1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 122,036

In the Matter of MARK D. MURPHY,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 16, 2020. Two-year suspension.

Respondent may apply for probation after one year.

Deborah L. Hughes, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 

Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the brief for petitioner.

Daniel F. Church, of Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the 

cause and was on the briefs for respondent. Mark D. Murphy, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM: This is a contested attorney discipline proceeding against Mark D. 

Murphy, of Overland Park, Kansas. He was admitted to practice law in the state of 

Kansas in 1987. A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys made lengthy 

findings of fact and concluded Murphy violated the Kansas Rules of Professional 

Conduct (KRPC). The violations include representing both parties in a business 

transaction that was not disclosed to a federal bankruptcy court which had jurisdiction

and related matters. 

In December 2016, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 

complaint alleging violations of the KRPC against Murphy. Almost two years later, and 

after several continuances and a remand on behalf of the Disciplinary Administrator's 
2

office, an amended formal complaint was filed in January 2019. Murphy's answer to the 

amended formal complaint was filed in February 2019.

A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys began a hearing on 

March 5, 2019, but was unable to finish the presentation of evidence on that day so the 

hearing was continued to April 10, 2019. The hearing panel determined respondent

violated KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 295) (competence), 1.2(c) (2003 Kan. Ct. R. 

Annot. 332) (scope of representation), 1.7 (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 372) (conflict of 

interest), 2.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 345) (independent judgment), and 8.4(d) (2019 Kan. S. 

Ct. R. 387) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The Disciplinary Administrator's office recommended disbarment. Counsel for the 

respondent recommended reprimand. The hearing panel unanimously recommended one 

year's suspension.

The respondent filed exceptions to the panel's final hearing report, although he 

concedes several KRPC violations, albeit with explanations in mitigation. Before this 

court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office endorses the panel's findings and continues 

to recommend disbarment. Respondent recommends reprimand with a plan of probation. 

We quote the report's pertinent parts below. 

"Procedural history

. . . .

"10. On February 25, 2019, the respondent filed an untimely answer to the 

amended formal complaint.
3

"11. On March 4, 2019, at 4:07 p.m., on the eve of the hearing, the respondent 

filed two motions. The respondent filed a motion to strike paragraph 22 of the formal 

complaint and a motion to prohibit a collateral attack. The hearing panel denied the 

respondent's motions.

. . . .

"Findings of Fact

"16. The hearing panel finds the following facts, by clear and convincing 

evidence: 

"17. Mark D. Murphy (hereinafter 'the respondent') is an attorney at law, 

Kansas attorney registration number 13129. His last registration address with the clerk of 

the appellate courts of Kansas is 6640 West 143rd Street, Suite 250, Overland Park, 

Kansas 66223. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the respondent to the practice of law 

in the State of Kansas on April 15, 1987. 

"18. A.H. operated a limousine service. A.H.'s company was known by a 

variety of names. A.H. and his wife, I.H., incorporated the limousine service under two of 

the names. A.H. did not follow corporate formalities and in 2003, the corporations' 

charters were forfeited. During their existence, the corporations did not issue any stock. 

"19. In April, 2003, A.H. listed his limousine business for sale with a broker. 

The initial asking price was $800,000. Later, A.H. reduced the asking price to $695,000. 

The broker was unable to sell the limousine business. 

"20. A.H. was interested in building a soccer complex in the Kansas City 

area. To that end, A.H. and B.S. formed a company to do so, called IFC. A.H. and B.S. 

named themselves co-presidents. To raise capital to fund the soccer complex, A.H. and 

B.S. entered into an advisory fee agreement with B.C., a firm which raises capital for 

other companies.
4

"21. S.L. was the chief operating officer and 50% owner of B.C. S.L. was also 

the respondent's neighbor. Prior to 2004, the respondent provided legal services to S.L. 

and B.C. From time to time, S.L. referred other clients to the respondent.

"22. S.L. referred IFC to the respondent. As a result, the respondent became 

counsel for IFC. The respondent drafted IFC's shareholder agreement to memorialize the 

relationship between its partners.

"23. On February 3, 2004, A.H. and his wife filed for the protections of 

chapter seven of the bankruptcy code. On a bankruptcy schedule, A.H. and his wife listed 

the limousine business as an asset, but valued it at $0. Regardless of the value, the 

limousine business was part of the bankruptcy estate. 

"24. A.H. and S.L. discussed the sale of the limousine business as a means to 

raise capital to fund IFC. S.L., through B.C., agreed to assist A.H. in selling the limousine 

business. 

"25. A.H.'s son and A.M.'s son played soccer together in the Kansas City area. 

Following a soccer practice, on March 26, 2004, A.H. and A.M. discussed A.M. 

purchasing A.H.'s limousine business. During their discussions regarding the possible 

transaction, A.H. indicated that he would be willing to sell the business for $550,000. 

A.H. asserted that the business netted $12,000 - $15,000 monthly. A.H., however, did not 

inform A.M. that he filed a chapter seven bankruptcy case nearly two months earlier. 

"26. On May 5, 2004, S.L. contacted the respondent and requested the 

respondent assist A.H. and A.M. with the business transaction. 

"27. On May 17, 2004, the respondent, S.L., A.H., and A.M. met. Thereafter, 

the respondent drafted an engagement letter addressed to A.H. (personally and as 

president of the limousine business), A.M., and his wife, D.M. The letter provided:
5

'This letter is to confirm our agreement with regard to our 

representation upon the following terms:

'You hereby employ The Murphy Law Firm, P.A. to prepare all 

necessary documentation and advise both [A.H.], as the seller, and 

[A.M.], as the purchasers, of all of the capital stock of Kansas Express 

International, Inc., which is owned by [A.H.]. I have disclosed the 

potential conflicts in doing so; however, after acknowledging such 

conflicts you all agree to waive any such conflict and retain us 

nonetheless pursuant to the terms of this letter and the enclosed Standard 

Terms of Engagement. Should a conflict arise which cannot be resolved, 

we will withdraw from this transaction with regard to all parties in this 

matter, and you should then retain your own legal counsel to advise you.

'The legal fees and expenses will be paid by you, jointly and 

severally. . . .' 

The respondent, A.H. (personally and as president of the limousine business), A.M., and 

D.M. signed the engagement letter. 

"28. The respondent has repeatedly asserted that he represented only the 

transaction, he did not provide legal advice to either party, and he acted as a mere 

scrivener. In an affidavit, the respondent swore that the engagement letter 'expressly 

provided that [he] would provide no legal advice to [A.M.] and [A.H.].' In a deposition, 

the respondent testified under oath that he 'didn't give legal advice to either side.'

"29. Despite the respondent's statements to the contrary, the engagement letter 

does not expressly provide that the respondent 'would provide no legal advice to either 

party;' it expressly provided the opposite ('You hereby employ The Murphy Law Firm, 

P.A. to prepare all necessary documentation and advise both [A.H.], as the seller, and 

[A.M.], as the purchasers . . .') 
6

"30. The respondent admitted this during a deposition. The respondent 

testified under oath, '[a]ctually, the engagement letter shows that they are both employing 

me to prepare the documentation and advise them both of the transfer of that business.' In 

the same deposition, the respondent later testified:

'The intent was to represent the seller and the buyer and basically 

represent the transaction, and, again, my role was basically as a scribe to 

do that without, again, giving any kind of, you know, standard legal 

advice to either side about whether it was a good deal, bad deal, terms, 

negotiations.' 

When asked whether he explained what a stock purchase was to A.H. and A.M., the 

respondent stated that he 'probably did explain the differences between an asset purchase 

and a stock purchase transaction to them.' Finally, the respondent admitted that he 

'probably made some general statements . . . in the presence of everyone [about due 

diligence].'

"31. The bankruptcy court later concluded that the respondent's assertion that 

he was a mere scrivener came 'close to being "so utterly implausible in light of conceded 

or irrefutable evidence that no rational person could believe [it]."'

"32. In the engagement letter, the respondent included the following: 'I have 

disclosed all the potential conflicts . . . , after acknowledging such conflicts you all agree 

to waive any such conflict and retain us nonetheless . . .' While the testimony of A.M. and 

the respondent are not in direct conflict on this subject, after observing all the witnesses 

testify and after reviewing all the evidence, the hearing panel accepts A.M.'s testimony 

and where the respondent's testimony is inconsistent with A.M.'s testimony on this 

subject, the hearing panel rejects the respondent's testimony. 

"33. A.M. testified that the respondent did not explain any potential conflict. 

A.M. testified that the respondent spent seven to 20 seconds on that provision of the 

engagement letter and the gist of the conversation was that if A.H. and A.M. reached an 
7

impasse in the negotiations, they would each need to hire their own lawyer to complete 

the transaction. 

"34. On May 18, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered a discharge in A.H. and 

I.H.'s bankruptcy case. 

"35. The respondent drafted a stock purchase agreement which provided that 

A.M. and D.M. would purchase the capital stock and assets of the limousine business for 

$550,000. The stock and assets of the corporation which was purportedly sold to A.M. 

under the stock purchase agreement were the property of the bankruptcy trustee. 

"36. The stock purchase agreement provided that A.H. was the owner of 'all 

the issued and outstanding shares of [the limousine business].' The agreement, however, 

did not mention the possibility that A.H. used multiple names in operating the limousine 

business. Further, no stock was ever issued by any of A.H.'s corporations and by the time 

the stock purchase agreement was drafted, A.H. forfeited the corporations by failing to 

comply with the required formalities. During his second deposition, the respondent 

testified that he would have checked with the Kansas Secretary of State to see the status 

of the corporation. The respondent then contradicted himself and testified:

'. . . And I think looking back, it might have been forfeited at the 

time for an administrative failure to file an annual report or something. 

But . . . we would be selling them the stock of that company that was 

owned by [A.H.].'

The respondent did not acknowledge that the limousine business never issued any stock. 

"37. Under the stock purchase agreement, A.M. and D.M. were required to 

make a down payment of $105,000 and were also required to pay $170,000 at the time of 

closing, scheduled for July 1, 2004. At closing, A.M. and D.M. were to execute a 

promissory note for the remaining $275,000. The respondent drafted a pledge agreement 

which provided that A.M. and D.M. would secure the promissory note with the stock in 
8

the limousine business. The parties executed the stock purchase agreement on May 28, 

2004. 

"38. The stock purchase agreement described 16 documents and indicated the 

documents were attached to the agreement. The 16 documents were not attached to the 

agreement. It appears that none of the 16 documents were ever prepared and presented to 

A.H., A.M., and D.M. 

"39. It is clear that at the time the stock purchase agreement was executed, 

A.M. and D.M. were buying A.H.'s limousine business and not his promise to work for 

them after the business was transferred to them. 

"40. By May 28, 2004, A.M. and D.M. paid A.H. $105,000 as agreed. Then, 

during the month of June, 2004, A.M. and D.M. paid A.H. another $24,420. All totaled 

by the end of June, A.M. paid A.H. $129,420 of the agreed $550,000 purchase price. 

"41. After signing the stock purchase agreement, A.M. formed a corporation 

for his limousine business. 

"42. On June 29, 2004, A.M. went to A.H.'s office after hours to review 

information related to the limousine business. At that time, A.M. came across an April 

15, 2004, a cell phone invoice which referenced the chapter seven bankruptcy petition. 

A.M. was unaware of the bankruptcy until that time. As a result, A.M. hired a private 

investigator to investigate details about the bankruptcy. The private investigator found 

detailed information regarding the bankruptcy, including Schedule B of the bankruptcy 

filings where A.H. listed the limousine business at zero value. On July 2, 2004, A.M. 

informed the respondent that A.H. filed for bankruptcy.

"43. On July 2, 2004, the respondent obtained and reviewed copies of the 

bankruptcy filings. When the respondent reviewed A.H.'s bankruptcy filings, he noticed 

that A.H. attributed zero value to the limousine business on Schedule B of the bankruptcy 

filings. That day, the respondent met with A.H., A.M., and D.M. The respondent 

recommended rescheduling the closing date in order to research the impact the 
9

bankruptcy action had on the stock purchase agreement. The parties mutually agreed to 

reschedule the closing based on the respondent's recommendation. 

"44. After A.M. told the respondent about A.H.'s bankruptcy, the respondent 

was on notice that his two clients were in direct conflict with one another. The respondent 

did not withdraw from the representation; rather, the respondent negotiated a different 

deal between the parties. Further, the respondent did not seek and obtain his clients' 

consent to continue the joint representation after consultation regarding the conflict. 

"45. On this subject, the bankruptcy court found that the respondent: 

'suggested that the problems posed by [A.H.]'s bankruptcy could 

be avoided if the transaction was recharacterized as a sale of services 

instead of a sale of the business or a sale of assets. To that end he 

prepared a [second agreement] (which was backdated to May 28 even 

though it was signed on or about July 6) wherein [A.H.] agreed to 

provide his services to [A.M.]'s limousine company for one year in 

exchange for $300,000 plus incentive payments based on the 

performance of [A.M.]'s new limousine company. Like the Stock 

Purchase Agreement, the [second agreement] included a covenant not to 

compete; unlike the Stock Purchase Agreement, the [second agreement] 

specified that $50,000 of the sale price was attributable to the covenant. 

Despite purporting to be a services agreement, the [second agreement] 

contains many provisions one would expect to see only in a contract for 

the sale of a business or its assets.' 

In the second agreement, A.M.'s corporation replaced A.M. and D.M. as the party named 

on their side of the transaction. The purchase price was reduced to $300,000 because 

A.M. could not verify the net income A.H. indicated the limousine business generated. 

The next day, A.H. and A.M. signed the second agreement and A.M. paid A.H. $171,000, 

the balance of the purchase price under the second agreement. 
10

"46. Toward the end of July, 2004, A.M. discovered that the operations and 

finances of the business did not live up to A.H.'s representations. A.M. returned the office 

keys, abandoned the business, and attempted to rescind the transaction. A.H., however, 

refused to return any of A.M.'s money. A.H. apparently retained whatever tangible assets 

had been purportedly sold to A.M. and continued to operate the limousine business. 

"47. A.H. met with the respondent to discuss his options. The respondent 

suggested that A.H. consult with legal counsel and the respondent referred A.H. to 

Cynthia (Grimes) Norton. (Since that time, Ms. Norton took the federal bankruptcy 

bench.) In late July, 2004, the respondent called Ms. Norton and let her know that A.H. 

would be calling for advice about a transaction involving a limousine deal in connection 

with his chapter seven bankruptcy case. Specifically, the respondent told Ms. Norton that 

the transaction had been structured as a sale of assets but was going to be restructured as 

something else because the seller was in bankruptcy. Ms. Norton told the respondent that 

she did not think that restructuring would work but she would talk with A.H. 

"48. That same day, A.H. called Ms. Norton on her cell phone and discussed 

the situation with A.M. While Ms. Norton had A.H. on the phone, Ms. Norton pulled up 

A.H.'s bankruptcy case. She noted that an adversary proceeding was pending. Ms. Norton 

told A.H. that he needed to inform his attorney of the situation so that the trustee could be 

informed. Ms. Norton did not undertake to represent A.H. 

"49. On July 26, 2004, A.H. met with his bankruptcy attorney, told his 

attorney about the second agreement, and provided him with a copy of the second 

agreement. A.H. did not disclose the existence of the stock purchase agreement to his 

attorney. 

"50. That same day, A.H.'s attorney wrote to the bankruptcy trustee and 

provided him with a copy of the second agreement. 

'Enclosed please find a copy of the Intrust Bank statement requested by 

your office in the [A.H.] case, which was provided to me today, July 26, 

2004. If you will determine the balance due to the bankruptcy estate, I 
11

believe that [A.H. and his wife] will turn over those funds in a timely 

manner.

'Additionally, I have enclosed a copy of an agreement entered into postpetition by [A.H.]. [A.H.] is concerned that his failure to advise you of 

this agreement is a violation of his duties under the bankruptcy law. My 

understanding of the agreement is that it is an agreement not to compete 

and to provide consultation to [A.M.] and Kansas City Limousine & 

Budget Limousine. As such, I do not believe that any income derived 

from this agreement is property of the bankruptcy estate.

'[A.H. and his wife] are very eager to finalize their bankruptcy case. I 

note that discharge was entered in the case on May 18, 2004. Please 

advise.'

"51. The bankruptcy trustee reviewed the second agreement and concluded 

that despite the large amount of money being paid to A.H., the payment appeared to be 

for services and did not constitute property of the estate. 

"52. About that same time A.M. complained to the Johnson County District 

Attorney about what he believed to be A.H.'s fraudulent conduct. An investigation was 

initiated and in early 2005, an investigator met with the bankruptcy trustee. The 

investigator provided the bankruptcy trustee with a copy of the stock purchase agreement. 

This was the first time the bankruptcy trustee saw the stock purchase agreement. 

"53. In January, 2005, the respondent assisted A.H. with selling the limousine 

business again. 

"54. On April 28, 2005, Christopher Redmond wrote to the respondent 

regarding the sale of the limousine business from A.H. to A.M. In the letter, Mr. 

Redmond asserted that A.H. converted bankruptcy estate property by selling the business 

to A.M. Mr. Redmond characterized the second agreement as 'an attempt to defraud.'
12

"55. On December 7, 2005, Mr. Redmond filed an adversary proceeding. 

Ultimately, A.H., A.M., D.M., A.M.'s corporation, the respondent, and other individuals 

and entities were joined as defendants. 

"56. In the adversary proceeding, the court concluded that the entire $300,420 

paid by A.M. was for the business and became bankruptcy estate property. Specifically, 

the court found that the $129,420 was paid pursuant to the stock purchase agreement in 

contemplation of A.M.'s receipt of the company's assets. The court also found that the 

parties' intent was not changed by the execution of the second agreement. The court 

characterized the second agreement as a 'sham.' The court also stated, '[t]he Agreement 

was a thinly disguised subterfuge designed to secure the transaction's true nature; the 

artifice was specifically designed to skirt the bankruptcy laws.' The court also found that 

the $171,000 A.M. paid A.H. at closing was likewise property of the bankruptcy estate. 

Ultimately, the court revoked A.H.'s discharge in bankruptcy. 

"57. After lengthy negotiations, on March 7, 2007, Mr. Redmond, A.M., D.M. 

and A.M.'s corporation entered into a settlement agreement. 

"58. Then, on July 8, 2014, Mr. Redmond and the respondent entered into a 

settlement agreement. To settle the matter, the respondent paid Mr. Redmond $250,000. 

"59. A.M. and D.M. filed suit against the respondent and A.H. Included in the 

allegations in the petition was a claim for legal malpractice against the respondent. In 

2018, the case went to trial. The jury found the respondent to be 20% at fault, A.M. and 

D.M. to be 44% at fault, and A.H. to be 36% at fault. 

"60. On February 25, 2016, A.M. filed a complaint with the disciplinary 

administrator regarding the respondent. On April 11, 2016, the respondent provided a 

written response to A.M.'s complaint. In this final hearing report, the hearing panel has 

referenced relevant items of evidence from the adversary proceeding as well as the 

lawsuit filed by A.M. and D.M. For purposes of the disciplinary proceeding, a detailed 

recitation of the history of the two lawsuits is not relevant to the allegations in the formal 

complaint filed in this case.
13

"Conclusions of Law

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

of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.2(c) (scope of 

representation), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 2.1 (exercise independent judgment), and 8.4(d) 

(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), as detailed below.

"62. The hearing panel notes that KRPC 1.2 (scope of representation) and 

KRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest) have been amended since the respondent engaged in the 

misconduct. The hearing panel is relying on the rules that were in effect at the time the 

respondent engaged in the misconduct. 

"KRPC 1.1

"63. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. 

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

preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' The respondent failed to provide 

A.M. with competent representation. In the engagement letter, the respondent agreed to 

advise A.M. (as well as A.H.) regarding the transaction. Despite his agreement to advise 

A.M., the respondent failed to competently advise A.M. regarding the transaction. The 

respondent was unaware that A.H. filed bankruptcy and listed the limousine business as 

an asset with a $0 value. Further, at the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent 

admitted that he would not counsel a client to enter into the agreements involved in this 

matter because there are no barriers to enter the limousine service market. Moreover, the 

respondent admitted that he was not versed in bankruptcy. Clearly, the respondent failed 

to give A.M. (as well as A.H.) competent counsel regarding the transaction particularly in 

light of the bankruptcy case. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent failed to 

provide competent representation to A.M., in violation of KRPC 1.1. 
14

"KRPC 1.2(c)

"64. In 2004, KRPC 1.2(c) remained in its original form and provided that '[a] 

lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client consents after 

consultation.' In this case, the respondent did not obtain A.M.'s consent to limiting his 

representation. In fact, the engagement letter provided to the contrary. The engagement 

letter clearly stated that the respondent would 'advise both [A.H.], as the seller, and [D.M. 

and A.M.], as the purchasers'. A.M. relied on the language in the engagement letter that 

he would advise A.M. regarding the transaction. A.M. retained the respondent to prepare 

all the necessary documents and to advise him on the deal. Nowhere in the respondent's 

engagement letter does the respondent indicate that he is limiting his representation or 

serving as a 'mere scrivener.' The respondent admitted that he advised the parties on 

matters during the representation. Upon review of this same issue, the bankruptcy court 

concluded that the respondent's assertion that he was a mere scrivener came 'close to 

being "so utterly implausible in light of conceded or irrefutable evidence that no rational 

person could believe [it]."' Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 

violated KRPC 1.2(c), as it existed in 2004. 

"KRPC 1.7

"65. In 2004, KRPC 1.7 provided: 

'(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation 

of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 

not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

'(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation 

of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 
15

another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, 

unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will 

not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation. When 

representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the 

consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common 

representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Consultation was and still is defined in the rules as 'communication of information 

reasonably sufficient to permit the client to appreciate the significance of the matter in 

question.'

"66. In the engagement letter, the respondent purported to comply with KRPC 

1.7. The respondent stated that he had disclosed 'the potential conflicts . . . [and] after 

acknowledging such conflicts you all agree to waive any such conflict and retain us 

nonetheless.' Based on the record before it, the hearing panel concludes that the provision 

in the engagement letter does not satisfy the consent after consultation requirement of 

KRPC 1.7.

"67. First, as of July 1, 2014, when the respondent learned of A.H.'s 

bankruptcy, the respondent was placed on actual notice of a direct conflict of interest 

between his two clients. The respondent was prohibited from continuing to represent both 

clients, unless each client consented after consultation. The respondent did not withdraw 

from the representation nor did he obtain each client's consent after consultation. Rather, 

as found by the bankruptcy court, the respondent suggested to A.M. and A.H. that he 

draft a second agreement to attempt to work around the bankruptcy. As such, the hearing 

panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.7(a). 

"68. Second, the respondent never disclosed to A.M. his previous personal 

and professional relationship with S.L. and his previous professional relationship with 
16

IFC. It is clear that the respondent's previous personal and professional relationship with 

S.L. and his previous professional relationship with IFC, may have materially limited the 

respondent's representation of A.M. in this case. The respondent did not explain the 

conflict to A.M. nor did he seek or obtain A.M.'s consent to this conflict. The hearing 

panel concludes that the respondent's failure in this regard amounts to a violation of 

KRPC 1.7(b). 

"KRPC 2.1

"69. Lawyers must exercise independent professional judgment and render 

candid advice. KRPC 2.1. In this case, the respondent failed to exercise independent 

professional judgment and render candid advice to A.M. when he failed to advise A.M. of 

the potential and actual problems with entering the agreements. The respondent's 

judgment was influenced by the economic factors relevant to the entire situation, 

particularly so given his previous relationships with S.L. and IFC. The respondent's 

failure to exercise independent professional judgment and candid advice is particularly 

egregious after the respondent learned of A.H.'s bankruptcy. Moreover, the respondent 

testified that he would not have advised 'an independent' client to proceed as A.M. 

proceeded because there are no barriers to enter the limousine service business. As 

A.M.'s attorney, under KRPC 2.1, the respondent owed him the duty to exercise 

independent judgment and render candid advice. The hearing panel concludes that the 

respondent failed to do so in violation of KRPC 2.1. 

"KRPC 8.4(d)

"70. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 

is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' Rule 8.4(d). The respondent engaged in 

conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he drafted the second 

agreement in an attempt to circumvent the bankruptcy case. The respondent knew that the 

assets of the limousine service, regardless of their value, were part of the bankruptcy 

estate. The hearing panel agrees with the bankruptcy court that attempting to restructure 

the deal was 'a thinly disguised subterfuge designed to secure the transactions true nature; 
17

the artifice was specifically designed to skirt the bankruptcy laws.' The respondent's 

attempt to skirt the bankruptcy laws violated KRPC 8.4(d). 

"71. In 1982, the Kansas Supreme Court considered an attorney disciplinary 

case that presented a similar factual scenario. The respondent in State v. Callahan, 232 

Kan. 136 (1982), represented both parties, L.L. and R.F., in a land transaction. L.L. had 

been the respondent's long time client and was also the respondent's business partner. 

L.L. suggested to R.F. that the respondent handle the transaction for both of them. R.F. 

agreed and the respondent drafted two contracts for L.L. and R.F. Relying on Mr. 

Callahan's advice, R.F. executed the contracts. The terms were favorable to L.L. and 

ultimately, L.L. did not pay the balance on the land. R.F. believed that the respondent had 

secured her interest in the land by recording a lien on her behalf. Unbeknownst to her, the 

respondent did not record a lien and R.F. did not have a secured interest in the property. 

In the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent argued that he did not represent R.F., but 

rather he was a 'mere scrivener.'

"72. The Court summarized the case as follows: 

'. . . [R.F. and her family] relied upon respondent to represent 

them as their lawyer rather than as a mere scrivener. He failed to disclose 

his close business ties with [L.L.] and to exercise his independent 

professional judgment [on] behalf of . . . [R.F. and her family] in 

preparing the contracts for the sale. His delay in apprising [R.F. and her 

family] that they had no foreclosable interest was less than an honest 

representation.' 

"73. Callahan is remarkably similar to the case at hand. Callahan and the 

respondent both failed to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of their 

clients in rendering advice and drafting the agreements. Callahan and the respondent 

drafted documents which were unfavorable to one of their clients in favor of their other 

client. The injured parties in both cases, R.F. and A.M., relied to their detriment on their 

attorneys to provide independent professional judgment and candid advice regarding the 

transaction. Callahan argued, as the respondent does here, that he was a mere scrivener. 
18

Callahan had an existing relationship with the other party who stood to gain if the 

transaction was completed. Here the respondent had an existing relationship with S.L. 

and IFC who both stood to benefit if the agreements were entered. Callahan delayed 

informing R.F. that she did not have a secured interest in the property. Here, the 

respondent never informed A.M. of the loss he would suffer because the limousine 

business was part of the bankruptcy estate.

"74. The Callahan case was decided under the old disciplinary rules. The 

Court in that case, found that Mr. Callahan violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct that 

involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 5-105(B) and (C) (conflict 

of interest), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter). The Court indefinitely 

suspended Mr. Callahan's license to practice law. 

"75. Because of the factual similarities between Callahan and the present 

case, the hearing panel finds the Court's consideration of Callahan to be persuasive. 

"American Bar Association

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

"76. 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. 

"77. Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duties to his client to provide 

competent representation and to refrain from engaging in conflicts of interest. The 

respondent likewise violated his duty to the legal profession to refrain from engaging in 

activity that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

"78. Mental State. The respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his 

duties.
19

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

actual, serious injury. As a result of the respondent's failure to exercise independent 

professional judgment and render candid advice, A.M. paid A.H. $300,420 for a business 

which A.H. did not own and which A.H. had previously valued at $0. Additionally, as a 

result of the respondent's misconduct and in an attempt to recover some of the $300,420 

he lost, A.M. filed suit. The litigation lasted nearly 15 years. 

"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

"80. 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. While the respondent had not yet 

been disciplined at the time the misconduct occurred in this case, the 

respondent now has a history of prior disciplinary offenses. Specifically, 

the respondent has been previously disciplined on two occasions. 

(1) On June 17, 2011, the respondent entered into a 

diversion agreement with the disciplinary administrator's office. 

In the diversion agreement, the respondent stipulated that he 

violated KRPC 1.2 (scope of representation), KRPC 1.3 

(diligence), KRPC 1.8 (conflict of interest), KRPC 1.15 

(safekeeping property), KRPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 

KRPC 8.4 (professional misconduct). 

(2) On December 19, 2017, a deputy disciplinary 

administrator informally admonished the respondent for 

violating KRPC 1.3 (diligence), KRPC 1.4 (communication), 

KRPC 5.1 (responsibilities of supervising lawyers), and KRPC 

5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance). 
20

"b. Dishonest or Selfish Motive. Throughout the extensive litigation on the 

matter and throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent falsely characterized 

his role as a mere scrivener. Characterizing his role in this fashion was dishonest. The 

respondent (improperly) agreed to represent both sides to an agreement. By agreeing to 

represent A.M., he agreed to provide A.M. with independent and candid advice. 

Likewise, characterizing his role as a mere scrivener was also selfish. In so doing, the 

respondent sought to minimize his culpability in this matter. The respondent's dishonest 

and selfish motivation in this case is a considerable aggravating factor. 

"c. A Pattern of Misconduct. Over the course of years, the respondent 

repeatedly falsely asserted that his role in the matter was that of a mere scrivener. 

Because the respondent repeatedly falsely asserted that he was a mere scrivener, he 

engaged in a pattern of misconduct.

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

The respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.2(c) (scope of representation), 1.7 

(conflict of interest), 2.1 (exercise independent judgment), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial 

to the administration of justice). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 

respondent committed multiple offenses. 

"e. Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. The respondent 

has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. 

"f. Vulnerability of Victim. A.M. was vulnerable to the respondent's 

misconduct. He is not an attorney; he relied on the respondent to provide him 

independent professional judgment and candid advice. 

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

Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1987. At the time 

of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for 17 years. 
21

"81. 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. 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 fully cooperated with the disciplinary process, the 

respondent did not acknowledge his transgressions. 

"b. 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. 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. 

"c. Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings. The respondent argued that there was 

a delay in the disciplinary proceedings. A.M. filed the complaint in 2016. While the 

litigation remaining pending, and at the request of the respondent, the case was put on 

hold until after the litigation was resolved. While the disciplinary complaint was not filed 

at the time of the misconduct, the disciplinary proceedings have not been delayed other 

than at the request of the respondent. This is not a mitigating factor. 

"d. Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The respondent settled the 

dispute with the bankruptcy trustee by paying $250,000. Additionally, following a five 

day jury trial, the respondent was found to be 20% liable for A.M.'s $171,000 loss. 

"e. Remorse. In his closing argument, counsel for the respondent referenced 

the respondent's remorse in this case. The hearing panel reviewed the transcript and 

found the following: 

'A. . . . In hindsight, I wish I would have ran. My crazy. I'm 

so sorry to everybody that I didn't. What I was trying to do, though, was 
22

help two people who really wanted to do a deal together, if they came to 

terms, do a deal under the—under the boundaries of what I was doing. I 

was just doing what I was asked. Is that a good excuse? No, it's not. 

Should I have made calls, no I shouldn't have. I've kicked myself for the 

last 15 years I guess for that. So, no, I should have done things, but I 

didn't.' 

"82. 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. 

'5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

. . . .

'(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional 

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation 

that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 

practice. 

'5.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer 

knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer's 

fitness to practice law. 

'6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with 

the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false 

document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes 
23

serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or 

potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding. 

'6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer 

knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the 

court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and 

takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party 

to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect 

on the legal proceeding. 

'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

"83. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 

disbarred. Counsel for the respondent recommended that the respondent be reprimanded 

for the misconduct. 

"84. Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, the Standards listed 

above, and In re Callahan, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the 

respondent's license to practice law in Kansas be suspended for a period of one year. 

"85. Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 

the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 

DISCUSSION

In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the panel's findings, 

and the parties' arguments and determines whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, 
24

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 also 

Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 257) (a misconduct finding must be 

established by clear and convincing evidence). "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 untimely answer without objection by the Disciplinary Administrator. Respondent was 

also given adequate notice of the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this 

court. Murphy filed exceptions to portions of the final hearing report. See Supreme Court 

Rule 212(c)(2) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 261). We address those first.

Exceptions to the panel's report

"When a respondent does not take exception to a finding it is deemed admitted. 

But when an exception is taken, the panel's findings are not typically deemed admitted, 

so the court must determine whether the disputed findings are supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. In making this determination, the court does not weigh conflicting 

evidence, assess witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. If a disputed finding 

is supported by clear and convincing evidence, it will not be disturbed. [Citations 

omitted.]" In re Hodge, 307 Kan. 170, 209-10, 407 P.3d 613 (2017).

Murphy took exception to 31 of the findings in the final hearing report: 2 of the 

panel's procedural history statements (Report, ¶¶ 10-11), 14 of the factual findings 

(Report, ¶¶ 16, 22, 25, 29, 31-33, 36, 38, 42, 44, 45, 49, 56), 7 of the legal conclusions 

(Report, ¶¶ 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73), and 8 of the findings concerning the recommended 

discipline. (Report, ¶¶ 78, 79, 80.b-c., 80.f., 81.a., 81.c., 81.e.).
25

Most of the exceptions are incorporated into Murphy's amended brief, but some 

are not. A respondent who does not advance arguments in a brief that support exceptions 

to the final hearing report is deemed to have abandoned or waived those exceptions. In re 

Owens, 309 Kan. 80, 88, 431 P.3d 832 (2018). We hold Murphy has abandoned his 

exceptions to the final hearing report ¶¶ 10, 11, 25, 31, and 56, although by necessity 

aspects of each are included below.

The remaining exceptions are addressed in context when discussing the panel's 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation. We begin with KRPC 1.2(c) because it 

forms the basis for later findings on the other violations. 

Did Murphy Violate KRPC 1.2(c)?

KRPC 1.2(c), as it existed in 2004, declared, "A lawyer may limit the objectives of 

the representation if the client consents after consultation." KRPC 1.2(c) (2003 Kan. Ct. 

R. Annot. 333). The panel concluded at ¶ 64 that Murphy violated KRPC 1.2(c) by 

limiting the scope of his representation without obtaining A.M.'s valid consent. Murphy 

concedes he violated KRPC within the context of his exceptions. 

Murphy appears to assert A.M. consented to his limited representation, by alleging 

(1) "it was undisputed that respondent was [hired] to just draft the transaction agreement 

to reflect the agreement reached between A.H. and A.M."; and (2) "this is exactly how 

the parties acted and carried out the transaction." Seemingly, he argues there was an 

implicit understanding among the parties who signed the engagement letter that Murphy 

was serving simply as a scrivener and would not give legal advice.
26

But the evidence does not support Murphy's myopic view of his limited role in 

these transactions. Rather, as found by the panel, clear and convincing evidence supports 

his violation of KRPC 1.2(c).

First, his claim that the engagement letter "does not suggest respondent give legal 

advice to either party" and that "he was only retained to prepare the documents to 

memorialize the transaction" is flatly contrary to the letter's plain language. It provides:

"You hereby employ The Murphy Law Firm, P.A. to prepare all necessary 

documentation and advise both [A.H.], as the seller, and [A.M.], as the purchasers, of all 

of the capital stock of Kansas Express International, Inc., which is owned by [A.H.]. I 

have disclosed the potential conflicts in doing so; however, after acknowledging such 

conflicts you all agree to waive any such conflict and retain us nonetheless pursuant to 

the terms of this letter and the enclosed Standard Terms of Engagement. Should a conflict 

arise which cannot be resolved, we will withdraw from this transaction with regard to all 

parties in this matter, and you should then retain your own legal counsel to advise you.

"The legal fees and expenses will be paid by you, jointly and severally . . . ." 

(Emphases added.)

Nowhere does it state Murphy would act only as a scrivener and not offer legal 

advice to A.M. On its face, the letter states: "The Murphy Law Firm" was hired to 

"advise" both the seller and the buyer, and if "a conflict arise[s]," the clients were to 

retain their own legal counsel to advise them. In other words, according to the letter, he 

was being hired as an attorney to provide his legal advice up until the parties encountered

some unresolvable conflict.

In the related bankruptcy proceeding, the court found "the provisions of the 

engagement letter could certainly have given a reasonable person in [A.M.]'s position the 

idea that Murphy was going to act as his and [A.H.]'s attorney for the transaction, and not 
27

as a mere scrivener who would offer no legal advice." See Restatement (Third) of the 

Law Governing Lawyers § 18(2) (2000) ("A tribunal should construe a contract between 

client and lawyer as a reasonable person in the circumstances of the client would have 

construed it."). The panel's conclusion is not only supported by the plain language, but 

also by A.M.'s testimony. See Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 19, 

comment c (2000) ("[A]ny contract limiting the representation is construed from the 

standpoint of a reasonable client."). We agree.

And at the disciplinary hearing, A.M. testified there was no consultation about

limiting the scope of Murphy's representation nor did A.M. consent to any limitation. 

When asked by the Disciplinary Administrator—"Did Mr. Murphy ever make any 

representations to you that I am providing no legal advice to you about this 

arrangement?"—A.M. answered, "Absolutely not." A.M. further noted he believed 

Murphy's representation included providing legal advice to him on "any circumstances 

that involved the agreement." This evidence shows how A.M. understood what Murphy 

was to do in representing A.M.'s interests.

Murphy even admitted at the hearing that he provided "a little bit of advice" and 

"made a couple of suggestions here and there" during his involvement. And the record 

reflects that before the bankruptcy issue arose, Murphy advised both A.M. and A.H. on 

the difference between an asset purchase and a stock purchase and recommended doing it 

as a stock purchase. Murphy also "made some general statements" about due diligence. 

And on the issue of the corporation's forfeited status, Murphy advised A.M. not to be 

concerned because it could be remedied before closing. That advice satisfied A.M. Also, 

when A.M. objected to including S.L.'s broker's commission in the agreement, Murphy 

disagreed and told A.M. it was relevant, customary, and for A.M.'s benefit. 
28

Clear and convincing evidence exists to support the panel's conclusion that 

Murphy violated KRPC 1.2(c) by limiting the scope of his representation without A.M.'s 

consent after consultation.

Did Murphy Violate KRPC 1.7?

In 2004, KRPC 1.7 provided:

"(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of 

that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not 

adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

"(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of 

that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to 

another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, 

unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be 

adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of 

multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include 

explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages 

and risks involved." KRPC 1.7 (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 372).

The panel concluded Murphy violated KRPC 1.7(a) in two ways: First, at the 

beginning of the representation, there existed a directly adverse representation between 
29

A.M. and A.H., but Murphy failed to satisfy the consent-after-consultation requirement 

under subsection (a)(2); and second, he "was placed on actual notice of a direct conflict 

of interest between his two clients" when he learned of A.H.'s bankruptcy, but Murphy 

continued to represent them without obtaining each client's consent after consultation 

under the same subsection. The panel also determined Murphy violated KRPC 1.7(b) 

upon a finding that he "never disclosed to A.M. his previous personal and professional 

relationship with S.L. and his previous professional relationship with IFC," which "may 

have materially limited [his] representation of A.M. in this case," and he failed to 

"explain the conflict to A.M. nor did he seek or obtain A.M.'s consent to this conflict."

Murphy concedes violations of both subsections, although he again equivocates some on 

KRPC 1.7(a).

Since Murphy does not specifically challenge the subsection (b) violation

involving S.L. and IFC, our analytical focus is on subsection (a). See Supreme Court 

Rule 212(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262) ("Any part of the hearing report not specifically 

excepted to shall be deemed admitted."); In re Kupka, 311 Kan. 193, 203, 458 P.3d 242 

(2020) (issues deemed admitted when respondent "did not file exceptions to the hearing 

panel's final hearing report").

"[A] lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are 

fundamentally antagonistic to each other." Comment 28 to KRPC 1.7 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. 

R. 313). "Directly adverse conflicts can also arise in transactional matters. For example, 

if a lawyer is asked to represent the seller of a business in negotiations with a buyer 

represented by the lawyer . . . ." Comment 7 to KRPC 1.7 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 309). We 

hold the panel correctly determined Murphy's representation of both A.M. and A.H. in 

the sale of the limousine business amounted to a conflict and was prohibited unless each 

client consented after consultation. See In re Hodge, 307 Kan. at 219 (respondent 

violated KRPC 1.7[a] when simultaneously representing seller and buyer in the ranch 
30

sale); State v. Callahan, 232 Kan. 136, 139-40, 652 P.2d 708 (1982) (holding a conflict 

of interest when a lawyer represented both sellers and purchaser in land sale transaction).

The panel concluded Murphy failed to provide "adequate consultation" for a valid 

consent as required by KRPC 1.7(a)(2). Murphy claimed in his exceptions that he 

obtained A.M.'s consent as evidenced by the engagement letter signed by A.M. He insists 

"the engagement letter specifically stated that in the event of a conflict, the parties would 

need to obtain separate counsel and the uncontroverted evidence reflected that both 

[parties] were advised by respondent to consult with separate [counsel] on several 

occasions." But that misses the point. The panel's finding is not about whether the parties 

consented in writing to obtaining separate counsel if a conflict occurred in the future, or 

whether they were advised in writing to consult with separate counsel. Rather, its finding 

is about Murphy's lack of adequate consultation prior to securing A.M.'s valid consent to 

the obvious potential conflict from Murphy's dual representation of both parties. See 

KRPC 1.0(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 292) ("'Consult' or 'Consultation' denotes 

communication of information reasonably sufficient to permit the client to appreciate the 

significance of the matter in question.").

The evidence fully supports the panel's decision: A.M. testified Murphy "did not 

explain any potential conflict" and "spent seven to 20 seconds on that provision of the 

engagement letter and the gist of the conversation was that if A.H. and A.M. reached an 

impasse in the negotiations, they would each need to hire their own lawyer to complete 

the transaction." And Murphy does not take exception to this finding. As the Disciplinary 

Administrator notes, no explanation was offered "about the nature of the conflict itself, 

what conflicts could arise, how 'secrets' would be handled, or any other information a lay 

person would need to have explained to understand the true nature of the conflict and the 

significance of waiving it."
31

Comment 6 to KRPC 1.0 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 294) states:

"The communication necessary to obtain such consent will vary according to the 

Rule involved and the circumstances giving rise to the need to obtain informed consent. 

The lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the client . . . possesses 

information reasonably adequate to make an informed decision. Ordinarily, this will 

require communication that includes a disclosure of the facts and circumstances giving 

rise to the situation, any explanation reasonably necessary to inform the client . . . of the 

material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct and a 

discussion of the client's . . . options and alternatives. In some circumstances it may be 

appropriate for a lawyer to advise a client or other person to seek the advice of other 

counsel."

It is also noteworthy that the hearing panel found A.M.'s testimony more credible 

than Murphy's. See In re Hodge, 307 Kan. at 210 ("[T]he court does not weigh 

conflicting evidence, assess witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. If a 

disputed finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence, it will not be 

disturbed.").

Next, Murphy challenges the final hearing report ¶ 67, asserting that when he 

learned of the bankruptcy issue, he "[believed] them to be consenting to his continued 

work." But "a lawyer may not assume consent from a client's or other person's silence." 

Comment 7 to KRPC 1.0 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 294). In his reply brief, Murphy concedes, 

"Unfortunately, when the Seller's bankruptcy came to light Respondent should have 

withdrawn." And Murphy admits he did not have the required consultation to obtain 

A.M.'s valid consent.

The evidence in the record and Murphy's concessions to this court support the 

panel's findings on his KRPC 1.7 violations.
32

Did Murphy Violate KRPC 2.1?

The panel determined Murphy did not exercise independent professional judgment 

and render candid advice to his client in violation of KRPC 2.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 345). 

For support, it found: (1) his "judgment was influenced by the economic factors relevant 

to the entire situation, particularly so given his previous relationships with S.L.[] and 

IFC"; (2) he failed to advise A.M. of the potential and actual problems with entering both 

agreements; (3) his failure to comply with KRPC 2.1 was "particularly egregious after 

[he] learned of A.H.'s bankruptcy"; and (4) Murphy testified "he would not have advised 

'an independent' client to proceed as A.M. proceeded because there are no barriers to 

enter the limousine service business." See KRPC 2.1 ("In rendering advice, a lawyer may 

refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and 

political factors that may be relevant to the client's situation.").

First, Murphy challenges the panel's conclusion that his representation was 

influenced by his relationships with S.L. and IFC. Murphy claims he received no 

consideration from them with regard to the transaction at issue. He admits S.L. asked him 

to draft a document for IFC but argues IFC did not hire him or pay him anything. But as 

correctly noted by the Disciplinary Administrator, there is ample evidence supporting the 

panel's finding that Murphy's relationships with the third parties would have influenced 

his independent professional judgment.

During the 2006 deposition prepared for A.H.'s bankruptcy case, the following 

colloquy occurred:

"[Counsel for the trustee:] . . . [Y]ou've brought two other files, one labeled 

'International Football Club, Inc., General Representation'; is that right?
33

"[Murphy:] Yes.

. . . .

"[Murphy:] . . . I got involved in the beginnings of [IFC]. It didn't go very far. At 

least, my involvement didn't go very far.

. . . .

"[Counsel for the trustee:] Who were your client contacts for [IFC]?

"[Murphy:] [B.S.] and [A.H.] and Preki[, who is a soccer player.]

. . . .

"[Counsel for the trustee:] And how was it that you came to represent [IFC]? 

Were you referred by someone?

"[Murphy:] Yes. [S.L.] 

. . . .

"[Counsel for the trustee:] What did you do for [IFC]?

"[Murphy:] I was brought in basically to try to memorialize . . . an arrangement 

between the founding members, [including A.H.], as to the operation of the [IFC]. That 

never was finalized either, at least not with my involvement."

Murphy's testimony supports the panel's conclusion that he had a prior relationship 

with S.L. and IFC. Since A.H. was an IFC founding member, it appears Murphy's

relationship with both influenced his representation in the transaction between A.H. and 

A.M. And the fact Murphy was not paid for his work drafting the IFC shareholder 
34

agreement does not negate the existence of a lawyer-client relationship. See In re Hodge, 

307 Kan. at 212 (existence of lawyer-client relationship is not dependent upon payment 

of a fee).

Second, Murphy concedes he had a previous relationship with S.L., who referred 

him business from time to time, including the IFC matter and the limousine sale matter. 

He attempts to minimize this relationship by stating "like most attorneys, [he] receives 

referrals from existing client[s] for new clients. That is what occurred here." But as 

correctly argued by the Disciplinary Administrator, "[t]his was not the common scenario 

where an existing client refers a potential client for representation on some unrelated 

matter. Here, there was an interconnected relationship between the parties and the 

transactions."

In the final hearing report, the panel found the following facts: A.H. and B.S. 

formed IFC. To raise capital for IFC, A.H. entered into an advisory fee agreement with 

B.C., a firm that raises capital for other companies. S.L. was the chief operating officer 

and 50% owner of B.C.; S.L. referred IFC to Murphy. Murphy became counsel for IFC. 

S.L. referred A.M. and A.H. to Murphy for the transaction at issue. And these facts are 

undisputed facts. For this it is easy to conclude S.L. not only had a financial interest in 

both transactions, but that S.L. benefited directly from the limousine sale. Murphy acted 

for S.L.'s benefit by including a provision for his brokerage fee in both agreements over 

A.M.'s objection by saying the commission was "relevant" and telling A.M. the provision 

was included for A.M.'s benefit. 

Third, Murphy disputes the panel's finding that his conduct was "particularly 

egregious" after he learned of the bankruptcy matter. He insists the panel failed to 

consider that he referred both clients to separate counsel for independent advice on the 

situation immediately after hearing of A.H.'s bankruptcy. He claims the clients came back 
35

later, announcing they had resolved the conflict, and directed Murphy to prepare a new 

agreement with terms and conditions they negotiated without Murphy. But Murphy's 

factual statements are unsupported by the evidence.

At that time, he did not refer A.M. to another counsel; he said he would, but he did 

not. Rather, Murphy told A.M. there was no other option but to restructure the agreement.

Murphy "[n]ever" told A.M. he had the option to walk away "from this whole deal." 

Nevertheless, Murphy testified "he would not have advised 'an independent' client to 

proceed as A.M. proceeded . . . ." This shows he did not consider A.M. to be an 

"independent client" entitled to the duties owed any other clients. Murphy specifically 

told A.M. that "this was our only option" to avoid the bankruptcy problem.

Furthermore, and contrary to his assertion that he "ceased working on the 

transaction upon learning about the bankruptcy," and that none of the "terms and 

conditions were 'negotiated' by [him], but rather provided by the parties," his own 

testimony supports the panel's finding that he gave legal advice to the parties after the 

bankruptcy issue emerged. For instance, the evidence shows: (1) Murphy told the clients 

there were no bankruptcy estate assets involved in the provision of services; (2) he said to 

the clients the company did not have any value, so they were only buying [A.H.]'s 

expertise and contacts; and (3) he helped A.H. and A.M. overcome the impasse on the 

price for the new "services" agreement by recommending adding an incentive payment 

provision that would reward A.H., if the company did better than A.M. expected.

We hold clear and convincing evidence exists to sustain the panel's conclusion that 

Murphy violated KRPC 2.1 by selectively giving advice and withholding advice in ways 

that benefitted the interests of A.H., S.L., and the IFC transaction, to the detriment of 

A.M.
36

Did Murphy Violate KRPC 1.1?

The panel concluded Murphy failed to provide competent representation to A.M. 

in the limousine business sale transaction, in violation of KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 

295). Under KRPC 1.1, "[c]ompetent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 

thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." For support, 

the panel noted: (1) Murphy failed to treat A.M. as an "independent client" and did not 

offer A.M. candid advice concerning the transaction; (2) he failed to become aware that 

A.H. had filed for bankruptcy and listed his business with a zero value; and (3) Murphy 

admitted that he was not familiar with bankruptcy law. Murphy acknowledged the KRPC 

1.1 violation to this court, but again with some equivocation.

Our analysis will focus on the second and third findings because we addressed the 

panel's first finding above. Murphy argues that under the limited scope of his 

representation, he had no duty to know anything about A.H.'s business and no duty to 

discover the bankruptcy, but that once he learned about the bankruptcy matter, he acted 

competently by reviewing the case on PACER, seeking assistance from colleagues who 

practice in that area, and by referring both clients to separate counsel. He also claims he 

had enough bankruptcy knowledge to prepare the second agreement and the bankruptcy 

trustee "approved that document." Murphy repeatedly insists throughout his amended 

brief that the bankruptcy trustee "approved" the second agreement.

These positions clearly mischaracterize the evidence. The bankruptcy trustee only 

determined the second agreement was a contract for A.H.'s future services and, therefore, 

that payments to A.H. were not bankruptcy estate property. And that placation was only 

temporary, as it was accomplished by failing to disclose the first agreement. The 

adversary proceeding that followed resulted in the bankruptcy court's finding that the 
37

funds paid under the second agreement were in fact for the business and were bankruptcy 

estate property. 

Moreover, a review of the record Murphy references in support of his argument 

actually shows the second agreement "surprised" the trustee because of the dollar amount 

involved in that transaction. The trustee called A.H.'s bankruptcy attorney to find out 

what was going on. The trustee thought A.M. paying "$300,000" for A.H.'s "advice of 

how to run a limousine business . . . sound[ed] absolutely crazy" and did not "make any 

sense at all." In that context, the trustee further noted generally he does not have "any 

problem" when an agreement transfers no assets. But Federal District Judge Smith found 

"the [second agreement] contains many provisions one would expect to see only in a 

contract for the sale of a business or its assets." In short, the trustee did not "approve" the 

second agreement.

Murphy's assertion that he provided competent representation within the limited 

scope of his representation also fails for several reasons. First, as previously discussed, he 

failed to obtain a valid consent after consultation under KRPC 1.2(c) to the alleged 

limited scope. Second, even assuming he had satisfied KRPC 1.2(c)'s requirement, that 

consent would not have relieved him of the duty of competence owed A.M. See 

Comment 5 to KPRC 1.2 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 297) ("[T]he client may not be asked to 

agree to representation so limited in scope as to violate Rule 1.1."). Third, Murphy 

conceded he "would have looked at the Kansas Secretary of State to see where the 

corporation was," and when "looking back, it might have been forfeited at the time for an 

administrative failure to file an annual report or something." See KRPC 1.1 (competent 

representation requires thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 

representation).
38

Finally, Murphy argues his effort to get advice from a bankruptcy colleague shows

he acted competently. See Comment 1 to KRPC 1.1 (A lawyer who does not have the 

legal knowledge required for a particular matter may nonetheless provide competent 

representation by "associat[ing] or consult[ing] with . . . a lawyer of established 

competence in the field in question."); see also Comment 2 to KRPC 1.1 ("A lawyer need 

not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a 

type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. . . . A lawyer can provide adequate 

representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study."). And Murphy concedes

his primary area of practice was matters involving business transaction and business 

litigation.

But while he notes he "sought out consultation with regular bankruptcy 

practitioners," he does not cite to the record facts to support that argument. In re Hawver, 

300 Kan. 1023, 1039, 339 P.3d 573 (2014) (respondent's argument deemed abandoned or 

waived if respondent's brief advances argument without proper citation to the record to 

support that claim). Importantly, the evidence shows Murphy did not consult with any 

bankruptcy colleagues before offering legal advice to his clients that their transaction 

should be restructured as a service agreement. And while he may have attempted to 

consult with a bankruptcy attorney, he went ahead and gave advice, saying A.M.'s only 

option was redrafting the agreement as one for services. 

We hold clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's holding that Murphy 

failed to provide A.M. with the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation 

required by KRPC 1.1.
39

Did Murphy Violate KRPC 8.4(d)?

The panel determined that when Murphy drafted the second agreement in an 

attempt to circumvent the bankruptcy problem, he violated KRPC 8.4(d) (2019 Kan. S. 

Ct. R. 387) ("It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is 

prejudicial to the administration of justice."). For support, the panel noted he "knew that 

the assets of the limousine service, regardless of their value, were part of the bankruptcy 

estate." The panel agreed with the bankruptcy court's finding that "attempting to 

restructure the deal was 'thinly disguised subterfuge designed to secure the transactions 

true nature; the artifice was specifically designed to skirt the bankruptcy law.'"

Murphy challenges the panel's conclusion by making the same unsubstantiated 

arguments he advanced on the other issues including that A.M. and A.H. independently 

negotiated the terms and conditions of the second agreement without Murphy's 

assistance, and again asserting that the "very agreement was approved by the bankruptcy 

trustee." The remaining contentions for this violation are: (1) Murphy "belie[ved] that 

the second agreement did not involve bankruptcy estate asset"; and (2) the panel's 

reliance on the bankruptcy court's comment is "totally prejudicial" since he was not at 

that trial.

As to his first assertion, and contrary to what is stated in his amended brief, 

Murphy noted in his exceptions that "respondent knew that any assets of the limousine 

business would be bankruptcy estate asset." (Emphasis added.) And because he changed 

some language in the second agreement, he believed it "would not violate any bankruptcy 

law." But this just shows Murphy at least knew the new agreement skirted the law and 

restructured the contractual language to that effect. Moreover, the services agreement 

expressly included asset transfers, including the office leases, office furniture, and the 
40

1999 Lincoln Town Car and 2001 Lincoln Navigator, although it stated the leases had no 

value. 

Murphy also characterized the second agreement as an asset sale in a later

agreement he drafted for A.H. involving the sale of the limousine business to Tess 

Limousine and Airport Services, Inc. This so-called Tess Agreement included a 

paragraph that referenced the previous agreement between A.H. and A.M. And that 

paragraph characterized the transaction as a sale of the limousine business and its assets:

"A prior agreement had been entered into by [A.H.] with [A.M.] for the sale of 

[A.H.'s] business to [A.M.]; however, following the closing thereunder, on July 30, 2004 

[A.M.] abandoned all assets to be acquired thereunder, and failed to take assignment of 

the office lease, and the leases on the subject vehicles of this Agreement, also making no 

payments on either the office lease or the vehicles."

Murphy's argument that the second agreement was not a business or asset sale, but 

merely a sale of services, contradicts how he described those same items in the Tess 

Agreement that he also drafted.

As to his second claim, this issue should be deemed abandoned because he raises 

it only incidentally and with no authority. See In re Hawver, 300 Kan. at 1039 

(respondent's argument deemed abandoned or waived if respondent's brief advances no 

support of it). But even when we consider it, the overwhelming evidence supports the 

same conclusion the bankruptcy court reached. And the panel simply stated that it "agrees 

with the bankruptcy court" based upon the evidence and arguments provided by both 

parties.

Regardless, the evidence in the record shows what Murphy attempted to do ran 

afoul of bankruptcy law. And Norton testified the second agreement "clearly violates" 
41

bankruptcy law, "probably constitutes a bankruptcy crime" and "is a sham agreement that 

. . . is an attempt to sell assets that . . . belong to . . . the trustee." Both Norton's and 

Murphy's testimony and the language in the first and second agreements, as well as the 

Tess Agreement, combine to provide clear and convincing evidence supporting the 

panel's conclusion that Murphy violated KRPC 8.4(d).

DISCIPLINE

Having found clear and convincing evidence that Murphy violated the Kansas 

Rules of Professional Conduct, all that remains is the task of imposing discipline. The 

violations are KRPC 1.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 295) (competence), 1.2(c) (2003 Kan. Ct. 

R. Annot. 332) (scope of representation), 1.7 (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 372) (conflict of 

interest), 2.1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 345) (independent judgment), and 8.4(d) (2019 Kan. S. 

Ct. R. 387) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The panel recommended Murphy's license be suspended for one year. In doing so, 

it relied upon State v. Callahan, 232 Kan. 136, 139-40, 652 P.2d 708 (1982). The panel 

found Callahan to be persuasive because of the factual similarities between the two 

cases. There, the court indefinitely suspended Callahan's license to practice law.

Murphy argues the panel's recommendation is excessive, suggesting reprimand is 

the appropriate discipline. Alternatively, he asserts that if the court determines suspension 

is appropriate, the suspension should be stayed, and he be placed on probation. The 

Disciplinary Administrator's office stands by its recommendation of disbarment. 

Alternatively, if the court determines a suspension is the appropriate discipline, it 

recommends the suspension be indefinite, or if a suspension for a shorter term is 

considered, that Murphy be required to undergo a hearing for reinstatement under 

Supreme Court Rule 219 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 270).
42

The Disciplinary Administrator opposes probation noting Murphy failed to submit 

a probation plan to the hearing panel as required by Supreme Court Rule 211(g)(1) (2019 

Kan. S. Ct. R. 259) ("If the Respondent intends to request that the Respondent be placed 

on probation for violating [KRPC] . . . , the Respondent shall provide each member of the 

Hearing panel and the Disciplinary Administrator with a workable, substantial, and 

detailed plan of probation at least fourteen days prior to the hearing on the Formal 

Complaint."). In his reply brief, Murphy appends a copy of "PROPOSED PROBATION 

AND SUPERVISION PLAN." But that fails to comply with Rule 211(g) procedures. We 

agree with the Disciplinary Administrator and the request for probation is rejected.

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

from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. 

R. 261); In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). "Each disciplinary 

sanction is based on the specific facts and circumstances of the violations and the 

aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented in the case." In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 

897, 912, 317 P.3d 756 (2014).

In arriving at its recommendation, the panel found Murphy "knowingly and 

intentionally violated his duties." Murphy argues there is "no evidence" to sustain the 

panel's finding, stating the evidence was "at worst" that "he made a poor judgment, and 

may have been negligent" in representing both A.M. and A.H.

"The ABA Standards identify three mental states: 'intent,' the highest culpable 

mental state; 'knowledge,' the intermediate culpable mental state; and 'negligence,' the 

least culpable mental state. Under the ABA Standards, a lawyer acts intentionally when 

acting with the 'conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result,' while a 

lawyer acts with knowledge when acting 'with conscious awareness of the nature or 

attendant circumstances of his or her conduct both without the conscious objective or 
43

purpose to accomplish a particular result.' Finally, a lawyer acts negligently when failing 

'to be aware . . . that a result will follow . . . .'" In re Hawkins, 304 Kan. 97, 141, 373 P.3d 

718 (2016).

But the record is replete with the evidence showing Murphy violated his duties 

owed to A.M. at least with knowledge. For instance, he knowingly violated KRPC 1.1 

when he did not consult with a bankruptcy attorney before advising A.M. and A.H. 

Murphy knowingly violated KRPC 1.2(c) and 1.7 when he was aware of the then-existing 

conflicts, and he repeatedly did not provide adequate consultation before and after he 

learned of the bankruptcy matter.

As to his violations of KRPC 2.1 and 8.4(d), the evidence strongly suggests he did 

so intentionally. As to KRPC 2.1, Murphy did not consider A.M. as an "independent 

client" and withheld advice and material information from A.M., to benefit the interests 

of A.H. and the third parties. He was acting with the conscious objective to accomplish 

the sale of the limousine business. Murphy intentionally did not advise A.M. there was 

another option, to walk away. Murphy admitted he "knew that any assets of the limousine 

business would be bankruptcy estate asset," but he nonetheless suggested the services 

agreement would not violate any bankruptcy law. He was acting to accomplish the 

transaction for the sale of A.H.'s limousine business.

The panel determined that as a result of Murphy's misconduct, he caused "actual, 

serious injury": A.M. paid A.H. $300,420 for the business which A.H. did not own and 

which A.H. had previously valued at $0; and A.M.'s litigation to recover his loss lasted 

nearly 15 years. While Murphy initially took an exception to this finding, he later chose 

"not [to] dispute in any way that there was injury as a result of his conduct." See In re 

Hodge, 307 Kan. at 209-10.
44

The panel also found seven aggravating factors: (1) Murphy had prior disciplinary 

offenses; (2) he was dishonest and had selfish motive; (3) he engaged in a pattern of 

misconduct; (4) he committed multiple rule violations; (5) he refused to acknowledge any 

wrongdoing; (6) A.M. was a vulnerable victim; and (7) he had substantial experience in 

the practice of law.

As to the first factor, the panel found that while Murphy "had not yet been 

disciplined at the time the misconduct occurred in this case, [he] now has a history of 

prior disciplinary offenses." Murphy did not take an exception to the factual finding that 

he had a history of previous disciplinary offenses, rather he claims those cases cannot be 

"prior" disciplinary because they occurred after the present case. In doing so, he offers no 

authority. But we have no difficulty including his disciplinary record as part of our 

consideration. See In re Kenny, 289 Kan. 851, 854, 856, 217 P.3d 36 (2009) (adopting the 

panel's finding of the prior-disciplinary-offenses factor when respondent's prior "case was 

dismissed").

With regard to the second factor, the panel determined Murphy "falsely 

characterized his role as a mere scrivener. Characterizing his role in this fashion was 

dishonest. . . . Likewise, characterizing his role as a mere scrivener was also selfish." 

Murphy counters that he believed his role as such "in good faith," and both clients 

consented to his limited representation. He also argues the panel is punishing him for 

advocating his position; but clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's finding 

and his argument has no merit.

For the third factor, the panel concluded Murphy engaged in a pattern of 

misconduct because he repeatedly and falsely insisted he was a mere scrivener. He 

contends his good-faith belief should not be considered as a pattern of misconduct. He 

argues that "[i]f he had a pattern of failing to communicate with his clients over the years, 
45

that would be a pattern of misconduct," but his repeated assertions before the panel 

should not be. But this factor has been understood by this court to have broader meaning. 

See, e.g., In re Holmes, 307 Kan. 871, 888, 416 P.3d 143 (2018) (upholding the panel's 

finding of the pattern-of-misconduct factor when "respondent repeatedly provided false 

and misleading information to the disciplinary administrator's office regarding his 

knowledge of the suspension and the extent of his unauthorized practice of law"); In re 

Nwakanma, 306 Kan. 704, 754, 397 P.3d 403 (2017) ("'The respondent engaged in 

repeated dishonest conduct—in his practice and before the hearing panel.'").

As to the fourth, fifth, and seventh factors, clear and convincing evidence supports 

the panel's findings. See In re Kenny, 289 Kan. at 854 (practicing law for 10 years 

supports a finding of the substantial experience factor).

But, for the sixth factor, the panel's determination that A.M. was vulnerable to 

Murphy since he was not an attorney "alone is not sufficient for a vulnerability finding." 

In re Hodge, 307 Kan. at 234 ("This court previously has ruled a victim's inexperience 

with legal matters alone is not sufficient for a vulnerability finding.").

The panel found four mitigating circumstances: (1) Murphy fully cooperated with 

the disciplinary process although he did not acknowledge his misconduct; (2) he 

"possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by several letters received by the 

hearing panel"; (3) he settled the dispute with the bankruptcy trustee; and (4) he showed 

remorse. We hold clear and convincing evidence supports these four mitigating factors. 

But the panel concluded the delay in bringing the disciplinary proceeding was not 

a mitigating factor. This is contrary to our caselaw. A.M. filed the complaint in 2016, 

which was 12 years after Murphy's misconduct occurred. And the delay factor covers 

instances in which "charges may become so stale that it would be inequitable to act upon 
46

them." In re Ratner, 194 Kan. 362, 373, 399 P.2d 865 (1965) (six years of delay) (citing 

In re Elliott, 73 Kan. 151, 158, 84 P. 750 [1906] [taking 14 years to file charges "must at 

least be said that it is very stale"]).

In In re Carson, 252 Kan. 399, 410, 845 P.2d 47 (1993), the court held that to 

assert the delay as a defense, "there must be a showing of prejudice to the party asserting 

such delay as a defense." In his statement of exceptions, Murphy claims "[i]t is entirely 

reasonable for respondent not to remember every detail of the subject matter which took 

place 15 years in the past, and the contradiction stated by the panel is simply a reflection 

of the best recollection of respondent." While this statement was not provided before the 

panel, more than 10 years of the delay is an undisputed fact. That amount of delay can be 

considered prejudicial. See 252 Kan. at 410 ("The evidence presented in Carson I was 

not stale. The factual basis for the disciplinary proceeding was preserved when the 

memory of the witnesses was still fresh."). But in this case we hold any prejudice is not 

so overwhelming that it outweighs the aggravating factors. 

Murphy's misconduct merits suspension

We conclude a suspension with a two-year term is the appropriate discipline. In 

arriving at this, we have considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances 

described above, as well as the clear and convincing evidence that supports the panel's 

findings and conclusions. Attorneys who attempt dual representation of parties to a 

business transaction do so knowing they are entering an ethical minefield. And while it is 

possible with diligence to avoid a disastrous slip, this case is a textbook example of what 

not to do.
47

That said, the court is amenable to staying respondent's two-year suspension after 

the first year so long as he adheres to a probation plan approved by the Disciplinary 

Administrator's office during the second year of his suspension.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mark D. Murphy be and he is hereby suspended 

from the practice of law in the state of Kansas in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 

203(a)(2) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 240) for two years as of the date of the opinion. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above suspension will be stayed after the first 

year provided respondent enters into a probation plan approved by the Disciplinary 

Administrator's office that is applicable for the second year of suspension. Approval of a 

probation plan by that office is required before the stay of respondent's suspension can 

commence. The provisions of Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(g) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 

257) (discharge from probation) apply.

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

Rule 218 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 268) (notice to clients, opposing counsel, and courts of 

record following suspension). 

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.
48

BEIER, J., not participating.

MICHAEL E. WARD, Senior Judge, assigned.1

 

1REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Ward was appointed to hear case No. 122,036

under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on 

the court by the retirement of Justice Carol A. Beier.