1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 124,082

In the Matter of TIMOTHY M. STAROSTA,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 3, 2021. One-year suspension.

W. Thomas Stratton Jr., Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 

Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

Timothy M. Starosta, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 

Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Timothy M. Starosta, of Liberty,

Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 2009.

On November 18, 2020, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 

complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 

Conduct (KRPC). Respondent failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. 

Respondent appeared in person pro se at the hearing before a panel of the Kansas Board 

for Discipline of Attorneys, which was conducted on January 21, 2021. Respondent 

stipulated to the facts and rule violations alleged.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel determined that respondent had 

violated KRPC 1.1 (competence) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 321); 1.3 (diligence) (2021 Kan. 

S. Ct. R. 325); 1.4 (communication) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 326); 1.15 (safekeeping 

property) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 366); 3.2 (expediting litigation) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 384); 
2

5.5 (unauthorized practice of law) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 406); and 8.1 (disciplinary 

matters) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 424); and former Rule 207 (cooperation) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. 

R. 246). 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

. . . .

"Admission to the Practice of Law in Kansas and Missouri

"13. In 2008, the Missouri Supreme Court admitted the respondent to the 

practice of law. At the time of the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent stated 

that he had five disciplinary complaints pending in Missouri. 

"14. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the respondent to the practice of law 

in the State of Kansas on September 25, 2009. On October 8, 2019, the Kansas Supreme 

Court suspended the respondent's license for failing to pay the continuing legal education 

fee and for failing to complete the requisite continuing legal education hours. The 

respondent's license to practice law in Kansas remains suspended.

"DA13396

"15. On April 22, 2019, R.A. and J.A. retained the respondent to file a stepparent adoption case on behalf of R.A. R.A. and J.A. paid the respondent $500, with the 

understanding that if the matter was uncontested, the respondent would provide a $300 

refund to R.A. and J.A.

"16. After retaining the respondent, J.A. repeatedly attempted to contact the 

respondent for updates regarding the status of the adoption case. The respondent failed to 

respond to many of the requests for information from J.A. 
3

"17. On August 19, 2019, the respondent sent an email message to J.A., 

informing her that the adoption petition had been filed. The respondent did not provide a 

copy of the petition to R.A. or J.A. 

"18. On October 9, 2019, J.A. filed a complaint with the disciplinary 

administrator's office. The disciplinary administrator's office provided the respondent 

with a copy of the complaint and directed the respondent to provide a written response 

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

"19. On October 16, 2019, R.A. filed a document with the Johnson County 

District Court requesting that the respondent be removed as his attorney and requesting 

additional time to schedule a hearing on the adoption petition.

"20. On November 18, 2019, R.A. and J.A. appeared in court, pro se. The 

district court granted the adoption petition.

"DA13425

"21. In September, 2019, Commerce Bank provided the disciplinary 

administrator's office with notifications that two checks drawn on the respondent's 

attorney trust account were returned for insufficient funds.

"22. On September 16, 2019, the disciplinary administrator's office sent the 

respondent a letter, at his registered address, informing him of the overdrafts and 

directing him to provide a written explanation within 15 days. The respondent failed to 

provide a written explanation.

"23. On September 30, 2019, the respondent contacted the disciplinary 

administrator's office and promised to provide an explanation regarding the overdrafts by 

October 4, 2019. The respondent failed to do so.

"24. On October 21, 2019, the disciplinary administrator's office sent a second 

letter to the respondent requesting an explanation regarding the overdrafts and reminding 

the respondent of his promise to provide an explanation regarding the overdrafts by 
4

October 4, 2019. The disciplinary administrator's office gave the respondent 10 additional 

days to provide information regarding the overdrafts. Again, the respondent failed to 

provide an explanation regarding the overdrafts.

"25. On November 13, 2019, the disciplinary administrator's office wrote to the 

respondent again. This time, the disciplinary administrator's office informed the 

respondent that the overdrafts were being docketed as a complaint for investigation. The 

disciplinary administrator's office again requested that the respondent provide an 

explanation for the overdrafts. Again, the respondent failed to provide an explanation 

regarding the overdrafts.

"26. As an aside, the hearing panel notes that after the respondent's suspension 

from the practice of law in Kansas on October 8, 2019, the respondent continued to 

deposit funds into his attorney trust account. Exhibit 18 consists of bank records 

regarding the respondent's attorney trust account from September, 2019 through July, 

2020. Following the respondent's suspension, in that time period, he deposited a total of 

$43,394.80 into his attorney trust account, as follows:

October 9, 2019 $1,000.00

October 16, 2019 $7,000.00

December 10, 2019 $250.00

December 11, 2019 $250.00

December 16, 2019 $100.00

December 26, 2019 $100.00

January 24, 2020 $325.00

January 27, 2020 $148.00

January 30, 2020 $6,000.00

March 26, 2020 $375.00

April 1, 2020 $235.00

April 22, 2020 $450.00

May 5, 2020 $250.00

July 23, 2020 $350.00

July 29, 2020 $26,561.80
5

"27. At the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent testified regarding 

the overdrafts.

'Q. . . . With regard to the insufficient funds in your trust account that resulted 

in the refusal to honor the $799 and the $147.50 items, what were—do you 

know what those items were bills to be paid?

'A. Those are payments to myself where I thought I had earned–not that I 

thought that I had earned the fees, I had earned the fees and so I was 

paying myself. And I thought I had paid myself—hadn't paid myself on a 

case because of my accounting software told me that I hadn't paid it, even 

though I had previously paid it to myself and I didn't realize that. So when 

I wrote that check, it bounced another check on a speeding ticket, which I 

immediately put cash back into the trust account to fix the issue.' 

"DA13510

"28. On October 7, 2019, W.M. and P.M. retained the respondent to protect 

their interest in real property that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Wyandotte County 

District Court in a divorce action involving their daughter, S.W., Wyandotte County 

District Court case number 19-DM-574. That same day, W.M. and P.M. paid the 

respondent a $1,000 advance fee. The respondent deposited the fee into his attorney trust 

account. 

"29. On January 8, 2020, S.W.'s attorney, Mike Nichols, spoke with the 

respondent by telephone. That same day, Mr. Nichols sent an email message to the 

respondent, requesting information establishing how much money W.M. and P.M. 

invested in the real property that was subject to the divorce case. 

"30. On March 4, 2020, the respondent attempted to send Mr. Nichols an email 

message, but the respondent experienced problems with the attachment and the effort was 

unsuccessful. The email message from the respondent to Mr. Nichols did not contain any 

details about the contents of the attachment.
6

"31. W.M. and P.M. attempted to contact the respondent by telephone 

repeatedly. The respondent did not return many of the telephone calls. 

"32. The respondent took no additional action on behalf of W.M. and P.M. The 

respondent did not appear in court on behalf of W.M. and P.M. The respondent did not 

meet with W.M. and P.M. after the initial consultation. Throughout the period of 

representation, the respondent did not send W.M. and P.M. any written correspondence.

"Disciplinary Investigations

"33. On March 24, 2020, J. Ryan Erker, an attorney, was assigned to investigate 

DA13396 and DA13425. Mr. Erker spoke with the respondent by telephone. 

Additionally, Mr. Erker mailed a letter to the respondent. Mr. Erker requested that the 

respondent provide a written response to the complaints and provide certain documents. 

Mr. Erker also asked the respondent to provide a date when the respondent would be 

available for a telephone interview. The respondent did not respond to the requests made 

by Mr. Erker.

"Conclusions of Law

"34. As mentioned above, the disciplinary administrator's office requested 

permission to amend the formal complaint by interlineation to add a violation of KRPC 

8.1 and former Rule 218. The respondent lodged no objection and the hearing panel 

allowed the amendment. 

"35. So, while the hearing panel allowed the amendment, before the hearing 

panel may consider whether the respondent violated those provisions, the hearing panel 

must consider whether there are sufficient factual allegations in the formal complaint to 

establish those violations. 

"36. The hearing panel concludes, as a matter of law, that the disciplinary 

administrator's office included sufficient factual allegations to establish a violation of 

KRPC 8.1. See ¶¶ 6, 9, and 13 of the Formal Complaint. Thus, it is proper for the hearing 

panel to consider whether the respondent violated KRPC 8.1. 
7

"37. Because the disciplinary administrator's office did not include factual 

allegations to establish a violation of former Rule 218 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 265) in the 

formal complaint, the hearing panel concludes that it is improper to consider a violation 

of former Rule 218 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 265).

"38. Additionally, in the formal complaint, the disciplinary administrator's 

office alleged a violation of KRPC 8.4(g). However, during closing arguments, the 

disciplinary administrator's office argued that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) but 

made no mention of KRPC 8.4(g). Based on the variation, the hearing panel makes no 

conclusions regarding KRPC 8.4(d) or KRPC 8.4(g). 

"39. Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter of 

law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), KRPC 1.3 (diligence), KRPC 

1.4 (communication), KRPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), KRPC 3.2 (expediting 

litigation), KRPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), KRPC 8.1 (cooperation), and 

former Rule 207 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246) (cooperation), and as detailed below.

"KRPC 1.1 and KRPC 1.3

"40. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC 1.1. 

'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 

preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' Also, attorneys must act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The 

respondent failed to exercise the thoroughness reasonably necessary in his representation 

of R.A., W.M., and P.M. Likewise, the respondent failed to diligently represent his 

clients. The conduct that establishes violations of KRPC 1.1 also establishes violations of 

KRPC 1.3, in this case. The respondent did not provide R.A. with a copy of the adoption 

petition, the respondent did not take any action on behalf of R.A. after filing the petition, 

the respondent did not provide Mr. Nichols with the evidence to support W.M. and P.M.'s 

claim, and the respondent did not take any action to protect W.M. and P.M.'s interest in 

the real property. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 

KRPC 1.1 and KRPC 1.3. 
8

"KRPC 1.4

"41. 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.' Id. In this case, the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he failed to 

return many of J.A., W.M., and P.M.'s telephone calls and, thus, failed to keep his clients 

informed about the status of the representations. Accordingly, the hearing panel 

concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 

"KRPC 1.15

"42. Lawyers must keep the property of their clients safe. See KRPC 1.15. In 

this case, two checks drawn on the respondent's attorney trust account were returned for 

insufficient funds. The respondent inadvertently overpaid himself causing that check to 

be dishonored. In addition, that transaction caused a client's check, drawn to pay a 

speeding ticket, to also be dishonored. The respondent failed to properly safeguard his 

client's property by failing to properly administer his attorney trust account. Therefore, 

the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.15. 

"KRPC 3.2

"43. An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if he fails to make reasonable efforts to 

expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client. Id. The respondent caused 

unnecessary delay in J.A.'s case by failing to take action after the step-parent adoption 

petition was filed. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 

KRPC 3.2. 

"KRPC 5.5

"44. It is misconduct for a lawyer to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. 

KRPC 5.5. Specifically, KRPC 5.5(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall not practice law in a 

jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.' On 

October 8, 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the respondent's license to 

practice law. After his license was suspended, the respondent continued to represent 
9

W.M. and P.M. in discussions with Mr. Nichols. The hearing panel concludes that the 

respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a).

"KRPC 8.1 and Former Rule 207 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246)

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

former Rule 207(b) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246) 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 Administrator in 

investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, and to communicate to the 

Disciplinary Administrator any information he or she may have affecting such 

matters.' Former Rule 207(b) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246).

The respondent knew that he was required to forward written responses to the complaints 

and provide the attorney investigator with requested information. He had been repeatedly 

instructed to do so in writing by the disciplinary administrator's office and the attorney 

investigator. Because the respondent knowingly failed to provide written responses to the 

complaints, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and 

former Rule 207(b) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246). 

"American Bar Association

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

"46. 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. 
10

"47. Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 

competent and diligent representation and adequate communication. The respondent 

violated his duty to his clients to properly safeguard his client's property. Also, the 

respondent 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.

"48. Mental State. The respondent negligently and knowingly violated his 

duties.

"49. Injury. Because of the swift action by his clients, the respondent's 

misconduct caused his clients only potential injury. Additionally, however, the 

respondent's misconduct caused actual injury to the legal system. 

"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

"50. 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.

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

misconduct. In the respondent's representation of R.A., W.M., and P.M., the respondent 

failed to provide competent and diligent representation and adequate communication. 

"52. Additionally, because the respondent continued to make deposits into his 

trust account after his license to practice law was suspended, the hearing panel concludes 

that the respondent engaged in a pattern of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 

The hearing panel did not base the conclusion that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5 on 

the 15 deposits into the respondent's attorney trust account made between October 9, 

2019, and July 29, 2020, because those facts were not alleged in the formal complaint. 

However, because evidence of the deposits was presented at the hearing on the formal 

complaint, it is proper for the hearing panel to consider that evidence in aggravation. 
11

"53. Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations. 

The respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), KRPC 1.3 (diligence), KRPC 1.4 

(communication), KRPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), KRPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), 

KRPC 8.1(b) (cooperation), and former Rule 207 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246) 

(cooperation). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed 

multiple offenses. 

"54. Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally 

Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The disciplinary 

administrator's office and the attorney investigator repeatedly instructed the respondent to 

provide written responses to the complaints. The respondent failed to do so. Additionally, 

the attorney investigator requested that the respondent provide him with certain 

documents. The respondent did not provide the requested documents. The attorney 

investigator asked the respondent to set up a time for an interview. Again, the respondent 

did not do so. Finally, the respondent failed to file an answer to the formal complaint 

despite an extension of time to do so. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent's 

failure to provide responses to the complaints, to provide the requested documents, to set 

up an interview with the attorney investigator, and to file an answer aggravates the 

misconduct in this case.

"55. Vulnerability of Victim. R.A., W.M., and P.M. were vulnerable to the 

respondent's misconduct. 

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

admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 2009. At the time of the 

misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for approximately 10 years.

"57. Indifference to Making Restitution. At the time of the hearing on the formal 

complaint, the respondent had not refunded the $500 to R.A. and J.A. and he had not 

returned the $1,000 held in trust for W.M. and P.M. During the hearing, the respondent 

indicated that he would refund the $500 to R.A. and J.A. and return the $1,000 to W.M. 

and P.M. The hearing panel finds that the respondent's failure to refund the unearned fees 

to R.A. and J.A. and the respondent's failure to return the funds held in trust for W.M. 

and P.M. prior to the hearing on the formal complaint is a factor in aggravation. 
12

"58. 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.

"59. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The respondent has not previously 

been disciplined. 

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

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

"61. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed to 

Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent testified that, 

during the period of time that the misconduct occurred, he suffered a series of personal 

tragedies. Additionally, the respondent testified that he has suffered and continues to 

suffer from depression. It is clear that the respondent's personal problems and his 

depression contributed to his misconduct. This factor in mitigation is compelling and the 

hearing panel gave this factor great weight.

"62. The Present Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His Cooperation During 

the Hearing and His Full and Free Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. Even though 

the respondent failed to cooperate prior to the disciplinary hearing, during the hearing, 

the respondent stipulated to the factual allegations and rule violations.

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

remorse to J.A. for failing to take action to effect the step-parent adoption for R.A. 

Additionally, in his closing argument, the respondent apologized to 'everybody involved'

and apologized for not responding to the complaints.

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

examined and considered the following Standards: 
13

'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in dealing with 

client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.' ABA Standard 

4.13.

'Suspension is generally appropriate when . . . a lawyer engages in a pattern of 

neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client.' ABA Standard 4.42(b).

"Recommendations of the Parties

"65. The disciplinary administrator's office recommended that the respondent's 

license to practice law be suspended for a period of one year. The disciplinary 

administrator's office also recommended that prior to reinstatement, the respondent 

undergo a reinstatement hearing under Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287). The 

disciplinary administrator's office recommended that at the reinstatement hearing, the 

respondent present a plan of probation, that the respondent establish that he refunded 

$500 to R.A. and J.A. and $1,000 to W.M. and P.M., that the respondent establish that he 

continued in treatment and has made satisfactory progress, and that the respondent 

establish that he complied with the recommendations of KALAP. 

"66. The respondent recommended that he be allowed to continue to practice 

law and agreed to comply with any terms and conditions and 'would do anything' to keep 

his license. 

"Recommendation of the Hearing Panel

"67. 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 one year. The hearing panel further recommends that prior to 

reinstatement, the respondent be required to undergo a hearing pursuant to Rule 232 

(2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287). At the reinstatement hearing, the hearing panel recommends 

that the respondent present a plan of supervised probation, that the respondent establish 

that he has returned the fees to his clients, that the respondent established he has received 

sufficient treatment for his depression and is in a position to resume the active practice of 
14

law, and that the respondent establish that he complied with the recommendations of 

KALAP.

"68. 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 

hearing panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of the 

KRPC 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 226(a)(1)(A) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 276). 

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]).

The respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he 

failed to file an answer. During the hearing before the disciplinary panel, respondent 

admitted to violating KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, 5.5, and 8.1, and former Supreme 

Court Rule 207. No exceptions were filed in the case, and the finding of facts as set forth 

in the hearing panel's final hearing report are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 

228(g)(1), (2) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 281). The evidence before the hearing panel clearly

established the charged misconduct violated KRPC 1.1 (competence); 1.3 (diligence); 

1.4 (communication); 1.15 (safekeeping property); 3.2 (expediting litigation); 5.5 

(unauthorized practice of law); and 8.1 (disciplinary matters); and former Rule 207 

(cooperation) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246).
15

On October 26, 2021, the Disciplinary Administrator filed a motion requesting the 

court judicially notice two additional facts: (1) on June 3, 2021, by order of the Supreme 

Court of Missouri, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in Missouri; and (2) 

respondent's Kansas license to practice law was suspended in October 2019 and has 

remained suspended for failure to pay a continuing legal education (CLE) fee and failure 

to complete the CLE hours required for continued licensure. At oral argument, 

respondent confirmed he had no objection to the motion. 

K.S.A. 60-412(c) authorizes the court to "take judicial notice of any matter 

specified in K.S.A. 60-409, whether or not judicially noticed by the [court below]." 

K.S.A. 60-409(b) allows courts to take judicial notice of "specific facts . . . which are 

capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of 

indisputable accuracy." Courts shall notice such facts at the request of a party if the party 

furnishes the court with sufficient information to comply with the request and has given 

the adverse party notice and an opportunity to respond. K.S.A. 60-409(c). 

The Disciplinary Administrator's office has provided sufficient information to 

support the request and afforded respondent the opportunity to address its motion. 

Therefore, we grant the Disciplinary Administrator's motion and take judicial notice that

respondent has been disbarred from the practice of law in Missouri, and his Kansas 

license remains suspended for failing to pay the CLE fee and complete the required 

CLE hours.

The only issue left for us to resolve is the appropriate discipline. The disciplinary 

panel and Disciplinary Administrator recommended that we suspend respondent's license 

to practice law for one year and that respondent be subject to a reinstatement hearing 

under Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287). Both also recommended that 

respondent develop a supervised probation plan to present at the reinstatement hearing, 
16

and that the plan include reimbursement of attorney's fees to his clients. Both further 

recommended that respondent work with Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program (KALAP)

and comply with their recommendations. Respondent requested that he be allowed to 

continue to practice law subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 

The court agrees with the combined recommendations of the disciplinary panel 

and the Disciplinary Administrator. Respondent does not have a history of misconduct

with the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator's Office. Respondent explained that he is 

struggling with depression due to a series of personal tragedies and that these events 

contributed to his misconduct. These personal tragedies would be difficult for anyone to

endure, and we acknowledge these events constitute a mitigating circumstance in this 

case. Even so, we cannot overlook the fact that respondent's misconduct caused real and 

substantial injury to his clients. Nor can we overlook the risk of continued harm to the 

public in the absence of appropriate discipline.

To properly balance these competing interests, we impose the following discipline. 

Respondent's license shall be suspended for one year. Respondent must undergo a

reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 232 before his petition for reinstatement will be 

considered. Respondent's petition for reinstatement must include a probation plan for 

appropriate supervision and support for the resumption of his practice of law. At the 

reinstatement hearing, the respondent must show he has complied with or satisfied the 

following conditions to reinstatement: (1) he has made full restitution by refunding fees 

to his clients R.A. and J.A. and W.M. and P.M.; (2) he has received appropriate care and 

treatment for depression, is complying with any treatment plan developed by qualified 

providers, and is in a position to resume the active practice of law; (3) he has complied 

with other recommendations made by KALAP; (4) he has either provided notice to the 

Disciplinary Administrator that he disputes the findings of the Missouri Supreme Court's 

June 3, 2021 default order of disbarment, or in the alternative, demonstrated that he has 
17

taken appropriate corrective action to address the issues giving rise to the Missouri 

violations and remedied any financial harm to the victims of this misconduct; and (5) he 

is in compliance with the Kansas CLE requirements and CLE fee obligations. 

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Timothy M. Starosta is suspended for one year

from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective the date of this opinion, in 

accordance with Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(3) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 275) for violations 

of KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, 5.5, and 8.1, and former Supreme Court Rule 207.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 

231 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 286).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondent applies for reinstatement, he shall 

comply with Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287) and be required to 

undergo a reinstatement hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondent applies for reinstatement, he shall 

submit a probation plan and demonstrate compliance with or satisfaction of the 

conditions consistent with this opinion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 

respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.