1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 112,169

In the Matter of ANDREW M. DELANEY,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 26, 2014. Six-month suspension, 

which is stayed during a probationary period of 2 years, subject to the terms and conditions specified.

Deborah L. Hughes, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Duston J. 

Slinkard, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, were on 

the formal complaint for the petitioner.

J. David Farris, of J. David Farris Law Offices, of Atchison, argued the cause, and Andrew M. 

Delaney, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 

Per Curiam: This is an uncontested attorney discipline proceeding against 

Andrew M. Delaney of Hiawatha, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 

2002.

On April 3, 2014, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 

complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 

Conduct (KRPC). Respondent answered on April 15, 2014, admitting the allegations in 

the formal complaint. In December 2013 and January 2014, counsel for respondent 

submitted drafts of a proposed probation plan to the Disciplinary Administrator for 

comments and suggestions. On April 8, 2014, counsel for respondent finalized the 
2

proposed probation plan and submitted it to the hearing panel and the Disciplinary 

Administrator.

A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on May 6, 

2014, at which respondent appeared in person and through counsel. The hearing panel 

determined the respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) (diligence); 

KRPC 1.4 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); KRPC 1.8(e) (2013 Kan. Ct. 

R. Annot. 528) (conflict of interest); KRPC 3.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 587)

(expediting litigation); KRPC 8.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) (timely response to 

disciplinary inquiry); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 

336) (duty to aid Disciplinary Administrator in investigation of complaints).

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact by 

clear and convincing evidence and then made its conclusions of law, together with its 

recommendation to this court:

"Findings of Fact

.....

"8. Andrew M. Delaney (hereinafter 'the respondent') is an attorney at law, 

Kansas attorney registration number 20476. His last registration address with the clerk of 

the appellate courts of Kansas is . . . Hiawatha, Kansas . . . . The Kansas Supreme Court 

admitted the respondent to the practice of law in the State of Kansas on April 26, 2002.

"DA11078 and DA1152

"9. In 2010, two complaints were filed against the respondent. Following the 

investigation, the respondent entered into the attorney diversion program in connection 
3

with the two disciplinary complaints. The respondent did not successfully complete the 

diversion program.

"10. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(d)(2)(vii) provides the procedure to follow when an 

attorney fails to complete the terms and conditions of diversion:

'Failure to Complete the Attorney Diversion Program. If the Respondent 

fails to complete the agreed tasks in a timely manner at any point in the 

diversion process, he or she may be terminated from the program. If such 

a termination occurs, traditional formal disciplinary procedures will 

resume. When the complaint is returned to the formal disciplinary 

process, the Respondent's termination from the Attorney Diversion 

Program may be cited as an additional aggravating factor in 

recommending discipline and as a violation of Supreme Court Rule 207 

and KRPC 8.1.' 

"11. Additionally, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(d)(2)(i), '[b]y entering 

into [the] diversion agreement, the Respondent stipulate[d] to the factual allegations and 

rule violations . . . that can be mutually agreed upon by the Disciplinary Administrator 

and the Respondent.' In the diversion agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and the 

respondent agreed to the following facts and rule violations:

'8. The Disciplinary Administrator and the Respondent 

stipulate to the following facts:

DA 11,078

a. [C.B.] retained Respondent in October 2007 for a 

divorce.

b. The case was heard in February 2008. There was 

difficulty getting a hearing date.
4

c. Respondent prepared a journal entry and sent it to 

opposing counsel.

d. Respondent did not receive the signed journal entry 

back, so on March 31, 2008, he sent opposing counsel 

another copy.

e. The journal entry was filed April 7, 2008.

f. The QDRO provided Respondent's client receive 

100% of a 401K that was administered by Albaugh, Inc. 

The same day as the hearing, February 29, 2008, 

Respondent sent a request to Albaugh asking for advice 

on how to proceed.

g. The QDRO paperwork was complete on August 14, 

2008.

h. Respondent admits he forgot about the QDRO until 

the next January.

i. Respondent contacted Albaugh on how to withdraw 

the funds. By this time, the account had lost $3000 due 

to the decline in the stock market. However, at the time 

of the divorce, the ex-husband was only 60% vested and 

there was a 10% early withdrawal penalty. The actual 

financial harm to the client from the delay is estimated to 

be less than $2,000.

j. The same client, in the spring of 2009, engaged in a 

relationship with a man who was willing to adopt her 

son.
5

k. The ex-husband consented to the adoption and signed 

a consent form in April 2009.

l. Complainant requested the adoption be completed 

before the child started school, so he could enter school 

with his name already changed.

m. Respondent suggested they wait on the adoption until 

after they were married.

n. Complainant got married in September 2009.

o. The adoption case was not set until December 2009. 

The court would not accept the consent form signed by 

the ex-husband because it had been signed in April 2009.

p. The Respondent tracked the ex-husband down and got 

another consent form signed. The adoption was 

completed.

q. The Respondent waived his fee and did not require 

Complainant to pay the filing fee. Respondent refunded 

$300.00 of his $500.00 retainer and gave Complainant 

$500.00 in cash to be used to buy Christmas presents.

DA 11,152

a. [C.M.B.] engaged Respondent in February 2009 for 

help in dissolution of a partnership. No fee was paid.
6

b. A petition for dissolution of partnership and for 

partition was filed in April 2009.

c. Motions for default judgments were filed in June 

2009.

d. Respondent had difficulty obtaining service on all 

parties.

e. In December 2009, Respondent apologized to 

Complainant for the delay. This was one of the very few 

contacts Respondent had with Complainant, despite 

Complainant's attempts to contact him.

f. In February 2010, Complainant attempted to secure 

new counsel.

g. In March 2010, Complainant threatened to file a 

disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent did 

not contact Complainant. A complaint was filed in July 

2010.

'9. The Disciplinary Administrator and the Respondent 

agree that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(e) and 3.2.'

"DA11784

"12. On March 13, 2013, N.R. filed a complaint against the respondent for 

issues arising out of the respondent's representation of N.R. in a child in need of care 

proceeding. It appears that N.R. complained that the respondent failed to appear in court 

for a hearing, that he failed to return her telephone calls, and that he provided her with 

bad advice on how to get her children returned to her custody. [The review committee of 
7

the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys determined that probable cause did not 

exist to conclude that the respondent violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 

with regard to the respondent's representation of N.R. Case number DA11784 is before 

the hearing panel solely on the allegation that the respondent failed to cooperate in the 

disciplinary investigation.]

"13. On March 22, 2013, Ms. Knoll wrote to the respondent, enclosed a copy 

of N.R.'s complaint, and directed the respondent to provide a written response to the 

complaint within 20 days. The respondent failed to provide a written response to the 

complaint. 

"14. Thereafter, the disciplinary administrator referred N.R.'s complaint to the 

Topeka Ethics and Grievance Committee for investigation. Lucky DeFries, chair of the 

Topeka Ethics and Grievance Committee, appointed Stephen W. Cavanaugh to 

investigate the complaint. On April 16, 2013, and on May 7, 2013, Mr. Cavanaugh wrote 

to the respondent, directing the respondent to provide a written response to the complaint 

filed by N.R. The respondent failed to provide a written response as directed by Mr. 

Cavanaugh.

"15. On June 3, 2013, William C. Delaney, special investigator for the 

disciplinary administrator was assigned to attempt to locate the respondent. On June 6, 

2013, Mr. Delaney personally contacted the respondent at the Brown County Courthouse 

in Hiawatha, Kansas. Mr. Delaney met with the respondent at the courthouse to discuss 

the complaint filed by N.R. The respondent informed Mr. Delaney that he was aware of 

the complaint and had no excuse for failing to provide a written answer to the complaint.

The respondent promised to provide a written response to the complaint within the next 

few days. The respondent stated that he was not 'snubbing' the disciplinary 

administrator's office but that he had a number of issues at that time. Mr. Delaney 

provided the respondent with 10 additional days to provide a written response to N.R.'s 

complaint.
8

"16. On June 13, 2013, the respondent forwarded a written response to the 

complaint filed by N.R., to Mr. Delaney. 

"Conclusions of Law

"17. Based upon the respondent's admissions in his answer, the respondent's 

stipulations in the diversion agreement, and the findings of fact above, the hearing panel 

concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 

1.8(e), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, as detailed below.

"KRPC 1.3

"18. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The respondent failed to diligently and 

promptly represent C.B. by failing to take action on the QDRO and by failing to timely 

complete the adoption. The respondent failed to diligently represent C.M.B. by failing to 

timely get service on the defendant and prosecute the dissolution of partnership case.

Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing his clients, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 

1.3.

"KRPC 1.4

"19. 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 remain in 

contact with C.M.B., despite C.M.B.'s attempts to contact the respondent. Accordingly, 

the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a).

 

"KRPC 1.8(e)

"20. The respondent also violated KRPC 1.8(e). KRPC 1.8(e) provides: 
9

'A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in 

connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that: 

'(1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses 

of litigation, the repayment of which may be 

contingent on the outcome of the matter; and

'(2) a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay 

court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf 

of the client.'

In his representation of C.B., the respondent paid the filing fee and gave C.B. $500 in 

cash to be used to purchase Christmas presents. As such, the hearing panel concludes that 

the respondent violated KRPC 1.8(e). 

"KRPC 3.2

"21. 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 C.B.'s adoption case and in C.M.B.'s dissolution of partnership case.

Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 3.2.

 

"KRPC 8.1 and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b)

"22. Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) and 

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provide the requirements in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection 

with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand 

for information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority . . .' KRPC 8.1(b).

'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid 

the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary 
10

Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, 

and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information 

he or she may have affecting such matters.'

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). The respondent knew that he was required to forward a written 

response to the initial complaints—he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in writing 

by Ms. Knoll and Mr. Cavanaugh. Because the respondent knowingly failed to provide a 

timely written response to the initial complaint filed by N.R., the hearing panel concludes 

that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).

 

"American Bar Association

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

"23. 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.

"24. 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. Finally, the respondent violated his duty to 

the legal profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.

"25. Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duties.

"26. Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 

actual injury to C.B., C.M.B., the legal system, and the legal profession. The harm to 

C.B. can be quantified at less than $2,000.
11

"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

"27. 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:

"28. A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent has engaged in a pattern of 

misconduct.

"29. Multiple Offenses. The respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, 

KRPC 1.8(e), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.1, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207. Accordingly, the hearing 

panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple offenses.

"30. 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 requests for information made by the disciplinary administrator. As 

such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent obstructed the disciplinary 

proceeding.

"31. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme 

Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 2002. At the time 

of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 10 years.

 

"32. 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:

"33. Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct 

does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness.

 
12

"34. 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. It is clear that the respondent's depression contributed to his 

misconduct. 

"35. 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. While the respondent failed to cooperate during the disciplinary 

investigation, he fully cooperated with the disciplinary process during the prosecution of 

the formal complaint. Additionally, the respondent admitted the facts that gave rise to the 

violations.

 

"36. 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 Hiawatha, Kansas. The respondent also enjoys the respect of his peers and generally 

possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by the testimony of a number of 

attorneys.

"37. Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed genuine 

remorse for having engaged in the misconduct.

"38. In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 

examined and considered the following Standards: 

'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. 

'4.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in 

determining whether the representation of a client may be 
13

materially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether the 

representation will adversely affect another client, and causes 

injury or potential 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. 

'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. 

'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

"39. The disciplinary administrator and the respondent recommended that the 

respondent be placed on probation, under the respondent's proposed plan of probation. 

The disciplinary administrator would have recommended that the respondent be 

suspended for a period of six months followed by a reinstatement hearing, under Kan. 

Sup. Ct. R. 219, had the respondent not taken so many proactive steps to get his house in 

order.

 

"40. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 

Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent 
14

be suspended for a period of six months. The hearing panel further recommends that the 

suspension be suspended and the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 2 

years, subject to the following terms and conditions:

"a. KALAP. The respondent will comply with the terms and 

conditions of the monitoring agreement, executed on September 20, 

2013. If the monitoring attorney or Anne McDonald determines that the 

monitoring agreement should be changed or extended, the respondent 

will consent to the changes or extensions. The respondent will provide 

the monitoring attorney and KALAP with an appropriate release of 

information to allow the monitoring attorney and KALAP to provide 

information to the practice supervisor, the counselor, and the disciplinary 

administrator. 

"b. Inventory of Cases and Clients. The respondent will 

maintain an inventory of all open cases and clients. The respondent will 

update the inventory on a daily basis. The inventory will include 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.

"c. Client Communication. The respondent will return all 

telephone calls within 48 business hours. The respondent will contact 

each client by letter at least once every three months regarding the status 

of the matter.

"d. Restitution. The respondent will refund $2,000 to C.B. 

within 90 days of the date of this report. 

"e. Practice Supervision. William R. McQuillan will serve 

as the respondent's practice supervisor. The respondent will provide the 

practice supervisor with an updated copy of the inventory of cases and 

clients on a monthly basis. The respondent will allow the practice 
15

supervisor access to his client files, calendar, and trust account records.

The respondent will meet with the practice supervisor once a week. The 

meetings will be face-to-face or by telephone, in the judgment of the 

practice supervisor. The respondent will comply with any requests made 

by the practice supervisor. The practice supervisor will prepare a 

quarterly report to the disciplinary administrator regarding the 

respondent's status on probation. The respondent will provide the 

practice supervisor with an appropriate release of information to allow 

the practice supervisor to provide such information to the counselor, 

KALAP, the monitoring attorney, and the disciplinary administrator. The 

practice supervisor will be acting as an officer and an agent of the court 

while supervising the probation and monitoring the respondent's legal 

practice. As supervising attorney, the practice supervisor will be afforded 

all immunities granted by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223 during the course of his 

supervising activities.

"f. Psychological Treatment. The respondent will continue 

his treatment for depression throughout the period of supervised 

probation, unless the counselor determines that continued treatment is no 

longer necessary. The counselor will 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 will provide the 

counselor with an appropriate release of information to allow the 

counselor to provide such information to the practice supervisor, 

KALAP, the monitoring attorney, and the disciplinary administrator.

"g. Medication. The respondent will comply with the 

prescription medication plan developed by this primary care physician or 

psychiatrist.

"h. Office Procedures. Within ten days of this report, the 

respondent will provide the practice supervisor and the disciplinary 
16

administrator with written office procedures designed to monitor the 

status, deadlines, and court appearances of all matters in which he has 

undertaken representation. The respondent will modify that procedure if 

directed to do so by the practice supervisor or the disciplinary 

administrator. The respondent will follow the written office procedures.

"i. Calendar. On a weekly basis, the respondent and the 

supervising attorney will review the respondent's calendar to ensure that 

appropriate notices have been sent, that the respondent is properly 

prepared for all events on his scheduled, and that all files have been 

properly updated.

"j. Mail. Someone, other than the respondent, should be 

charged with opening the respondent’s mail on a daily basis.

"k. Billing, Fee Agreements, and Conflict List. The 

respondent will review all billing procedures with the practice 

supervisor. The respondent will have a written fee agreement on each 

and every case in his inventory. A conflict list will be prepared and kept 

at the office to ensure that no conflicts arise in any of the new cases the 

respondent undertakes. The conflict list will be reviewed by the 

supervising attorney.

"l. Audits. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this report, 

the practice supervisor will conduct an initial audit of the respondent's 

files. Thereafter, every six months, the practice supervisor will conduct 

additional audits. If the practice supervisor discovers any violations of 

the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the practice supervisor will 

include such information in his report. The practice supervisor will 

provide the disciplinary administrator and the respondent with a copy of 

each audit report. The respondent will follow all recommendations and 

correct all deficiencies noted in the practice supervisor's periodic audit 

reports. At the conclusion of the period of probation, the respondent will 
17

submit to the practice supervisor a detailed account of his active files and 

the practice supervisor will conduct a final audit.

"m. Continued Cooperation. The respondent will continue to 

cooperate with the disciplinary administrator. If the disciplinary 

administrator requests any additional information, the respondent will 

timely provide such information. 

"n. Additional Violations. The respondent will 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 will immediately report such violation to the practice 

supervisor and the disciplinary administrator. The disciplinary 

administrator will take immediate action directing the respondent to 

show cause why the probation should not be revoked.

"41. 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 disciplinary 

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 Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 

375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356). 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]).
18

Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 

an answer. The Disciplinary Administrator's office and respondent entered into a written 

stipulation upon which the panel's final hearing report was based in part. Respondent 

filed no exceptions to the final hearing report. As such, the panel's findings of fact are 

deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375).

The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 

evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) 

(diligence); 1.4 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 1.8(e) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. 

Annot. 527) (conflict of interest); 3.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 587) (expediting 

litigation); 8.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 646) (timely response to disciplinary inquiry); 

Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 336) (duty to disciplinary 

administrator), and it supports the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's 

findings and conclusions.

The only remaining issue for this court is determining the appropriate discipline 

for respondent's violations. At the hearing before this court, the Disciplinary 

Administrator and respondent jointly requested that this court adopt the hearing panel's 

recommended discipline, as recited in the hearing panel's report at Paragraph 40. The 

hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us from imposing 

greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375); 

see In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013).

We agree with the parties that hearing panel's recommendation as recited in 

Paragraph 40 of its report is the appropriate discipline, with the modification that if the 

probation is revoked and a suspension invoked due to respondent's failure to comply with 
19

the terms and conditions in the probation plan, he must have a reinstatement hearing 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 407).

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Andrew M. Delaney be suspended from the 

practice of law in the state of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2)

and (5) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 300), for a 6-month period but imposition of this 

discipline shall be stayed and respondent placed on probation under the terms and 

conditions set out in Paragraph 40 of the hearing panel report as modified by this court in 

this decision for a 2-year period beginning the date this opinion is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Andrew M. Delaney during his probationary 

period fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation, a show cause order 

shall issue and this court will take whatever disciplinary action appears just and proper 

without further formal proceedings.

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.

MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.1

 

1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 112,169

to fill the vacancy on the court created by the appointment of Justice Nancy Moritz to the 

United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.