had just 
been asked by the State Board for Indigent Defense Services to handle criminal defense 
appeals that the state appellate defender office was unable to take. The respondent 
testified that he did not understand the volume [of] work the Board intended to send him, 
which wound up being approximately 200 appellate cases. The respondent said that he 
11 
 
 
 
 
and his associate were filing approximately two briefs per week in 2016 and that year 
was the busiest time of the respondent's professional life. 
 
"53. 
The respondent testified that during his representation of B.B. he was 
barely coping with everything and was likely dealing with depression. 
 
"Van Cleave Appeal 
 
 
"54. 
On December 10, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's 
Van Cleave ruling and remanded the matter for a new trial. In its unpublished 
memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals held that: 'While [T.A.] was not a 
codefendant, Maughan acted like she should become one. Maughan presented a theory of 
defense which directly inculpated his former and current client, thereby making his 
representation of [B.B.] directly adverse to [T.A.]. See KRPC 1.7(a)(1).'  
 
 
"55. 
Further, the Court of Appeals held, 'We also cannot say the predicament 
Maughan entered did not objectively create a substantial risk that his representation of 
[B.B.] would be materially limited by his responsibilities to [T.A.]. See KRPC1.7(a)(2).' 
 
 
"56. 
The Court of Appeals further held that B.B.'s written waiver was 
insufficient on its face and that: 
 
'[B.B.] did not waive his right to a conflict-free attorney. [Citation omitted.] 
Based on the record before us, we cannot find [B.B.] was informed and aware of 
the risks associated with Maughan's representation, nor can we find [T.A.'s] 
waiver sufficiently freed Maughan to provide conflict-free representation to 
[B.B.].' 
 
 
"57. 
The Court of Appeals held that the district court's finding that the 
respondent's representation of B.B. was not adversely affected by the conflict was not 
supported by substantial competent evidence. 
 
12 
 
 
 
 
"58. 
The Court of Appeals also held that the district court erred in finding that 
the respondent's flat-fee structure did not create a conflict.  
 
'The failure of either written waiver to mention the fee arrangement is significant 
because, under KRPC 1.8 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 345), [B.B.] had to waive the 
conflict created by [T.A] and [G.A.'s] payment of his legal fees in writing. While 
the Van Cleave court analyzed the fee agreement under KRPC 1.5 (finding it to 
be reasonable), KRPC 1.8 is also implicated.' 
 
 
"59. 
The Court of Appeals ultimately concluded: 'Because we find Maughan 
had an actual conflict of interest (which [B.B.] did not waive) that adversely affected 
Maughan's representation, [B.B.'s] convictions must be reversed, and we remand for a 
new trial with different counsel.'  
 
 
"60. 
During the disciplinary hearing, the Sedgwick County prosecutor who 
handled B.B.'s case, Aaron Breitenbach, testified that after the Court of Appeals 
remanded the case, the matter was set back to square one. The case was scheduled for 
preliminary hearing the day following the disciplinary hearing, December 8, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
"61. 
The individuals in the vehicle that B.B. and T.A.'s vehicle crashed into 
were two employees of a business that assists with development and independence of 
adults with intellectual disabilities as well as three individuals who were clients of the 
company being transported by the employees. The media covered the case closely. 
 
 
"62. 
Mr. Breitenbach testified that family members of both deceased victims 
attended a number of the original pretrial hearings, were present for the original trial, and 
were engaged throughout the process. There was also some engagement by the two 
employee victims and the family of the remaining surviving victim. Several of these 
victims and family members are now reengaged in the process and will appear again for 
the remanded proceeding. 
 
 
"63. 
Mr. Breitenbach also testified that the district attorney's office has had 
13 
 
 
 
 
some difficulty locating some of the witnesses now since more than seven years have 
passed since the crash. Because some witnesses have been difficult to locate, concern 
over how a jury will evaluate the case under these circumstances, and not wanting to 
place undue stress on the victims and families of the deceased victims, the district 
attorney's office is considering a plea agreement that would involve lower charges and/or 
less time in custody than was originally considered. 
 
 
"64. 
Mr. Breitenbach said that B.B. has remained in custody from his arrest in 
May 2016 to present. B.B. was transferred to KDOC custody after sentencing in the 
original proceeding but was brought back to the Sedgwick County Jail after the remand in 
May 2022. Mr. Breitenbach testified that the county jail is used more as a short-term 
placement so that defendants can be close to the court their case is being handled in and 
that KDOC is a long-term placement with more programs and opportunities for 
rehabilitation for inmates. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"65. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8 
(conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 
8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), as detailed below.   
 
"KRPC 1.7 
 
 
"66. 
KRPC 1.7 provides: 
 
'(a) 
Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent 
a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A 
concurrent conflict of interest exists if:  
 
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to 
another client; or 
14 
 
 
 
 
 
(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of one or 
more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's 
responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third 
person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.' 
 
'(b) 
Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest 
under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: 
 
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to 
provide competent and diligent representation to each 
affected client; 
 
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law; 
 
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim 
by one client against another client represented by the lawyer 
in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; 
and 
 
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in 
writing.' 
 
 
 
"67. 
The rules do not permit the respondent to represent clients with 
conflicting interests without taking certain steps. In this case, there was a conflict of 
interests between B.B. and T.A.   
 
 
"68. 
Under KRPC 1.7(a)(2), the respondent had certain responsibilities to 
T.A. as a current and former client. Under KRPC 1.6 and KRPC 1.9(c), the respondent 
was prohibited from using information relating to his prior representation of T.A. to 
T.A.'s disadvantage or to reveal information relating to his representation of T.A. While 
15 
 
 
 
 
the respondent claimed that he had no duty of loyalty to T.A. after she signed the waiver, 
the fact remained that he still had obligations to T.A. as a current and former client.  
 
"69. 
A lawyer is prohibited from representing a client when there is a 
concurrent conflict of interest unless 'each affected client gives informed consent, 
confirmed in writing.' KRPC 1.7(b)(4). '"Informed consent" denotes the agreement by a 
person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate 
information and explanation about the material risks of any reasonably available 
alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.' KRPC 1.0(f). '"Confirmed in writing" 
when used in reference to the informed consent of a person, denotes informed consent 
that is given in writing by the person or a writing that a lawyer promptly transmits to the 
person confirming an oral informed consent.' KRPC 1.0(b). 
 
"70. 
While the respondent claimed that the waiver T.A. signed absolved him 
of all obligations to T.A., there is no evidence that the respondent's responsibilities to 
T.A. were waivable or, if they were, that T.A. was properly informed of what information 
the respondent knew from his representation of her that could be used to her 
disadvantage. The written waiver itself did not specify the risks or reasonable alternatives 
associated with the proposed representation of B.B. Notably, the respondent said that 
T.A. should consult with an attorney about her rights under the Fifth Amendment when it 
came to her testimony in B.B.'s trial, because the respondent recognized that T.A. faced 
risks of her own in the case. 
 
"71. 
Further, there is a lack of evidence that B.B. was properly informed of 
the conflict between the respondent's obligations to T.A. and his representation of B.B. 
The respondent was unable to produce a written waiver signed by B.B. But, more 
importantly, the draft waivers in the respondent's file do not adequately address the 
conflict and there was no other evidence that B.B. was properly informed of the conflict, 
the risks associated with [t]he conflict, or any reasonable alternatives. 
 
"72. 
The hearing panel agrees with the Court of Appeals' application of 
KRPC 1.7 to the respondent's representation of B.B[.], including its holding that the 
16 
 
 
 
 
respondent had a conflict that was not properly waived by B.B. The hearing panel 
additionally concludes that the respondent had a conflict that was not properly waived by 
T.A. 
 
"73. 
The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.7. 
 
"74. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.7. 
 
"KRPC 1.8 
 
 
"75. 
KRPC 1.8(f) permits a lawyer to accept compensation for representing a 
client from one other than the client only under certain circumstances: 
 
'(f) 
A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing 
a client from one other than the client unless: 
 
 
(1) the client gives informed consent; 
 
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of 
professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; 
and 
 
(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected 
as required by Rule 1.6.' 
 
 
"76. 
'If . . . the fee arrangement creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer, 
then the lawyer must comply with Rule 1.7.' KRPC 1.8, Cmt. 12. 'Under Rule 1.7(b), the 
informed consent must be confirmed in writing.' KRPC 1.8, Cmt. 12. 
 
 
"77. 
In a letter to B.B. dated May 23, 2016, the respondent discussed payment 
of $30,000.00 by G.A. and T.A. for his representation of B.B. The letter was not signed 
17 
 
 
 
 
by B.B., but even if it was, nothing in the letter informed B.B. of the risks and reasonable 
alternatives associated with the respondent's acceptance of the flat fee payment from G.A. 
and T.A. to represent B.B. The letter made no mention of T.A.'s involvement as a witness 
in the case, T.A.'s having been in the vehicle with B.B., or the defense strategy to argue 
that T.A. was driving when the crash occurred. 
 
 
"78. 
B.B. was not properly informed of the nature of the conflict that payment 
of the $30,000.00 flat fee by G.A. and T.A. posed and did not provide informed consent 
to the payment arrangement, confirmed in writing, as required under Rule 1.8. 
 
"79. 
Further, the respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.8. 
 
 
"80. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.8. 
 
"KRPC 1.15(a) 
 
 
"81. 
Lawyers must properly safeguard their clients' property. KRPC 1.15(a) 
specifically provides, in part, that: 
 
'(a) 
A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in 
a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from 
the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account 
maintained in the state of Kansas.' 
 
"82. 
In this case, the respondent failed to properly safeguard the $30,000.00 
flat fee paid for B.B.'s representation by depositing it into his operating account instead 
of his trust account. 
 
"83. 
The respondent testified that, while he has since learned that this is not 
permitted under the rules, he considered the $30,000.00 earned upon receipt. However, 
review of In re Thurston clarifies that the KRPC do not permit this: 
18 
 
 
 
 
 
'A lawyer may charge a flat fee to a client for a specific task to be undertaken. When the 
flat fee is paid to the lawyer, it must be deposited into the lawyer's trust account and the 
fee cannot be withdrawn until it is earned. Since a flat fee is not earned until completion 
of the task, the entire flat fee must remain in the lawyer's trust account until that task is 
completed unless the lawyer and client otherwise agree to partial withdrawals based upon 
the amount earned for completion of specified subtasks.' In re Thurston, 304 Kan. 146, 
[149], 371 P.3d 879 (2016). 
 
 
"84. 
The respondent had not yet earned the fee when he deposited these funds 
into his operating account and commingled them with his own funds. 
 
"85. 
Further, the respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15. 
 
"86. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent failed to 
properly safeguard the $30,000.00 flat fee paid by G.A. and T.A. for B.B.'s 
representation, in violation of KRPC 1.15. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"87. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
 
"88. 
The respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the 
administration of justice when he undertook the representation of B.B., at the same time 
he represented T.A. in another matter, and accepted payment for that representation from 
G.A. and T.A. without ensuring all parties were properly informed of the risks and 
alternatives to the arrangement. 
 
 
"89. 
As a result of the respondent's conduct, not only must a second trial be 
held, but the case reverted back to the beginning of the respondent's representation of 
B.B., with a second preliminary hearing occurring the day after this disciplinary hearing 
19 
 
 
 
 
was held. Mr. Breitenbach testified that this placed an undue burden on resources of the 
criminal justice system, the State's witnesses, and the victims and their families. 
 
 
"90. 
The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
 
"91. 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 8.4(d).   
 
"American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"92. 
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. 
 
 
"93. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his clients B.B. and 
T.A., to the legal profession, and to the legal system. 
 
 
"94. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duty. 
 
 
"95. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
injury to the legal system and the legal profession by casting doubt on his representation 
of B.B. to the extent that B.B.'s case had to be retried. This injured B.B., by having to 
endure a new trial, as well as all of the witnesses and victims who will have to go through 
the process for a second time. B.B. was further injured by the uncertainty over whether 
his counsel represented conflicting interests. Further, B.B. has spent an extended time in 
custody with the uncertainty of how his case will resolve and in a facility that offers 
fewer opportunities to inmates than he otherwise would have been placed. T.A. was also 
injured through the respondent's use of information learned during his representation of 
20 
 
 
 
 
T.A. in his questioning of her and his attempt to show that T.A. was the driver of the 
vehicle that caused the crash. 
 
"96. 
In addition to the above-cited factors in Standard 3, the hearing panel has 
thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
 
'4.12 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer 
knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with 
client property and causes injury or potential injury to a 
client.' 
 
 
'4.13 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is 
negligent in dealing with client property and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client.' 
 
 
'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.'  
 
'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.' 
 
 
 
'7.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer 
negligently 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.'  
 
21 
 
 
 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"97. 
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: 
 
 
"98. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on two occasions. On April 18, 2007, the respondent was placed on diversion 
for violation of KRPC 1.3 (diligence). On December 29, 2010, the respondent was placed 
on diversion for violation of KRPC 3.1. The respondent successfully completed both 
diversions, and those matters were dismissed. 
 
"99. 
Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. 
The respondent violated KRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8 (conflict of 
interest: current clients: specific rules), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4(d) 
(misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Accordingly, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses.   
 
 
"100. 
Vulnerability of Victim. As the defendant in a criminal case being held in 
custody, B.B. was vulnerable to the respondent's misconduct. B.B. had applied for 
representation by the public defender's office, but said that an attorney from that office 
never showed up. The respondent did, however, show up at the jail and said he would 
represent B.B. With what probably appeared as limited options for counsel, B.B. 
preferred to have retained counsel represent him. Further, the victims and families of the 
victims in the criminal matter were vulnerable to the respondent's misconduct. It has led 
to their having to participate in the criminal process for a second time in the same case. 
 
 
"101. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1997. At the time 
of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for approximately 19 years. 
The hearing panel concludes that the respondent had substantial experience in the 
22 
 
 
 
 
practice of law when the misconduct occurred. 
 
"102. 
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: 
 
"103. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct 
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
"104. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent was dealing 
with multiple professional and personal struggles that contributed to his misconduct. The 
respondent had lost his longtime legal assistant and eventually his only associate 
attorney, leaving him as a solo practitioner by the time of trial. Further, the respondent's 
case load was significantly increased due to his agreeing to accept around 200 appeal 
matters from the State Board of Indigent Defense services. Further, the respondent's wife 
was deployed overseas for one year during this time, leaving him to care for their two 
children on his own. At this same time the respondent was also running for a district 
judge position, building a new house, and moving his belongings to his family's new 
residence. The respondent testified that this was the busiest time of his professional 
career and he was barely coping during this time. It is clear the respondent's personal and 
professional struggles caused him to be less aware of his responsibilities under the KRPC 
and contributed to his misconduct. 
 
 
"105. 
Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences 
of Misconduct. In his proposed probation plan, filed on November 23, 2023, the 
respondent offers to pay $1,500.00 to the Kansas Victim's Compensation fund. The 
respondent testified during the disciplinary hearing that he has not paid this yet. If 
payment to this or a similar organization is made, the hearing panel would consider this a 
mitigating factor. 
 
23 
 
 
 
 
"106. 
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 and 
stipulated during the disciplinary hearing that he violated KRPC 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, and 
8.4(d). The hearing panel concludes that this is a mitigating factor. 
 
"107. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. The respondent understood that his 
conduct violated the rules and had a negative impact on the criminal case overall. The 
hearing panel concludes this is a mitigating factor. 
 
"108. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The misconduct which gave rise to the 
respondent's two prior diversions in 2007 and 2010 is remote in time and character to the 
misconduct in this case. The hearing panel concludes this is a mitigating factor. 
 
"109. 
Adjustments to the Respondent's Professional Career. The respondent 
has adjusted his professional career from one where he was at higher risk for the type of 
misconduct involved in this case to working for a single employer. The hearing panel 
considers this as evidence that the respondent has carefully considered and is aware of the 
circumstances that contributed to his misconduct and has adjusted his work in an attempt 
to ensure it does not happen again. The hearing panel concludes this is a mitigating 
factor. 
 
"110. 
Recognition of conflict of interests. While the respondent did not 
properly address the conflict of interests involved in representing B.B., the respondent 
was, at least, aware that they may be an issue. Further, the respondent brought it up with 
the district court with the district attorney's office, B.B., and T.A. present in court in order 
to make all parties aware the conflict existed. The district court did not find that the 
conflict prevented the respondent from representing B.B., but directed the respondent to 
file copies of the written waivers with the court. While his attempt to address the conflict 
was not ultimately effective, the hearing panel considers this a mitigating factor. 
24 
 
 
 
 
 
"Recommendation of the Parties 
 
"111. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of six months, with the suspension being stayed while the 
respondent is placed on probation for 12 months under the terms of the respondent's 
proposed probation plan, filed November 23, 2023.   
 
 
"112. 
The respondent recommended that he be placed on probation for 12 
months under the terms of the respondent's proposed probation plan, filed November 23, 
2023. 
 
"Discussion  
 
 
"113. 
When a respondent requests probation, the hearing panel is required to 
consider Rule 227, which provides: 
 
'(d) 
Restrictions on Recommendation of Probation. A hearing panel 
may not recommend that the respondent be placed on probation unless 
the following requirements are met: 
 
 
(1) the respondent complies with subsections (a) and (c) and the 
proposed probation plan satisfies the requirements in 
subsection (b); 
 
(2) the misconduct can be corrected by probation; and 
 
(3) placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of 
the legal profession and the public.' 
 
 
"114. 
The respondent developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of 
probation. The respondent provided a copy of the proposed plan of probation to the 
25 
 
 
 
 
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. Placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of the legal 
profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas. 
 
 
"115. 
While the hearing panel concludes that the probation plan is adequate to 
meet the requirements of Rule 227, the haring [sic] panel further recommends that the 
respondent be required under the plan to enter into a monitoring agreement with KALAP 
and follow all recommendations of KALAP under that agreement. The respondent 
testified that his mental health has suffered during the time of the misconduct, which may 
continue to the present. The hearing panel recommends that the respondent work with 
KALAP to address those concerns. 
 
 
"116. 
Further, the hearing panel recommends that it be a condition of his 
probation that the respondent notify both his probation supervisor and the disciplinary 
administrator's office within 14 days if during the term of probation he no longer works 
for a single employer and returns to the private practice of law. 
 
"Recommendation of the Hearing Panel 
 
 
"117. 
Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent 
be suspended for a period of six (6) months. The hearing panel further recommends that 
the suspension be stayed and the respondent be placed on probation for a period of twelve 
(12) months according to the terms of the respondent's proposed probation plan, adding 
the suggestions of the hearing panel regarding KALAP monitoring and reporting to his 
supervisor and the disciplinary administrator's office if the respondent returns to private 
practice. 
 
26 
 
 
 
 
 
"118. 
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 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 Murphy, 312 Kan. 203, 218, 473 P.3d 886 (2020); see 
Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 279). "'Clear and convincing 
evidence is "evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that 'the truth of the facts 
asserted is highly probable.'"'" 312 Kan. at 218. 
 
The respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he 
filed an answer. The respondent filed no exceptions and, in fact, stipulated to the 
underlying facts supporting the alleged violations. Therefore, the panel's factual findings 
are considered admitted. Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1), (2) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281-
82). 
 
The respondent also stipulated to the alleged violations, but even if he had not, the 
evidence before the hearing panel clearly established the charged misconduct violated 
KRPC 1.7 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 339) (shall not represent a client if the representation 
involves a concurrent conflict of interest), KRPC 1.8 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 347) (shall 
not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, 
possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to client), KRPC 1.15 (2024 Kan. 
S. Ct. R. at 372) (shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's 
possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property), 
27 
 
 
 
 
and KRPC 8.4(d) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice). 
 
After the hearing panel issued its report, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts set the 
case for oral argument under Rule 228(i) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 286). The Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts filed an affidavit on May 15, 2024, providing the following 
information. On March 27, 2024, the Clerk sent to the respondent's registered address, by 
regular and certified mail, a copy of the 2024 May docket of the Kansas Supreme Court 
scheduling the respondent's case for oral argument on Friday, May 10, 2024, at 10:30 
a.m. See Rule 206(n) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 258) (requiring attorneys register contact 
information including residential and business addresses). The Clerk received a return 
receipt bearing the signature of Katy Beedles confirming the certified mail was delivered. 
On April 15, 2024, the Clerk sent to the respondent by regular and certified mail, return 
receipt requested, an appearance letter confirming the matter had been set on the Supreme 
Court's May 2024 docket and advising the respondent that he should be in the Supreme 
Court Courtroom no later than 10:15 a.m. on Friday, May 10, 2024. The address used for 
the mailing of the appearance letter was the same as the address used in the mailing of the 
docketing notice and notice of oral argument. As of the date of his affidavit, May 15, 
2024, the Clerk had not received a return receipt from the mailing of the appearance 
letter.  
 
The Clerk states in his affidavit that, at approximately 10:15 a.m. on the morning 
of May 10, 2024, the respondent called the Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts 
advising that he knew he was scheduled to appear on the 10:30 a.m. docket but was 
having car trouble an hour away from Topeka. The respondent ultimately failed to appear 
for the argument on May 10, 2024. The court determined it was appropriate to proceed 
without respondent's appearance, as respondent had actual notice of the charges pending 
28 
 
 
 
 
against him, as evidenced by his stipulation to the underlying facts and the alleged 
violations, and actual notice of oral argument in his case scheduled for Friday, May 10, 
2024, at 10:30 a.m., as evidenced by the return receipt of certified mail and the 
information provided by the respondent to the Clerk on the morning of the scheduled 
argument.  
 
Given the respondent's stipulation to the underlying facts alleged and the resulting 
violations, the only issue left for us to resolve is the appropriate discipline. At the time of 
the hearing before the panel, the Disciplinary Administrator recommended the respondent 
be suspended for a period of 6 months, with the suspension being stayed while the 
respondent is placed on probation for 12 months under the terms of the respondent's 
proposed probation plan filed November 23, 2023. The respondent recommended he be 
placed on probation for 12 months under the terms of the respondent's proposed 
probation plan filed November 23, 2023. The hearing panel ultimately adopted the 
Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation with the additional suggestion of KALAP 
monitoring and the respondent reporting to his supervisor and the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office if the respondent returns to private practice. 
 
At oral argument, however, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator changed the 
Disciplinary Administrator's initial recommendation. Instead of a 6-month suspension 
stayed pending successful completion of a 12-month probation plan, the Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator recommended a 1-year suspension with a required 
reinstatement hearing. In withdrawing the recommendation of probation and 
recommending an extended term of suspension with a reinstatement hearing, the Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator highlighted the respondent's failure to comply with Supreme 
Court Rule 227(f)(2) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). This rule requires a respondent seeking 
probation to file with the Supreme Court and serve the Disciplinary Administrator—at 
29 
 
 
 
 
least 14 days before oral argument—a copy of an affidavit describing the respondent's 
compliance with each condition of the respondent's proposed probation plan to date. We 
have reviewed the docket sheet in this matter and, as alleged, we find the respondent 
failed to file his affidavit certifying compliance with the terms of the proposed probation 
plan.  
 
We have carefully considered the panel's factual findings and legal conclusions, to 
which the respondent stipulated. We also have considered the respondent's failure to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 227(f)(2) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). In light of this 
evidence, as well as the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, we order the 
respondent's license be suspended for one year and that the respondent undergo a 
reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 290) before 
his petition for reinstatement will be considered by this court.   
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Carl F.A. Maughan is suspended for a period of 
one year from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective from the date this 
opinion is filed, with the requirement that he undergo a reinstatement hearing under 
Supreme Court Rule 232 before his petition for reinstatement will be considered by this 
court. 
 
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.