1 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

N o

. 12 4
, 397

In the Matter of M ICHAEL 

### M. S PIEGEL 

### ,

Respondent

.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 4, 2022

. One

- year suspension

.

W. Thomas Stratton Jr. , Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett
, Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner.

Michael M. Spiegel
, respondent , argued the cause pro se.



### P ER 

### C URIAM 

### : This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Michael M

. S piegel
, of Blue Springs
, Missouri

. S piegel received his license to practice law i n Kansas

on March 7 , 200 2

. Spiegel also is a licensed attorney in Missouri , admitted in 200 0

.

On J uly 7 , 20 21 , the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint against S piegel alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct

. Th e complaint was filed after Spiegel advised the Disciplinary Administrator's o ffice of a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court to indefinitely suspend his license to practice law, effective March 17, 2020 . The Missouri Supreme Court based its decision on a Missouri disciplinary hearing panel's finding that S piegel violated Missouri Rules of
Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with a client. The panel
determined respondent violated MRPC 4

- 1.7(a) (c onflict of inte res t

– c urrent clients ),2



### MRPC 4

- 1.8 (j) ( conflict of interest

– prohibited transactions ), and MRPC 4

- 8.4(d) ( misconduct )

.

Spiegel file d a timely answer to the formal complaint and cooperated with the investigation. On September 1 4 , 2021 , the parties entered i nto a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273)

. In the summary submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and S piegel stipulate and agree
that S piegel violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct :

• KRPC 1

. 7(a)(2) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 3 36 ) ( c onflict of interest : current clients ) ;

• KRPC 1. 8(k) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 3 46 ) ( conflict of interest : current client s : specific rules ) ; and

• KRPC 8.4(d) ( 2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 427 ) (misconduc t)

.

Before us, the parties jointly recommend a one

- year suspension from the practice
of law. The parties also recommend S piegel undergo a reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287)

.

F ACTUAL AND 

### P ROCEDURAL 

### B ACKGROUND



### We quote the relevant portions of the parties ' summary submission below.

" 1. Findings of Fact

. Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree to the facts, legal conclusions, and that Respondent engaged in the misconduct , all as alleged in the Formal Complaint filed on J uly 7 , 2021, as follows:

. . . .3 " 5. On June 8, 2020, the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator received a
letter from Respondent in which he self

- reported receipt of discipline in the form of a suspension in Missouri ( ' Complaint ' ).

" 6. In addition to the Complaint the Respondent provided a March 17
Order of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Case No. SC98155, certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Missouri ( ' Order ' ). The Order suspended Respondent's Missouri license indefinitely and required a period of six months from the date of the Order before a petition for reinstatement would be entertained. The Order imposed
other requirements.

"7. Respondent also provided an undated Information filed by the
Missouri Chief Disciplinary Counsel which, Respondent said, underlies the suspension. He closed by providing contact information.

"8. The Order references acceptance of the Missouri Hearing Panel Decision
and finds that Respondent violated Rules 4

- 1.7(a), 4

- 1.8 (j)
, and 4

- 8.4(d).

"9. Rules 4

- 1.7(a ) , 4

- 1.8 (j) , and 4

- 8.4(d) are part of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules addressing professional conduct.

"10. The Order specifies Rule 4

- 1.7(a) was violated ' in that, by representing a client with whom he was having sexual relations, there was a significant risk the representation would be materially limited by his personal interests and, thereby, resulted in a concurrent conflict
of interest that did not come within the exception set out in Rule 4

- 1.7(b ). '4 "11. The Missouri Rule 4

- 1. 7 (a) violation equates to a violation of Kansas
Rule of Professional Conduct ( ' KRPC ' ) 1.7(a)(2) which, as it applies here, says that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, which exists if there is a substantial risk that the representation will be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer.

"12. The Order specifies Rule 4

- 1.8 (j ) was violated ' by having sexual
relations with a client when no consensual sexual relationship
existed between them when the lawyer

- client relationship
commenced

. '

"13. The Missouri Rule 4

- 1.8 (j ) violation equates to a violation of KRPC 1.8(k), which says: ' A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a
client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them
when the client

- lawyer relationship commenced

. '

"14. The Order specifies Rule 4

- 8.4(d) was violated ' in that he engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by having sexual relations with his client during the pendency of the attorney

- client relationship

. '

"15. The Missouri Rule 4

- 8.4(d) violation equates to a violation of KRPC 8.4(d), which says that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to

' engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice

. '

"16. Pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 221(c)(2), the Missouri Supreme Court's discipline of the Respondent for violating its rules is prima facie evidence of the commission of the conduct that formed the
basis of the violation and raises a rebuttable presumption of the5 validity of the finding of misconduct. The Respondent has the burden to disprove the finding in a disciplinary proceeding.

"17. In addition to the foregoing authority for a finding of misconduct in Kansas, the evidence that supported the Missouri Supreme Court's
determination of violations of its rules in its Order likewise supports violations of the KRPC identified in this Formal Complaint.

"18. Respondent was informed by a January 25, 2021 letter that the
Review Committee for the Kansas Board for the Discipline of Attorneys had directed the Disciplinary Administrator's Office to institute formal charges.

" Conclusions of Law

. Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent violated the following Supreme Court Rules and Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct: KRPC 1.7(a)(2) Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, KRPC 1.8(k), Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules, and KRPC 8.4(d)
Misconduct.

. . . .

" 2

. Recommendation for Discipline

. Petitioner and Respondent jointly recommend
that the respondent be suspended from practice for one year. They further recommend that Respondent be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287) prior to reinstate ment of Respondent's license to practice law.

" 3

. Additional Statements and Stipulations

.

" A

. Petitioner and Respondent hereby waive the disciplinary hearing

.

" B

. Petitioner and Respondent agree that no exceptions to the findings of fact
and conclusions of law will be taken.6 " C

. Respondent understands and agrees that pursuant to Rule 223(f) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273) , this Summary Submission Agreement is advisory only and does not prevent the Supreme Court from making its own conclusions regar ding rule violations or imposing discipline greater or lesser than the parties ' recommendation.

" D

. Respondent also understands and agrees that after entering into this Summary Submission Agreement Respondent will be required to appear
before the Kansas S upreme Court for oral argument under Rule 228(i) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273)

.

" E

. Petitioner and Respondent agree that the exchange and execution of copies of this Agreement by electronic transmission shall constitute effective execution and delivery of thi s Agreement and that copies may be used in lieu of the original and the signatures shall be deemed to be original signatures. "



### D ISCUSSION



### In a disciplinary proceeding, this court generally considers the evidence, the disciplinary panel 's findings , and the parties ' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster , 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 375 (2011) ; see als o Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (20 21 Kan. S. Ct. R.
2 76 ) (a misconduct finding must be established by clear and convincing evidence)

. " Cl ear 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)

.7



### The Disciplinary Administrator provided S piegel with adequate notice of the formal complaint

. The Disciplinary Administrator also provided Spiegel with adequate
notice of the hearing before the panel
, but he waived that hearing after entering into the summary submission agreement

. Under Rule 223 , a summary submission agreement is

" [a] n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent to proceed by summary submission must be in writing and contain the following: (1) an admission that the respondent engaged in the misconduct; (2) a stipulation as to the contents of the record, findings of fact, and conclusions
of law

— including each violation of the Ka nsas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys, or the attorney's oath of office; (3) a recommendation for discipline; (4) a waiver of the hearing on the formal complaint; and (5) a statement by the parties that no except ions to the findings of fact or
conclusions of law will be taken. " Rule 223 (b) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273)

.



### The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission and canceled a hearing under Rule 223(e)(2). As a result, t he factual f indings in the summary submission are admitted . See Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 282) ( " If the respondent files a statement

. . . that the respondent will not file an exception

. . . , the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final hearing report will
be deemed admitted by the respondent. " ).

When signed by the parties, t he written summary submission agreement contain ed
all the information required by Rule 223

. See Rule 223 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273). The
current version of Rule 223 also requires the summary submission to include any applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. See Rule 223 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277 ).8



### At oral argument, the attorney representing the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator
recited those fa ctors:

Aggravating Factors : selfish motive, duration and pattern of misconduct, vulnerability of victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.2

Mitigating Factors : absence of a prior d isciplinary record, cooperation in disciplinary proceedings, good character and reputation in the community, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions in another jurisdiction for the same offense. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.3

.

Respondent orally stipulated to the existence of both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator attorney

. The summary submission and the parties ' stipulations before us establish by clear and
convin cing evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 1

. 7(a)(2)
, 1

. 8(k)
, and 8.4(d)

. We adopt the findings and conclusions set forth by the parties in the summary submission and at oral argument

.

The remaining issue is d eciding the appropriate discipline . The parties jointly
recommend a one

- year suspension of S piegel 's law license and that S piegel undergo a reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 before any reinstatement. An

a greement to proceed by summary submission is a dvisory only and does not prevent us from imposing discipline greater or lesser than the parties ' recommendation. Rule 223(f). After full consideration, we hold a one

- year suspension with a required reinstatement hearing is an appropriate sanction. As a condition of reinstatement, Spiegel must show
his Missouri law license is active.9 

### C ONCLUSION AND 

### D ISCIPLINE



### I T 

### I S 

### T HEREFORE 

### O RDERED 

### that Michael M. Spiegel is suspended for one year from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(3) (202 2 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 2 81 ) for
violations of KRPC 1. 7(a)(2), 1.8(k), and 8.4(d).

I T 

### I S 

### F URTHER 

### O RDERED 

### that respondent shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 231 (202 2 Ka n. S. Ct. R. at 2 92 ).

I T 

### I S 

### F URTHER 

### O RDERED 

### that if respondent applies for reinstatement, he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 232 (202 2 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 2 93 ) and be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing.

I T IS 

### F URTHER 

### O RDERED 

### that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.