Title: In re Shores

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 107,312 
 
In the Matter of SEAN E. SHORES, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 6, 2012. Disbarment. 
 
Alexander M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. 
Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Sean E. Shores, respondent, did not appear. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Sean E. Shores, of Wichita, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2004. 
 
 
On May 16, 2011, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC) and filed a supplement to the formal complaint on August 4, 2011. The 
respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint on September 13, 2011, and a 
document titled "answer" on October 12, 2011. A hearing was held on the complaint 
before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 27, 2011, 
where the respondent was personally present and was not represented by counsel. The 
hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); 1.16(d) (2011 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (termination of representation); 8.4(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
618) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, 
2 
 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 334) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the hearing panel made the following findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court: 
 
"FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"Complaint of the Honorable Timothy G. Lahey, DA9788 
 
"6. 
[D.M.] retained the Respondent to represent her son, [B.M.], in a 
criminal case. The Respondent negotiated a plea agreement with the prosecution. 
Mr. [M.] entered the plea and the Court scheduled sentencing for October 19, 
2005. 
 
"7. 
The day before the sentencing hearing, the Respondent's 
assistant contacted Judge Lahey's administrative assistant, April Kemner, seeking 
a continuance of the sentencing hearing. Previously, Donna Longsworth, the 
prosecutor, had agreed to the Respondent's request for a continuance. Ms. 
Kemner informed the Respondent's assistant that she did not have the authority to 
grant the Respondent's request for a continuance. The Respondent took no 
additional steps to get Mr. [M.'s] sentencing hearing continued. 
 
"8. 
On October 19, 2005, Mr. [M.] and Ms. Longsworth appeared 
for sentencing. The Respondent did not appear. Judge Lahey called the 
Respondent's office. The Respondent's assistant told Judge Lahey that the 
Respondent was in a preliminary hearing in a different division. Judge Lahey told 
the Respondent's assistant to have the Respondent call Judge Lahey personally to 
arrange for a new date for sentencing. The Respondent failed to call Judge 
Lahey. 
 
3 
 
"9. 
From October 20, 2005, through November 9, 2005, Ms. 
Longsworth called the Respondent's office and left messages for the Respondent 
to call the court and reschedule the sentencing hearing. The Respondent failed to 
call the court to reschedule the sentencing hearing. 
 
"10. 
On November 10, 2005, the court held a hearing on Mr. [M.'s] 
case. Mr. [M.] and Ms. Longsworth appeared for the hearing. The Respondent 
did not appear at the hearing. Mr. [M.] told Judge Lahey that he had not heard 
from the Respondent. Subsequently, the Court appointed the public defender to 
represent Mr. [M.]. 
 
"11. 
On December 5, 2005, Judge Lahey contacted Marc Davis, a 
member of the impaired lawyer's committee of the Wichita Bar Association, 
seeking assistance for the Respondent. On December 6, 2005, the Respondent 
and Mr. Davis met with Judge Lahey. The Respondent apologized for his 
conduct. Judge Lahey told the Respondent that he had a duty to represent Mr. 
[M.] unless Mr. [M.] requested otherwise. Judge Lahey advised the Respondent 
that he needed to take action. Judge Lahey and the Respondent agreed that the 
Respondent would participate in the mentoring program of the Wichita Bar 
Association and report to the Court regarding his participation in the mentoring 
program. The Court rescheduled Mr. [M.'s] sentencing for December 14, 2005. 
 
"12. 
The Respondent failed to participate in the mentoring program. 
 
"13. 
On December 14, 2005, Mr. [M.] appeared for sentencing. The 
Respondent again failed to appear. Mr. [M.] informed the Court that he had not 
heard from the Respondent. The Respondent did not inform the Court that he had 
been discharged by Mr. [M.]. During the December 14, 2005, hearing, Mr. [M.] 
expressed that the Respondent's representation has been inadequate and that he 
wished to withdraw his plea. The Court allowed Mr. [M.] to withdraw his plea. 
Mr. [M.'s] case proceeded to trial with replacement counsel. 
 
 
 
4 
 
"Complaint filed by [K.T.], DA10418 
 
"14. 
On December 7, 2007, [K.T.] retained the Respondent to assist 
her with purchasing a business. Ms. [T.] paid the Respondent $500.00 for the 
representation. Ms. [T.] understood that the Respondent would review the 
franchise agreement over the weekend and contact her the following week to 
advise her. [Footnote:  At the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent 
testified that Ms. (T.) was to call him the following week and she failed to do so. 
The Respondent testified that he had no record of Ms. (T.) calling his office. The 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent's testimony lacks credibility on this 
subject.] 
 
"15. 
The following week, the Respondent did not contact Ms. [T.]. 
After approximately two weeks, Ms. [T.] called the Respondent's office and left 
messages for the Respondent to call her. The Respondent failed to return the 
telephone calls. 
 
"16. 
Ms. [T.] asked a business consultant, [C.R.], to contact the 
Respondent in her behalf. Mr. [R.] called the Respondent's office several times 
but was also unable to contact the Respondent. The Respondent did not return 
Mr. [R.'s] telephone calls. 
 
"17. 
On January 28, 2008, Ms. [T.] filed a complaint with the 
Disciplinary Administrator's office. On May 7, 2008, while the disciplinary 
complaint was pending, the Respondent refunded Ms. [T.'s] $500.00 advanced 
fee. 
 
"Complaint filed by [D.T.], DA10979 
 
"18. 
On April 24, 2009, [D.T.] retained the Respondent to represent 
her daughter, [L.H.], regarding the custody of Ms. [H.'s] minor child. Ms. [T.] 
paid the Respondent $750.00 for the representation. 
 
5 
 
"19. 
Ms. [T.] also requested that the Respondent advise Ms. [T.] 
regarding a possible wrongful termination of employment case against Wesley 
Medical Center. The Respondent agreed to review Ms. [T.'s] employment records 
and write the hospital a demand letter. The Respondent explained, however, that 
he would have to refer the matter to a different attorney as his wife was currently 
employed by the hospital. Thereafter, the Respondent sent Ms. [T.] a draft of the 
demand letter via electronic mail. Ms. [T.] made corrections to the letter and 
returned the letter to the Respondent. 
 
"20. 
On June 11, 2009, Ms. [T.] retained the Respondent to represent 
her in a divorce action. Ms. [T.] paid the Respondent an additional $750.00 for 
that representation. Ms. [T.] provided the Respondent with the requisite personal 
information to prepare the pleadings. During this meeting, the Respondent 
provided Ms. [T.] with draft pleadings relating to the representation of Ms. [H.]. 
Further, the Respondent informed Ms. [T.] that Wesley Medical Center had not 
responded to the demand letter. 
 
"21. 
On July 9, 2009, Ms. [T.] and her estranged husband, [J.T.], met 
with the Respondent. The Respondent provided them with the original divorce 
petition. Ms. [T.] and Mr. [T.] reviewed and signed the divorce petition. The 
Respondent informed them that he would be filing the divorce petition the 
following day. 
 
"22. 
Also at the July 9, 2009, meeting, Ms. [T.] returned the pleadings 
related to Ms. [H.'s] custody case. Ms. [T.] noted changes that needed to be made 
to Ms. [H.'s] pleadings. 
 
"23. 
Finally, at the July 9, 2009, meeting, Ms. [T.] asked the 
Respondent about the status of the wrongful termination of employment matter. 
The Respondent told Ms. [T.] that he was still looking for an attorney to refer 
Ms. [T.] to. 
 
"24. 
Thereafter, the Respondent failed to remain in contact with Ms. 
[T.]. Ms. [T.] repeatedly called the Respondent regarding the status of the three 
6 
 
matters. The Respondent failed to return the telephone calls. Eventually, Ms. [T.] 
sent the Respondent a text message threatening to file a complaint with the 
Disciplinary Administrator's office. 
 
"25. 
The Respondent finally contacted Ms. [T.]. The Respondent told 
Ms. [T.] that he filed the divorce petition in October, 2009. Ms. [T.] called the 
courthouse and learned that the Respondent had not filed the divorce petition. 
 
"26. 
On November 2, 2009, the Respondent again spoke with Ms. 
[T.] and Mr. [T.]. The Respondent told them that he had just taken the divorce 
petition to the courthouse and filed it. However, the Respondent had not filed the 
divorce petition for Ms. [T.]. 
 
"27. 
On December 15, 2009, Ms. [T.] wrote to the Respondent 
demanding the return of her records and a refund of the $1,500.00. The 
Respondent failed to return the papers and the advanced fee. On the day of the 
hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent provided Ms. [T.] with a check 
in the amount of $1,500.00. The Respondent failed to return Ms. [T.'s] personal 
papers. 
 
"Complaint filed by the Honorable Bryce Abbott, DA11001 
 
"28. 
On March 31, 2009, the Respondent entered his appearance in 
behalf of [A.C.], in the Wichita, Kansas, Municipal Court. That day, the 
Respondent informed the Honorable Bryce Abbott that Ms. [C.] would be 
applying for the diversion program. 
 
"29. 
The Respondent secured a number of continuances to allow Ms. 
[C.] to raise the funds necessary to apply for diversion. Eventually, Judge Abbott 
scheduled Ms. [C.'s] case for trial on January 11, 2010. 
 
"30. 
On January 11, 2010, Ms. [C.] appeared for trial. However, the 
Respondent did not appear at that time. Ms. [C.] informed Judge Abbott that the 
Respondent had the paperwork necessary for her to file her diversion application. 
7 
 
Judge Abbott called the Respondent from the bench. The Respondent did not 
answer the telephone. A recording informed Judge Abbott that the Respondent's 
mail box was full. Judge Abbott rescheduled Ms. [C.'s] case for trial on February 
8, 2010. 
 
"31. 
On February 8, 2010, Ms. [C.] again appeared for trial. The 
Respondent failed to appear again. Judge Abbott again called the Respondent 
from the bench and again received only a recording that the Respondent's mail 
box was full. Judge Abbott wrote to the Respondent informing him that the case 
was again set for trial, on March 5, 2010. Judge Abbott also sent a copy of his 
letter to the Respondent to the Disciplinary Administrator. The Disciplinary 
Administrator docketed Judge Abbott's letter as a complaint. 
 
"32. 
On March 5, 2010, Ms. [C.] again appeared for trial. The 
Respondent failed to appear at Ms. [C.'s] scheduled trial time for the third time. 
The Respondent never returned Ms. [C.'s] paperwork. 
 
"Complaint filed by [M.R.], DA11088 
 
"33. 
At trial, a jury convicted [M.R.] of aggravated robbery. The 
Court sentenced the Respondent to 380 months in prison. Mr. [R.] is serving his 
sentence at the El Dorado Correctional Facility. Mr. [R.] took a direct appeal of 
his conviction and sentence. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. [R.'s] 
conviction and sentence. 
 
"34. 
On December 4, 2009, [C.R.] and [L.R.], [M.R.'s] parents, 
retained the Respondent to represent [M.R.] in a post conviction matter based 
upon theories of prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, and illegal 
sentence. [C.R.] and [L.R.] paid the Respondent $1,350.00 for the representation. 
Additionally, the Respondent was provided with a transcript pertaining to Mr. 
[R.'s] criminal case. 
 
"35. 
Juanita Blackmon, a member of 'Justice Keepers of Wichita' also 
provided the Respondent with a $150.00 check for the representation. The 
8 
 
Respondent agreed not to cash Ms. Blackmon's check until he visited Mr. [R.] in 
prison and provided a final draft of the motion. 
 
"36. 
On December 28, 2009, the Respondent visited Mr. [R.] in 
prison. However, the Respondent had not prepared any documents for Mr. [R.'s] 
review. Mr. [R.] told the Respondent that if he did not have time to attend to Mr. 
[R.'s] case, he could simply refund the advanced fee. The Respondent told Mr. 
[R.] that he was still researching the issue and that he planned to assert a motion 
claiming manifest injustice. 
 
"37. 
Between December 29, 2009, and January 2, 2010, [C.R.] and 
[L.R.] and Ms. Blackmon repeatedly attempted to contact the Respondent. The 
Respondent failed to return the telephone calls. 
 
"38. 
On January 3, 2010, the Respondent returned Ms. Blackmon's 
telephone calls and apologized for the lack of action on Mr. [R.'s] behalf. The 
Respondent promised to provide Mr. [R.] with a final draft of a motion to correct 
an illegal sentence on January 6, 2010. 
 
"39. 
On January 6, 2010, the Respondent did not visit Mr. [R.] in 
prison. Further attempts to reach the Respondent by Ms. Blackmon went 
unanswered. 
 
"40. 
On May 3, 2010, Mr. [R.] filed a complaint with the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office. Mr. [R.] requested that the Respondent refund the 
advanced fees. Additionally, Mr. [R.] would like to have the transcript returned 
to him. While the Respondent never cashed or deposited Ms. Blackmon's check 
for $150.00, Ms. Blackmon requested that the Respondent return her check to her 
so that it cannot be cashed or deposited in the future. 
 
"Complaint filed by the Disciplinary Administrator, DA11118 
 
"41. 
On April 8, 2010, the Sedgwick County District Attorney's office 
charged the Respondent in a one count complaint/information, charging the 
9 
 
Respondent with the crime of aggravated indecent liberties, an off-grid person 
felony. The victim listed in the complaint/information was 12 years of age. 
 
"42. 
Pursuant to a plea agreement, on December 10, 2010, the 
Sedgwick County District Attorney's office amended the information to include 
three counts of battery, class B person misdemeanors. The victim listed in the 
information was 12 years of age. 
 
"43. 
The Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the three charges 
in the amended information. The Court sentenced the Respondent to a controlling 
sentence of 12 months in jail. The Court granted the Respondent probation from 
the jail time. The Respondent agreed to submit to an alcohol and drug evaluation 
and a psychological evaluation. 
 
"44. 
At the time of the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the 
Respondent remained on probation for the misdemeanor convictions. 
 
"Respondent's Failure to Timely File an Answer to the Formal Complaint 
 
"45. 
On May 16, 2011, the Disciplinary Administrator filed a Formal 
Complaint in the instant case. The Respondent failed to timely file an Answer to 
the Formal Complaint. Thereafter, on August 4, 2011, the Disciplinary 
Administrator filed a Supplement to the Formal Complaint, alleging that the 
Respondent failed to timely file an Answer to the Formal Complaint. 
 
"46. 
On September 13, 2011, the Respondent filed an Answer to the 
Formal Complaint. Then, on October 12, 2011, the Respondent filed a second 
document titled Answer, which answered the allegation that the Respondent 
failed to timely file an Answer to the Formal Complaint. 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
"47. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as 
a matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.16, 
KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, as detailed below. 
 
"48. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent his clients. The Respondent failed to provide diligent 
representation to Mr. [M.], Ms. [K.T.], Ms. [D.T.], Ms. [A.C.], and Mr. [R.]. 
Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing his clients, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
"49. 
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 return telephone calls and otherwise remain in contact 
with Mr. [M.], Ms. [K.T.], Ms. [D.T.], Ms. [A.C.], and Ms. Blackmon in Mr. 
[R.'s] behalf. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
"50. 
KRPC 1.16 also requires lawyers to take certain steps to protect 
clients after the representation has been terminated. Specifically, KRPC 1.16(d) 
provides the requirement in this regard: 
 
'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.' 
11 
 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d) when he failed to return personal items 
and unearned advanced fees to Ms. [D.T.], when he failed to return Ms. [A.C.'s] 
paperwork, when he failed to return the unearned advanced fees to Mr. [R.'s] 
parents, and when he failed to return Mr. [R.'s] transcript. The Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d). 
 
"51. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a 
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects.' KRPC 8.4(b). In this case, the Respondent 
was convicted by his plea to three counts of misdemeanor battery on a 12 year 
old. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent committed 
criminal acts and those criminal acts reflect directly on the Respondent's fitness 
as a lawyer, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b). 
 
"52. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this 
case, the Respondent engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the administration 
of justice' when he failed to appear in Court as directed by Judge Lahey. As such, 
the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
 
"53. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file 
Answers to Formal Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the 
requirement: 
 
 
'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the 
Disciplinary Administrator within twenty days after the 
service of the complaint unless such time is extended by 
the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel.' 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b).  
 
In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to timely 
file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint and by failing to timely file a 
12 
 
written Answer to the Supplement to the Formal Complaint. Accordingly, the 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
"54. 
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. 
 
"55. 
Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to 
provide diligent representation and adequate communication. Additionally, the 
Respondent violated his duty to the public by failing to maintain his personal 
integrity. Finally, the Respondent violated his duty to the legal profession by 
failing to comply with Court orders and rules. 
 
"56. 
Mental State. The Respondent knowingly and intentionally 
violated his duties. 
 
"57. 
Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the 
Respondent caused actual injury to his clients and the legal profession. 
 
"58. 
Aggravating or 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: 
 
"59. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct 
related to the representation of Ms. [D.T.] was motivated by dishonesty. On more 
than one occasion, the Respondent informed Ms. [D.T.] that he had filed her 
13 
 
divorce petition when he had not done so. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent's misconduct was motivated by dishonesty. 
 
"60. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern 
of misconduct. In five of the six complaints, the Respondent failed to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. In three of the six cases, the 
Respondent failed to properly terminate his representation of his client. As such, 
the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct. 
 
"61. 
Multiple Offenses. The Respondent committed multiple offenses. 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 8.4, and 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211. 
 
"62. 
Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by 
Intentionally Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary 
Process. The Respondent failed to comply with rules of the disciplinary process 
by failing to timely file an Answer to the Formal Complaint and by failing to 
timely file an Answer to the Supplement to the Formal Complaint. 
 
"63. 
Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. While the 
Respondent stipulated to many facts and rule violations, he failed to completely 
acknowledge his wrongdoing. The Respondent's refusal to acknowledge the full 
extent of his wrongdoing is an aggravating factor in this case. 
 
"64. 
Vulnerability of Victim. The Respondent's clients were 
vulnerable to his misconduct. Ms. [D.T.] remains married because she could not 
afford to retain replacement counsel. Mr. [R.] was in prison waiting for the 
Respondent to seek relief. Finally, the victim in the criminal case was 12 years 
old. Thus, the Hearing Panel concludes that the victims of the Respondent's 
misconduct were vulnerable. 
 
"65. 
Indifference to Making Restitution. While the Respondent 
provided Ms. [K.T.] a refund in May, 2010, and while the Respondent provided 
14 
 
Ms. [D.T.] a refund at the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent has 
taken no steps to refund [C.R.] and Mrs. [L.R.] for the attorney fees paid in 
behalf of their son. 
 
"66. 
Illegal Conduct. The Respondent engaged in illegal conduct and, 
as a result, was convicted of three counts of battery on a 12 year old. 
 
"67. 
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: 
 
"68. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. 
 
"69. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent provided 
some information that he had a nervous breakdown and abused alcohol for a period of 
time. The Respondent's mental health and abuse of alcohol may have contributed to some 
of the violations in this case. 
 
"70. 
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 stipulated to many facts and rule violations included in 
the Formal Complaint. 
 
"71. 
Inexperience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court 
admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 2004. The Respondent is inexperienced 
in the practice of law. However, the Respondent's inexperience does not significantly 
mitigate the misconduct in this case. 
 
"72. 
Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. In the sixth complaint, the 
Respondent was placed on probation and was required to comply with certain court 
orders. 
15 
 
 
"73. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, 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. 
 
'4.41 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
 
(a) 
a lawyer abandons the practice and 
causes serious or potentially serious 
injury to a client; or 
 
(b) 
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform 
services for a client and causes serious 
or potentially serious injury to a client; 
or 
 
(c) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect 
with respect to client matters and causes 
serious or potentially serious injury to a 
client. 
 
'4.42 
Suspension is generally appropriate when: 
 
(a) 
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for 
a client and causes injury or potential injury to a 
client; or 
 
(b) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect 
and causes injury or potential injury to a 
client. 
16 
 
 
'5.12 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer 
knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not 
contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that 
seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice. 
 
'7.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer 
knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a 
duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or 
potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal 
system.' 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
"74. 
The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time. The Respondent 
requested that he be placed on probation, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g)(1). That 
rule provides: 
 
 
'If the Respondent intends to request that the Respondent 
be placed on probation for violating the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct or the Kansas Supreme Court Rules, the 
Respondent shall provide each member of the Hearing Panel and 
the Disciplinary Administrator with a workable, substantial, and 
detailed plan of probation at least ten days prior to the hearing on 
the Formal Complaint. The plan of probation must contain 
adequate safeguards that will protect the public and ensure the 
Respondent's full compliance with the disciplinary rules and 
orders of the Supreme Court.' 
 
The Respondent failed to comply with Kan. Sup. Ct. 211(g). First, he failed to timely 
provide a copy of his plan of probation to the Disciplinary Administrator and the Hearing 
Panel. Additionally, the Respondent's plan of probation is not workable, substantial, and 
17 
 
detailed. The Respondent's plan of probation is inadequate to protect the public from the 
Respondent's misconduct. The misconduct in the sixth complaint cannot be corrected by 
probation. Finally, placing the Respondent on probation is not in the best interests of the 
citizens of the State of Kansas. 
 
"75. 
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing 
Panel was inclined to recommend that the Respondent be disbarred. However, based 
upon the recommendation of the Disciplinary Administrator and the ABA Standards, the 
Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for an indefinite period of time. Given the severity of the misconduct and 
the pattern of misconduct by the Respondent, the suspension should be for a substantial 
period of time. In the event the Respondent applies for reinstatement in the future, the 
Respondent should be required to provide credible medical evidence demonstrating a 
sustained period of recovery from his mental health problems and alcohol abuse. 
 
"76. 
Finally, the Respondent should be ordered to refund $1,350.00 to Mr. 
and Mrs. Ridge for the unearned advanced fee paid on Mr. Ridge's behalf. If the 
Respondent continues to possess Mr. Ridge's transcript and Ms. Troxell's personal 
papers, the Respondent should be ordered to return those items immediately. 
 
"77. 
Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, the discipline to 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) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334). Clear and 
convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of 
18 
 
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 formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer, and adequate notice of both the hearing before the panel and the hearing 
before this court. He filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. The 
panel's findings of fact are thus deemed admitted, and we adopt them. See Supreme Court 
Rule 212(c), (d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352). 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct of the 
respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of law. 
We therefore also adopt the panel's conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline. At the hearing 
before this court, the respondent did not appear. Due to respondent's failure to appear, the 
office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the respondent be disbarred. 
The hearing panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the 
practice of law; that the suspension be for a substantial period of time, and that, should 
respondent apply for reinstatement, he be required to provide credible medical evidence 
demonstrating a sustained period of recovery from his mental health problems and 
alcohol abuse; he refund $1,350 to [C.R.] and [L.R.]; and that he return Mr. [R.'s] 
transcript and Ms. [D.T.'s] personal papers if he still has them. 
 
 
We also note that respondent appeared before this court on April 16, 2012, to 
show cause why his license to practice law should not be temporarily suspended. 
Supreme Court Rule 203(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 280). As a result of that hearing, on 
April 17, 2012, respondent's license was temporarily suspended based on multiple 
allegations of continued misconduct similar to those at issue in this proceeding. Further, 
at that hearing, respondent stated he was going to voluntarily surrender his license prior 
19 
 
to the oral argument set on this matter. The office of the Disciplinary Administrator has 
had no further contact with respondent since that proceeding. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sean E. Shores be disbarred from the practice of 
law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in accordance with 
Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 280). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379). 
 
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.