1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 118,210

In the Matter of DANIEL HART PHILLIPS,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed January 12, 2018. One-year suspension.

Penny R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 

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

G. Craig Robinson, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Daniel Hart Phillips, respondent, argued

the cause pro se.

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

office of the Disciplinary Administrator against respondent, Daniel Hart Phillips, of 

Wichita, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1978.

On February 16, 2017, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 

complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 

Conduct (KRPC). Respondent filed an answer on March 13, 2017. A hearing was held on 

the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on May 31, 

2017, at which the respondent appeared personally and by counsel. The panel determined 

that respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (engaging in conduct 

adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law).

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

conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court:
2

"Findings of Fact

. . . .

"8. On April 27, 2016, A.J., a prospective client, called the respondent, 

seeking representation. During the telephone conversation, the respondent called A.J., 

'baby,' which made A.J. feel uncomfortable. After the respondent called A.J. 'baby,' A.J. 

tape recorded the remainder of their telephone conversation. The respondent scheduled an 

office appointment with A.J. for the next day. The remainder of the telephone 

conversation went as follows:

'[By A.J.] You didn't forget about me, did you?

'[By the respondent] No, what do you need? With a voice like that, I can't forget 

that.

'[By A.J.] Okay.

'[By the respondent] So you want to bring your paperwork and come see me 

tomorrow at noon?

'[By A.J.] Yeah, that'll be fine.

'[By the respondent] Do you know where it's at?

'[By A.J.] No, I'm not really familiar.

'[By the respondent] Okay. So write this down. Okay?

'[By A.J.] Okay.

'[By the respondent] Tell me when you're ready.

'[By A.J.] I'm ready.
3

'[By the respondent] 1919 North Amidon.

'[By A.J.] Uh-huh.

'[By the respondent] I'm on the third floor, Suite 312. When you get off the 

elevator on the third floor, you do a U-turn to your left.

'[By A.J.] Okay.

'[By the respondent] I'm down the hallway. Now, do you know that Amidon is up 

there at 21st and Amidon where Twin Lakes is?

'[By A.J.] Yeah, I know where—I know where that's at. You need me to bring 

you pretty much everything that I got.

'[By the respondent] To show that you guys are married. Okay?

'[By A.J.] Okay.

'[By the respondent] And don't wear any under panties.'

A.J.'s nine year-old daughter overheard the respondent's request.

"9. On April 28, 2016, the respondent called A.J. three times to confirm their 

appointment, but A.J. did not answer the telephone calls. A.J. did not attend the 

scheduled meeting.

"10. On May 6, 2016, A.J. filed a complaint with the disciplinary 

administrator's office regarding the respondent's conduct. Additionally, A.J. filed a police 

report against the respondent. The respondent's statement caused A.J. to suffer anxiety 

and depression. Additionally, the respondent's statement caused A.J. to lose faith in the 

legal system.
4

"11. On June 15, 2016, the respondent provided a written response to the 

complaint. The respondent's response, in its entirety, is as follows:

'Please find this letter as a response to the above referred to complaint by 

[A.J.]. I apologize that my response took a bit longer than the twenty days 

normally allowed in matters of this nature. It was my intent to ultimately provide 

Ms. Baird, Mr. Morgan and most importantly [A.J.] an honest and heartfelt 

response. I have spent a considerable amount of time daily internalizing and 

reflecting upon the facts surrounding and involving my contact, attitude and 

statements towards [A.J.]. I request that you share this letter in its entirety, with 

[A.J.]. 

'Let me first and foremost apologize to [A.J.] and her child, as well, for 

by [sic] behavior, my conduct and the things I said. There was absolutely nothing 

said to me on her behalf that would have warranted the outlandish, crude, and 

totally unacceptable remarks I made towards her. Without warning and totally 

without provocation on her part, I assaulted her very person and character in such 

a manner as to affect her life as a victim. I have detrimentally impacted both her 

life and that of her child. In the end, I seek her forgiveness and hope that she can 

forgive me, feeling that forgiveness coming from her may allow her the ability to 

move forward and put this matter both in some grace, perspective and behind her. 

'"Good people do bad things" is a subject that I encounter all the time 

with my clients and at the age of 65 and with two sons of my own at home who 

are 8 and 6, it is a regular subject that I deal with both myself and with them. My 

oldest son, William, is going into the third grade and when he gets in trouble in 

school, I always emphasize that . . . Being truthful with himself and then others is 

the first step to correcting the behavior and then the problem.

'In this particular situation, I began individual counseling with Renee C. 

Fields, LSCSW, 1919 North Amidon, Suite 108, Wichita, Kansas 67203. Her 

office number is 316.425.0033 and her fax number is 316.425.0239. I have 

executed a Release of Information to both Kate Baird and Terry Morgan.
5

'As I stated earlier, my behavior towards [A.J.] was inexcusable. It is not 

my character to make those kinds of remarks to anyone, let alone made to a 

complete stranger. For a few weeks before I even entered into counseling, I 

continually pondered what was going through my mind at the time that would 

have resulted in those remarks. Allow me to share two very important and 

relevant circumstances.

'1. The morning of April 27th, I was at the Courthouse and ran into 

a female client whom I had not seen or dealt with in years. She had some 

domestic issues which she only lightly went into. She had no money to pay me 

but as it happens from time to time, you find people, potential clients, who will 

offer sexual favors in a desperate attempt to get them through a bad legal 

situation. Those encounters throughout the life of my legal practice have always 

left me disgruntled and result in bringing up a past bad memory of my ex-wife's 

behavior when she was involved in her drug addiction. In regard to my encounter 

at the Courthouse, I was very direct and adamant that the behavior and approach 

towards me was not welcome.

'2. I left the Courthouse and in driving back to my office, all I could 

think about was my own past experience with addiction and recovery and how 

me [sic] ex-wife's [] addiction impacted me. My own recovery came sooner than 

her own. I remembered how she would disappear for days into her active using 

and with no money she prostituted herself by the use of sex to obtain drugs. In 

the end and in an attempt to help her, I went to Kansas City where she was living, 

and obtained furniture and an apartment for her to live. I spent almost $5000.00 

on that specific weekend and invested tremendous emotion to help. That trip was 

the last time I saw or heard from her. As a result I have felt angry, used, bitter 

and betrayed for a long time. It was an experience and feeling I had thought I 

could suppress for years.

'I came back to the office in that frame of mind and without gathering 

myself and settling my thoughts, I encountered [A.J.], an innocent and complete 

stranger. The above explanation, I am certain, represents only a small 

representation of the thoughts that ran through my head on April 27th.
6

'I now better understand that sobriety also results in residual issues. 

Counseling so far has exposed me to the fact that the process of sobriety begets 

anger issues. That results in . . . Good people making bad decisions. I can only 

hope that your investigation may see this incident as isolated in nature. My own 

phone records show that I attempted to contact [A.J.] two or three times before 

her scheduled appointment on April 28th. My primary purpose was to apologize 

to her for the statements I made and the stress I caused her and her child.

'Please find this as my response to your initial letter. I again apologize to 

[A.J.] and her child. I believe in my 38 years as an attorney I have touched many 

lives in positive ways and I hope you will see my aberrant behavior as an 

anomaly . . . yet a serious one at that. I remain available to your office to answer 

any questions and/or provide additional information.'

"Conclusions of Law

"12. Based on the respondent's stipulation and the findings of fact above, the 

hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g), as 

detailed below. The deputy disciplinary administrator also alleged that the respondent 

violated KRPC 8.4(d). The hearing panel concludes that the facts do not support a 

conclusion that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). Accordingly, the allegation that the 

respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) is dismissed.

"KRPC 8.4(g)

"13. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other 

conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). The 

respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law when 

he asked a prospective client to not wear 'under panties' to her appointment with him. The 

hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g).
7

"American Bar Association

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

"14. 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.

"15. Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public to maintain 

his personal integrity.

"16. Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duty.

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

mental distress to A.J. and her child.

"18. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any 

considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 

imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, 

found the following aggravating factors present:

a. Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 

disciplined on two occasions.

(1) On October 25, 1996, the Supreme Court placed the 

respondent on probation for having violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence), 

KRPC 1.4 (communication), KRPC 1.5(b) (fees), KRPC 1.15(a) 

(safeguarding property), KRPC 1.15(b) (safeguarding property), KRPC 

1.16(a) (termination of representation), KRPC 3.3(a)(1) (candor to the 

tribunal), KRPC 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), KRPC 8.4(a) 

(misconduct), KRPC 8.4(b) (misconduct), KRPC 8.4(d) (misconduct), 

and KRPC 8.4(g) (misconduct). The respondent failed to comply with 
8

the terms and conditions of probation and on October 18, 2001, the Court 

suspended the respondent's license to practice law for an indefinite 

period of time. Then, on October 6, 2005, the Court reinstated the 

respondent's license to practice law.

(2) On November 17, 2011, the disciplinary administrator 

informally admonished the respondent for having violated KRPC 1.4 

(communication).

b. Submission of False Evidence, False Statements, or Other 

Deceptive Practices During the Disciplinary Process. The hearing panel 

concludes that the respondent engaged in deceptive practice during the hearing.

(1) In his response as quoted above, the respondent stated 

that he ran into an old client at the courthouse, she offered him sex for 

legal services, he became angry, and, as a result of his prior experiences, 

he took out his anger on an innocent bystander. At the hearing, however, 

the respondent's testimony included many facts not included in his initial 

complaint. The respondent testified:

'Q. [By Ms. Moylan] Let's just get to the heart of the matter in this 

issue of the mistaken identity of [L.] and [A.J.]. You testified 

earlier that you ran into [L.], a former client, at the courthouse?

'A. [By the respondent] Yes.

'Q. She asked you to do some domestic work for her. Is that correct?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And then she told you that she did not have money to pay for 

your services, but that she would offer sexual favors in 

exchange. Is that correct?
9

'A. Yes.

'Q. And what did you say to [L.] at that point in time?

'A. In short, I said to her, you know, my wife and I went through an 

addiction and my wife—my wife gave up her body for that and I 

wish you wouldn't bring that subject up to me again. And that 

was back and forth so much of the conversation.

'Q. Was there any indication at the end of that conversation that she 

was still interested in using you as her attorney in the domestic 

case?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Okay. So you travel back to the office after this court 

appearance—excuse me, let's go back to [L.]. How did you leave 

it with her then?

'A. I just said if you—if you want—if you—if you're interested, I'm 

willing to talk to you about it, you can call my office. 

'Q. So you travel back to your office, and when you get to the office 

there's a phone message for you from [A.J.]. Is that correct?

'A. No, it—all it said was [A.J.].

'Q. Okay. [A.J.]. And what did you think at that moment when you 

got the phone message that said from [A.J.]?

'A. I thought it was from [L.]. And—and I have to say that as I 

approached it I walked into the office with this fog of anger that 

I was involved in.
10

'Q. So you call [A.J.], did you get her on the phone when you called 

her?

'A. I don't think initially I did. I'm just not certain about that.

'Q. Okay. 'Um, would you disagree with . . . [A.J.]'s, testimony that 

she called you, you called her back, and she had to call you back, 

and you guys arrange for a time to talk to her at that point in 

time?

'A. That could be very possible.

. . . .

'Q. All right. So when you get to the office and you see the message 

from [A.J.], that you think is [L.], you call her back, you think 

you leave a message. Long story short, you get on the phone 

with [A.J.]?

'A. Yes.

'Q. When you began talking to her, did you realize, before you made 

the comment about coming to the office without any under 

panties on, that she was not [L.]?

'A. No, I did not at the time.

'Q. When did you realize it was not [L.]?

'A. I got off the phone, I settled into my office, and I got to thinking 

about the conversation and then it just kind of came clear to me 

that maybe I talked to the wrong person.
11

'Q. Okay. So let's—I want to make sure I have your testimony 

correct. The whole time that you talked to [A.J.] you believed it 

was [L.], the former client that you had seen at the courthouse?

'A. I thought so.

'Q. Okay. And let's get the record correct, whether it was [L.] or 

[A.J.], you believed you were talking to someone who was 

seeking your legal services. Correct?

'A. Absolutely correct.

'Q. So here's my next question, if you believed that you were talking 

to [L.], who had just made an offer to do sexual favors for legal 

work, why did you make that comment to her?

'A. You know, I think—and I thought about this and—and some of 

this came out in counseling, for me it was a very sarcastic 

comment I made to her. And I think some times we hide our 

distress and our anger in sarcastic comments.

'Q. So it's your testimony today, before the Panel, that the comment 

that you made to [A.J.], believing she was someone who had just 

made an offer for sexual favors, was not done in an attempt to 

fulfill that offer?

'A. No, it was not done with that intent. It was—it was purely 

sarcastic and angry in nature.

'Q. Okay. You said after you got off the phone with [A.J.] you 

realized at that point in time you had been talking to the wrong 

person, how did you realize that?
12

'A. Because—well, you know, my mind cleared and I wasn't angry 

any more and I was able to think through my thoughts, and I 

thought, I don't think that was the same person.

'Q. And what did you do then?

'A. Well, either that day or the next day I called, and I believe I left 

messages to confirm she was—I was trying to, A, confirm she 

was still coming in, and, B, seek the opportunity to apologize to 

her.

'Q. Because at that point in time, regardless of whether it was [A.J.] 

or [L.], you realized you had done something wrong? 

'A. I did.

'Q. Why didn't you report your conduct to our office?

'A. Can I tell you I—I guess with hindsight self-reporting might 

have been the very best thing to have done, and I didn't do it. 

And—and I have no explanation. It was a mistake.'

The hearing panel questions the veracity of the respondent's testimony. 

Had the respondent confused the two client's names, it stands to reason 

that the respondent would have indicated as such in his response to the 

initial complaint. Further, there would have been some evidence in the 

conversation itself that the respondent believed that he was talking with 

his former client not a new client he had not yet met. See ¶ 8 above.

(2) Finally, the respondent testified that when he made the 

statement to A.J., he was angry and sarcastic. The hearing panel listened 

carefully to the recording of the telephone call multiple times. The 

respondent's tone was pleasant. The hearing panel did not recognize any 

angry or sarcastic tones in the respondent's words. Who the respondent 
13

thought he was talking to and his intent behind the statements is 

something that only the respondent knows. However, based on all the 

evidence presented at the hearing on this matter, the hearing panel finds 

the respondent's testimony regarding his tone, his intent, and who he 

believed he was speaking with, to lack credibility.

c. Vulnerability of Victim. A.J. was vulnerable to the respondent's 

misconduct.

d. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Supreme 

Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1978. At 

the time of the misconduct, given the previous suspension, the respondent had 

been practicing law for approximately 34 years.

"19. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may 

justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its 

recommendation for [discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following 

mitigating circumstances present:]

a. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have 

Contributed to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The 

respondent sought treatment from Renee C. Fields, LSCSW. The respondent has 

been in continuous treatment with Ms. Fields since June 9, 2016. Ms. Fields 

diagnosed the respondent with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct. 

According to Ms. Fields, the respondent's conduct was situational, he has made 

improvements, and his prognosis is good:

'Q. [By Mr. Robinson] What history did you gather from 

Mr. Phillips at that time?

'A. [By Ms. Fields] That his presenting problem was that he 

had taken a call from a potential female client at a time that he had been 

in court that morning, and a completely different client, 'um, asked if he 

would be interested in trading sex for his legal services. That was very 
14

upsetting to him. So, later in the day when he got on the phone, he did 

something very inappropriate with a woman on the phone. He set an 

appointment for her and then told her don't wear any panties. He 

explained that the woman had said that her child heard that. It was 

distressing, obviously, for her, and her child. He was pretty shocked with 

his own behavior and needed some help with how did that happen and 

how do you keep it from happening again.

'Q. How did you find his mental state at that time as he was 

relating this fact pattern to you? 

'A. What I assessed was that he was currently under enough 

distress that his thresholds, where he would control his behavior, were 

lowered. I remember initially wondering if he had an impulse control 

disorder, and later on decided that really wasn't quite the issue. 'Um, he 

had a—a surprising lack of awareness of what a difficult situation he was 

in currently. He was very aware of why the topic of sexuality was 

angering to him and connected that to a remote problem, but it was a 

current difficult situation that diminished his ability to deal with that in 

an appropriate way. 

'Q. What was the current—that, then, current difficult 

situation that he was—that you learned?

'A. That Dan was going through a divorce. His—I believe 

the first time I saw him his wife may not have filed, but they had been in 

couple's therapy. He knew that there was a problem. Shortly after I began 

seeing him he let me know his wife explained that she had filed for 

divorce, but they were living in the family home with their two children, 

and week after week after week, month after month, he never got served 

and so he was in quite a limbo where his perception was his wife, who 

was unhappy with him, had all the power and he was walking on 

eggshells.
15

'Q. Did you develop a diagnosis following your examination 

of Mr. Phillips?

'A. Yes, I did. I did rule out the impulse control diagnosis. I 

didn't feel like that was accurate, and gave him a diagnosis of an 

adjustment disorder with a disturbance of his conduct.

'Q. What does that mean in a more direct sense?

'A. It means that his conduct problems were situational. 

They were not the result of any more serious pathology.

'Q. Serious pathology would have been suggestive of what, 

then, Ms. Fields?

'A. 'Um, of being antisocial; of being terribly depressed; of 

having anxiety disorder. Even an impulse control disorder. Nothing like 

an intermittent explosive disorder. Those would be more—perhaps even 

more physically or chemically caused than situational.

'Q. And you didn't conclude that he had any of those issues?

'A. Right. I feel like I ruled those out and became convinced 

it was situational.

'Q. What—did you develop a treatment plan for you and 

Dan's follow-up?

'A. I did.

'Q. What was that?

'A. 'Um, our treatment goals were, 'um, to deal with his 

anger, and that would be to learn some aggression replacement, because I 
16

want to point out, the feeling behind what caused the incident wasn't any 

kind of a lust or sexual desire. The feeling was anger. So the topic was 

sexual, but the feeling was anger. So I wanted to improve his responses 

to his own anger. His coping skills. I wanted him to learn to think ahead 

to the consequences, to do something that we call thought stop and 

thought restructure. So he's learning a lot about anger and how your 

thoughts, 'um, wind up becoming your feelings. 

'So, I also, 'um, put in place with him a monitoring of how he is 

doing. We call it a subjective index of distress, and it is to daily record, 

on a scale of 0 to 10, how distressed he feels. And emotion doesn't 

matter. It could be anger. It could be anxiety. It could be depression. It 

could be overwhelmed. But all of them put together, how uncomfortable 

they are. So we had to give him some coping skills and make him aware 

of how poorly he's doing instead of what he had been doing previously, 

which is compartmentalizing. Meaning, he stuffs these bad feelings in 

some compartment. He distracts himself with work. And, then, because 

he doesn't deal with them, then they pop out at very unexpected times. 

And, you know, he has behavior that gets in him trouble.

. . . . 

'Q. Okay. What is the—has Mr. Phillips been successfully 

completing his plan that you out—that you laid out for him all those 

months ago? 

'A. Yes, he has.

. . . . 

'A. I'm very—I'm very—that's okay. I'm very pleased with 

how actively he participates.
17

'Q. And what types of emotional issues did you address 

with—that you are counseling with Mr. Phillips, beyond what you were 

talking about a moment ago, anger control, things like that. Anything 

else?

'A. 'Um, well, it's—it is to replace angry reactions with other 

things like dis—you know, distract yourself away, which may seem a 

contradiction to compartmentalize and not deal with it, but this office 

here becomes the time where we do deal with it. So, we have talked 

about an old relationship where the topic of sexuality was very hurtful to 

him and he was powerless. 'Um, I think especially for him to realize how 

poorly he was functioning in his current marriage was helpful because he 

progressed very quickly through an acceptance, which is a very 

important skill, his acceptance both of how his marriage was probably 

going to fail, he's going to see his children less, and an acceptance of 

having to answer to the disciplinary committee about his behavior back 

last summer.

'Q. What is the continuing suggestion for Mr. Phillips as he 

goes forward with your treatment?

'A. I have asked him to continue to come once a month. I 

typically review with him what his numbers of distress were and in what 

circumstances they're there. 'Um, of course, the hearing today is a big 

stressor for him, and I think he has a great acceptance of that. So, we just 

look at what are the things that, 'um, he—I think he came to realize he 

needed to get busy and get himself in a better place in his current 

situation, and in talking that through, he's made some really, 'um, great 

decisions on his own so that he's in a better place.

'His circumstance has changed from living in the home with a 

woman who is clearly on a path to divorce him, and he doesn't get served 

for three months, then finally he's served and he moves to his sister's 

home. That's not really good for him either. That's, you know, the home 
18

of a woman, not his home. He realized that wasn't good for him and 

moved out into his own place and now he is much more stable. He's very 

much stabilized as a single parent right now. And he looks at things 

differently so he's not as upset, for example.

'One of the problems with the divorce is how much less he'll see 

his children. Very upsetting to him. Now he's—he has a different way of 

looking at that saying, I see my children less, but my relationship with 

them is much better.

. . . . 

'Q. So, mainly, I'll ask it this way, do you—from your 

dealing with Dan, do you think he's getting better in dealing with some of 

these things that caused him to have this outburst with this unknown 

lady?

'A. Very much so.

'Q. Why?

'A. Well, he has learned if he wants to control his behavior, 

he has to see it coming. We experience anger as a chain reaction, kind of 

like a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction. Sometimes things happen so fast, 

you feel you don't have control, but you do have control. 'Um, so an 

important part of the therapy is to identify the places where he best be on 

guard because he could go downhill. And because he's no longer stuffing 

emotion and pretending he's okay with them, he's more realistic about 

how he's doing. I think his prognosis is very much better.

'From a behavior modification point of view, my prognosis 

would be he's unlikely to repeat this. You know, we repeat behavior—the 

theory is we repeat behaviors there's reward for. We don't repeat the 

behaviors that there is consequences for. And for Mr. Phillips, 'um, 
19

there's zero reward in this impulsive sexual talk towards others, and the 

consequences are very big.

'From a cognitive, which really means the way you think about 

things, I think he has learned that his thoughts have to be monitored and 

kept in control. He's not free to think this is unfair. I don't deserve this. 

You can't put me through all of this, maybe too much. And instead thinks 

these things happened. I'm strong enough to go through hard times. So 

his own expectations for how much unhappy things in a life he must 

accept, 'um, has changed enough that I think he can come up against 

difficult circumstances and his behavior not be a problem.'

b. The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His 

or Her Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free 

Acknowledgment of the Transgressions. The respondent fully cooperated with 

the disciplinary process. Additionally, the respondent admitted the facts that gave 

rise to the violations. Finally, the respondent stipulated that his conduct violated 

KRPC 8.4(g).

c. 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 Wichita, Kansas. The respondent also 

enjoys the respect of his peers and generally possesses a good character and 

reputation as evidenced by several letters received by the hearing panel.

d. Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed 

genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct.

e. Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The discipline imposed in 1996 

and 2001 is remote in character and in time to the misconduct in this case. The 

discipline imposed in 2011 is remote in character but not in time.
20

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

examined and considered the following Standards:

'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

"21. The deputy disciplinary administrator made a conditional 

recommendation. The deputy disciplinary administrator recommended that if the hearing 

panel concludes that the respondent attempted to consummate a sexual relationship with a 

past or prospective client, that the respondent be suspended for a period of one year, that 

he be required to serve 90 days of the suspension, and that he then be placed on 

probation. The deputy disciplinary administrator alternatively recommended that if the 

hearing panel concludes that the respondent did not attempt to consummate a sexual 

relationship with a past or prospective client, that the respondent be suspended for a 

period of one year and that he be immediately granted probation from that suspension, 

subject to the terms and conditions of his plan of probation. Finally, the deputy 

disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent's probation be supervised by 

a licensed attorney.

"22. The respondent requested permission to supplement the record with a 

proposed probation supervisor within 10 days. The respondent requested that he be 

censured or placed on probation.

"23. The hearing panel granted the respondent's request to supplement the 

record with a proposed probation supervisor. On June 28, 2017, the respondent submitted 

a supplement to the amended probation plan which included a monitoring plan and a 

proposed probation supervisor.

"24. As acknowledged by his counsel during closing argument, the 

respondent did a stupid thing by suggesting to a prospective client that she attend a 
21

meeting with him without wearing her 'under panties.' The respondent's misconduct 

caused A.J. to suffer mental and emotional distress and to lose faith in the legal system. 

The hearing panel, of course, is troubled by this inappropriate and alarming conduct. 

However, in addition to the underlying misconduct, the respondent compounded the 

misconduct by being less than forthright in the disciplinary process.

"25. The hearing panel is mindful of the Supreme Court's comments in In re 

Stockwell, 296 Kan. 860, 868, 295 P.3d 572 (2013) ('Moreover, this court is generally 

reluctant to grant probation where the misconduct involves fraud or dishonesty because 

supervision, even the most diligent, often cannot effectively guard against dishonest

acts.'). Because the hearing panel concludes that the respondent was less than forthright 

in the disciplinary process, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent should serve a 

short period of suspension.

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

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

be suspended for a period of one year. The hearing panel further recommends that after 

the respondent has served 30 days of the suspension, the respondent automatically be 

placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to the terms and conditions set 

forth below:

1. Practice Supervision. Roger Falk will serve as the respondent's 

practice supervisor. The respondent will meet with the practice supervisor on a 

monthly basis. The respondent will allow the practice supervisor access to his 

client files, calendar, and trust account records. 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 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.
22

2. Office Assistance. The respondent will continue to employ an 

office assistant. The office assistant will sit in on all meetings with female clients 

throughout the period of probation. When the respondent speaks by telephone 

with female clients, the respondent will conduct the call by speaker phone and his 

office assistant will listen in on each telephone call throughout the period of 

probation.

3. Psychological Treatment. The respondent will continue his 

psychological treatment 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 and the disciplinary 

administrator.

4. Lawyers Group. The respondent will attend the Lawyers Group 

at the Wichita Bar Association throughout the period of probation.

5. 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.

6. 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.
23

"27. 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, 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) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251). Clear 

and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth 

of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 

(2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]).

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

an answer. He was also given adequate notice of the hearing before the panel where he 

appeared by counsel and in person. He filed no exceptions to the final report of the panel, 

which found a violation of KRPC 8.4(g) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379) (engaging in conduct 

adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law). With no exceptions before us, the 

panel's findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2017 Kan. 

S. Ct. R. 255). Furthermore, the evidence before the panel establishes the charged 

misconduct in violation of KRPC 8.4(g) by clear and convincing evidence and supports 

the panel's conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions

regarding those standards.

The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 

violations. At the panel hearing, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator 

recommended that if the panel found the respondent attempted to consummate a sexual 

relationship with a past or prospective client, the appropriate discipline would be a one-
24

year suspension, with 90 days to be served, followed by probation; however, if the panel 

found that the respondent did not attempt to consummate a sexual relationship with a past 

or prospective client, the appropriate discipline would be a one-year suspension, the 

suspension stayed, and the respondent placed on probation subject to the terms and 

conditions of his probation plan supervised by a licensed attorney. Respondent requested 

permission to supplement the record with a proposed probation supervisor and that he be

disciplined by either published censure or probation. The panel unanimously 

recommended that respondent be disciplined by a one-year suspension and that, after 

serving 30 days, he be placed on probation for two years subject to the terms and 

conditions listed in the final hearing report.

At the hearing before this court, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator argued that 

the December 6, 2017, affidavit filed by respondent's practice supervisor, included in 

respondent's Supreme Court Rule 211(g) submission (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251) filed 

December 7, 2017, establishes that respondent is not in compliance with his own 

proposed probation plan in at least two ways. She specifically pointed out that respondent 

has not been attending the Wichita Bar Association "Lawyers' Group" monthly meetings 

since his meeting with his practice supervisor, Roger Falk, on June 23, 2017. According 

to respondent's motion to supplement his amended probation plan, filed June 28, 2017, 

respondent and Falk had agreed he would do so. That motion describes the Wichita Bar 

Association group meetings as "an off-shoot of the Wichita Bar Association's Lawyer 

Assistance Program" and is "comprised of lawyers who suffer from a variety of 

psychological issues."

She also pointed out that respondent had not attended regular monthly meetings 

with Falk, i.e., failing to meet between July 21 and November 29, 2017. Respondent's 

proposed probation plan provided that Falk "will meet with Mr. Phillips, at his office, 

1919 North Amidon, Wichita, Kansas, a minimum of once per month . . . so I [Falk] can 

review the files he is working on."
25

The respondent argued that he met frequently with Falk both in the courthouse and 

at lunch. He also stated that while he did not attend the Lawyers' Group meetings due to a 

calendar conflict with his parenting time with his sons, he attended extra AA meetings 

weekly.

Because of the concerns about respondent's adherence to his proposed probation 

plan, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended that his license to practice law 

in the state of Kansas be suspended for 12 months, that he not be granted probation, and 

that he undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 219(d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R.

263). In contrast, the respondent requested a 30-day suspension and probation.

This court agrees with the recommendation of the Deputy Disciplinary 

Administrator and holds that respondent's license to practice law in the state of Kansas be 

suspended for one year, that he not be granted probation, and that he undergo a 

reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 219(d). While Falk's affidavit explained

respondent missed his August meeting with him because of "some urgent thing that was 

going on with" respondent's two minor sons, the respondent offered no explanation to this 

court for why he failed to reschedule for that month. He also offered no explanation for 

why he failed to formally meet with Falk during September and October, even though 

Falk's affidavit stated they saw each other at least once a week at the courthouse during 

those months—and Falk reminded "him that we needed to meet, on a formal basis, 

regularly, at least once a month." Chance meetings at the courthouse do not fulfill the 

probation condition that the meeting occur at respondent's law office so that Falk "can 

review the files he [respondent] is working on, his calendar, and talk to his legal assistant 

Vicky."

While respondent explained he missed the monthly Lawyers' Group meetings 

because they conflicted with his court-allocated visitation with his sons, he offered this 
26

court no explanation for why he did not instead eliminate the conflict by seeking

modification of this probation plan condition. Nor did he explain why he waited until 

November 29 to notify his supervisor Falk that he was violating the terms of his proposed 

probation by missing the meetings.

Moreover, respondent did not address other compliance issues raised by Falk's 

December 6 affidavit. Specifically, respondent did not sign "the necessary information 

releases" for his therapist to speak directly with Falk until after their meeting on 

November 29—five months after he agreed to this condition. Per respondent's proposed 

plan, "Mr. Phillips will sign appropriate releases for his psychologist, Dr. Renee Fields to 

be able to talk to me [Falk] about her care and treatment of Mr. Phillips. . . . I will contact 

Dr. Fields at least once a month, to check on Mr. Phillips' progress in treatment." 

Additionally, at least as of December 1, Falk had not provided the Disciplinary 

Administrator any reports regarding respondent's "conduct while working this probation 

plan"—although the panel's recommended probation conditions required Falk to "prepare 

a quarterly report to the disciplinary administrator regarding the respondent's status on 

probation."

In short, respondent's post-hearing conduct has not shown this court he will fulfill 

the conditions of any probation plan in the future.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Daniel Hart Phillips be and is hereby disciplined 

by suspension for a period of one year in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) 

(2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 234), that he not be granted probation, and that he undergo a 

reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 219(d), effective upon the date of the filing of this 

decision.
27

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

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