1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 124,397

In the Matter of MICHAEL M. SPIEGEL,

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.

PER CURIAM: This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Michael M. 

Spiegel, of Blue Springs, Missouri. Spiegel received his license to practice law in Kansas

on March 7, 2002. Spiegel also is a licensed attorney in Missouri, admitted in 2000. 

On July 7, 2021, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint 

against Spiegel alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The 

complaint was filed after Spiegel advised the Disciplinary Administrator's office 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 Spiegel 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) (conflict of interest–current clients), 
2

MRPC 4-1.8(j) (conflict of interest–prohibited transactions), and MRPC 4-8.4(d) 

(misconduct). 

Spiegel filed a timely answer to the formal complaint and cooperated with the 

investigation. On September 14, 2021, the parties entered into a summary submission 

agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273). In the summary 

submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and Spiegel stipulate and agree 

that Spiegel violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

• KRPC 1.7(a)(2) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 336) (conflict of interest: current clients);

• KRPC 1.8(k) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 346) (conflict of interest: current clients: 

specific rules); and

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

Before us, the parties jointly recommend a one-year suspension from the practice 

of law. The parties also recommend Spiegel undergo a reinstatement hearing under 

Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287). 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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 July 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-clientrelationship

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 the 
5

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 reinstatement 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 regarding 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 Supreme 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 this Agreement and that copies may 

be used in lieu of the original and the signatures shall be deemed to be 

original signatures."

DISCUSSION

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 also Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 

276) (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).
7

The Disciplinary Administrator provided Spiegel 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 Kansas 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 exceptions 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, the factual findings 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, the written summary submission agreement contained

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 factors:

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 disciplinary 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 

convincing 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 deciding the appropriate discipline. The parties jointly 

recommend a one-year suspension of Spiegel's law license and that Spiegel undergo a 

reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 before any reinstatement. An 

agreement to proceed by summary submission is advisory 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

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 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) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281) for 

violations of KRPC 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(k), and 8.4(d). 

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

231 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 292).

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

comply with Supreme Court Rule 232 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 293) and be required to 

undergo a reinstatement hearing.

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.