Title: In re Hasty
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 103300
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: April 15, 2010

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No.  103,300 
 
In the Matter of PAUL P. HASTY, JR., 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline.  Opinion filed April 15, 2010.  Published censure. 
 
Kimberly L. Knoll, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Edward M. Boyle, of McCormick, Adam & McDonald, P.A. of Overland Park, argued the cause, 
and Paul P. Hasty, Jr., respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Paul P. Hasty, Jr., of Overland Park, 
an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1976 and in Missouri in 1985.   
 
On July 16, 2007, the respondent reported himself to the Missouri disciplinary 
authorities regarding his representation in a case.  On August 9, 2007, counsel for 
respondent forwarded the same report to the Disciplinary Administrator in Kansas.  After 
investigation, the Missouri Disciplinary Hearing Panel concluded that respondent 
violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Missouri Supreme Court 
reprimanded respondent on November 13, 2008, as a result of the violations.  On March 
12, 2009, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator in Kansas filed a formal complaint 
against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 
 
2 
 
(KRPC).  The respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint on March 26, 2009.  A 
hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys on June 2, 2009, where the respondent appeared in person and was represented 
by counsel.  The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (2009 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 426) (diligence) and 1.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 443) 
(communication).  Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings 
of fact and conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court: 
 
 
"FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"2.  
On July 16, 2007, the Respondent reported himself to the Missouri 
disciplinary authorities for his action related to his representation of Allstate Insurance 
Company in Deer v. Aldridge.  Later, on August 9, 2007, an attorney representing the 
Respondent forwarded the letter to the Disciplinary Administrator's office.  The 
Respondent's letter to the Missouri disciplinary authorities provided as follows: 
 
 
'I was retained by Allstate Insurance Company with regard to a 
matter that Allstate had litigated in Greene County, Missouri, Deer v. 
Aldridge. Judgment had been entered on the case at the time I was 
retained and the issue was whether Allstate's claim file should be made 
available to a party requesting the file.  I gave Allstate my opinion with 
regard to the matter and the issue of production of the file was addressed.  
My file was then closed.  With the closing of the file, it was sent to the 
storage facility that we use for closed files. 
 
 
'Some time later, suit was filed against Allstate.  The file was 
retrieved from storage and re-opened.  Apparently, it was later sent back 
to the storage facility.  It was misplaced. 
 
 
'Written discovery was received on this case, and was either held 
by the file clerk or routed to the closed file in storage and there was not a 
 
3 
 
timely response.  We later discovered that the file was missing.  It was 
located as a closed file.  I set about responding to discovery, including 
objections.  The objections were untimely because of the delay.  They 
actually crossed in the mail with discovery motions which arrived while I 
was on vacation.  The Court granted the discovery motions.  The Court 
overruled my request to object out of time. 
 
 
'Additional discovery was served, and there was deposition 
testimony taken.  As a result of the deposition testimony, it was my 
belief that the case would settle.  I did not take steps to respond to the 
additional discovery and it was not sent to Allstate.  I also did not keep 
Allstate advised concerning the motions filed with regard to the 
discovery or the Court's orders. 
 
 
'It became apparent that the case was not going to settle.  I 
advised Allstate of the discovery issues and the problems that had been 
created.  Allstate has retained substitute counsel and I have withdrawn 
from the case, and I understand Allstate is taking steps to ask the Court 
to set aside its orders with regard to discovery because Allstate did not 
know that the Court had entered orders.  My withdrawal was forwarded 
to the Court today. 
 
 
'I am sending this report to you because it is my understanding 
that it is my obligation to report that I did not properly attend to this file 
for this client and did not keep the client timely advised of events.' 
 
 
"3. 
On March 14, 2008, a Missouri disciplinary committee filed Information 
against the Respondent.  Thereafter, the Respondent and the Missouri disciplinary 
authorities entered into a factual stipulation.  The stipulation provides, in pertinent part, 
as follows: 
 
 
'Dale Deer and Terri Deer filed a lawsuit in Johnson County, 
Missouri as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred 
September 15, 2000.  The Deer's [sic] sued Paul Jason Aldridge for 
 
4 
 
injuries which were sustained by Dale Deer as a result of that accident.  
That case was Case Number CV402-9CC. 
 
 
'Prior to the filing of that lawsuit Dale Deer and Terri Deer had 
offered to settle their claims against Mr. Aldridge for the sum of 
$24,000.00.  Mr. Aldridge was insured by the Allstate Insurance 
Company and $40,000.00 was the limit of his applicable insurance.  
Allstate Insurance Company did not settle the claim and the lawsuit was 
filed.  In that lawsuit Plaintiffs were represented by attorney Andrew J. 
Gelbach and defendant Aldridge was represented by Richard Modin.  On 
January 11, 2005, pursuant to a contract to limit recovery given pursuant 
to § 537.065 R.S.Mo. a judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and 
against Defendant Aldridge in the sum of $750,000.00 plus prejudgment 
interest of $257,802.53.  The contract to limit recovery limited [the] 
Deer[s] to the applicable insurance coverage and any other additional 
sums that might be recoverable from Allstate Insurance Company as a 
result of Allstate's handling of the claim.  That agreement included an 
assignment of the bad faith claim. 
 
 
'On February 10, 2005, Respondent was hired by Allstate to 
advise Allstate concerning a request that was made by Plaintiff's 
attorney, Mr. Gelbach, for Allstate's claim file.  Respondent advised 
Allstate that they needed to produce the claim file including the 
electronic portion of the file.  Respondent's last contact with Allstate was 
on March 13, 2005.  At some point thereafter the file was closed in the 
Wallace Saunders office and the file was sent to storage off site. 
 
 
'On August 26, 2006, an equitable garnishment action was filed 
in Jackson County in Case Number 0516-CV24031.  In that equitable 
garnishment [the] Deer[s] sought to enforce their judgment for slightly 
more than $1 million dollars against Defendant Paul Jason Aldridge and 
Allstate Insurance Company.  On October 24, 2005, Respondent was 
hired by Allstate to defend that equitable garnishment action.  The file at 
Wallace Saunders was returned from storage and on October 25, 2005, 
 
5 
 
an answer was filed to the equitable garnishment.  From that time until 
September of 2006 there was no activity in the case. 
 
 
'On September 22, 2006, Defendant Aldridge filed a cross-claim 
against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company alleging bad faith, 
negligent claims handling, breach of fiduciary duty and seeking punitive 
damages.  Also on that date Plaintiffs Deer filed their first interrogatories 
directed to Allstate.  On October 30, 2006, Aldridge sent first 
interrogatories and first request for production to Allstate. 
 
 
'Sometime between October 25, 2005, when the answer was filed 
to the equitable garnishment action and September 22, 2006, the file at 
Wallace Saunders was inadvertently returned to storage.  This caused 
pleadings and discovery requests from [the] Deer[s] and Aldridge of 
September and October 2006 to be routed to the closed file box for filing 
rather than being forwarded to Respondent for his review and response.  
The file was located in storage approximately on the first of February 
2007.  At that time the cross-claim of Aldridge against Allstate which 
was filed on September 22, 2006, the first interrogatories and first 
request for production of documents which had been filed October 30, 
2006, and the second interrogatories and second request for production 
of documents from Aldridge to Allstate filed on January 8, 2007 were 
located.  Once the file was found Respondent prepared an answer for 
Allstate to the cross-claim which was filed on February 6, 2007.  
Respondent prepared objections to the discovery from Aldridge to 
Allstate which was filed February 7, 2007.  On February 12, 2007, 
Respondent wrote to Allstate concerning the interrogatories and requests 
for production and forwarded to Allstate the discovery requests including 
the request for the so called McKinsey documents which were contained 
in Aldridge's second interrogatories to Allstate and Aldridge's second 
request for production to Allstate.   
 
 
'On February 13, 2007, Mr. Hasty went on vacation and did not 
return until February 22, 2007.  On the day that Mr. Hasty left for 
 
6 
 
vacation, [the] Deer[s] filed a motion for enforcement of discovery and 
cross-claimant Aldridge filed a motion for enforcement of discovery or 
sanctions.  Allstate's objections to discovery were filed the same day that 
the motions for enforcement were filed.  These objections were filed out 
of time due to the files having been, in effect, lost. 
 
 
'Respondent did not advise Allstate that the file had been lost or 
that timely objections to discovery had not been made. 
 
 
'On February 16, 2007, Respondent received an email from 
Marilyn Bokenkroger at Allstate which was directed to Steve Jurgensen 
with copies to Richard Vavra, Fredericka Reed, and Respondent.  In that 
email Marilyn Bokenkroger states "I am requesting direction from FTE 
Steve Jurgensen on your question involving the second and third request 
for production and the second interrogatories, which are as follows: ***"  
These discovery requests referenced in the Bokenkroger email are those 
dealing with McKinsey documents. 
 
 
'On February 27, 2007, the court sustained the motions to compel 
and Allstate was granted ten (10) days to respond.  Also on February 27, 
2007, the court ordered Allstate to make its answer more definite and 
certain.  Allstate was given ten (10) days to do that.  When Respondent 
learned that the orders for enforcement of discovery and sustaining the 
motion to make more definite and certain had been entered he contacted 
the court, advised the court that the file had been lost and that he had 
been on vacation and requested additional time.  The request for relief 
was denied.  
 
 
'On March 6, 2007, the deposition of Mary Green was taken by 
counsel for Plaintiffs and Aldridge.  Mary Green was the claims handler 
who had made the decision not to pay the $40,000.00 demand in the 
case.  After her deposition Respondent was of the opinion that there was 
no defense to the bad faith claim.  On March 9, 2007, Respondent had a 
telephone conference with Allstate representatives including Marilyn 
 
7 
 
Bokenkroger and Richard Vavra.  In that telephone conversation it was 
agreed that there was no defense to the claim and that the underlying 
million dollar judgment should be paid which in Respondent's opinion 
would have made moot the issues in the equitable garnishment and bad 
faith claim.   
 
 
'On March 15, 2007, Respondent called Richard Vavra asking 
him when he could expect being given the authority to actually pay the 
underlying judgment.  On March 13, 2007, Respondent filed a motion on 
behalf of Allstate to extend time to respond to the motion to enforce 
discovery and that motion was sustained granting an extension until 
March 16, 2007. 
 
 
'On March 19, 2007, Respondent prepared and filed a motion on 
behalf of Allstate to allow objections to the first interrogatories and first 
request for production out of time due to the file having been lost.  On 
April 2, 2007, the court entered an order denying Allstate's motion to 
allow the objections out of time.  Respondent did not advise Allstate that 
he had filed the motion nor did he advise Allstate that the motion had 
been denied. 
 
 
'On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order striking Allstate's 
pleadings for failure to respond to discovery.  Respondent did not advise 
Allstate of the fact that their pleadings had been stricken.  On July 2, 
2007, the court held a hearing on the Deer motion for sanctions and for 
Aldridge's motion for sanctions and for contempt.  Respondent did not 
advise Allstate of the motions or of the hearing.   
 
 
'On July 2, 2007, prior to the hearing Respondent received a 
telephone call from Allstate advising him to make an offer to Plaintiffs 
and to Aldridge of $500,000.00.  From the date of February 16, 2007, the 
date of the Bokenkroger email, until July 2, 2007, Respondent had 
received no instructions from Allstate in regard to the so called 
McKinsey documents except that they were quite voluminous and 
 
8 
 
numbered about 18,000 pages.  Respondent never saw the documents 
and was not aware of their contents.   
 
 
'On July 2, 2007, in the hearing before Judge Manners, 
Respondent was asked by Judge Manners why Respondent had not filed 
a response to the motion for contempt or to the motion for additional 
sanctions.  Respondent stated to the court, "Judge there is a lot of 
discovery here. I am close to having responses to almost all of it, but 
every one of these things has something that has been very difficult to 
answer.  I keep thinking we are going to have the last pieces of 
information available and it hasn't happened, and I just haven't 
responded.  And for that reason I thought I would be able to respond to 
this shortly.  I know we are out of time.  There is [sic] a few things on 
each of these items that are very difficult.  And there is [sic] really our 
status." 
 
 
'At the time that Respondent made that statement to the court he 
had been advised by Allstate that the underlying judgment would be 
paid.  He received authority to pay $500,000.00 of that amount on the 
date of the hearing.  He had not received any instructions as to the 
McKinsey documents.  Respondent was prepared to produce a 
substantial number of documents and did in fact produce 15,168 
documents.  At the time Respondent appeared before Judge Manners he 
was unable to produce the McKinsey documents and he was unable to 
produce documents relating to the claims that had been made against 
Allstate for bad faith.  Respondent advised the court that the McKinsey 
material he understood to be approximately 18,000 documents.  At the 
hearing Judge Manners found Allstate to be in contempt and gave 
Allstate until July 6, 2007, to provide the materials sought and ordered a 
fine of $10,000.00 per day against Allstate to commence on July 6, 2007. 
 
 
'On July 6, 2007, Respondent advised Allstate of the order of 
contempt.  Respondent communicated that to Richard Vavra at Allstate.  
Mr. Vavra then advised Respondent to send his file to Mr. Ron Getchey 
 
9 
 
an attorney in California and to do that immediately.  Respondent at that 
time was out of town in trial and he advised his secretary to send the file 
to Allstate.  The file was sent immediately.  Wallace Saunders did not 
make a copy of the file.  At no time during the period from January 1, 
2007 to July 6, 2007, did Respondent ever advise the members of 
Wallace Saunders of the lost file or of the failure of Respondent to advise 
Allstate of the status of the case. 
 
 
'From March 9, 2007 until July 2, 2007, Respondent believed 
that Allstate was going to pay the underlying judgment plus interest and 
make the matter moot.  Respondent did not believe until July 2, 2007, 
that Allstate would have to ever respond to the various discovery 
requests propounded by Deer and Aldridge. 
 
 
'Respondent was contacted by attorney Ron Getchey and asked 
to prepare an affidavit.  Respondent prepared an affidavit which was then 
redrafted by Mr. Getchey.  Respondent then signed the affidavit prepared 
by Mr. Getchey. 
 
 
'Allstate sought relief from the court's order of contempt and the 
$10,000.00 per day penalty.  On August 3, 2007, a hearing was held 
before Judge Manners.  At that hearing Allstate invoked the attorney-
client privilege and Respondent was limited in his response because of 
the assertion of the privilege.  Respondent was not able to advise the 
court that a decision had been made on March 9, 2007, to pay the 
underlying judgment and he was not permitted to advise the court of the 
fact that he was extended authority of $500,000.00 on July 2, 2007.  On 
July 16, 2007, Respondent self reported his failure to advise his client. 
 
 
'At the hearing before Judge Manners on August 3, 2007, 
Respondent testified that he never sent the orders compelling production 
of documents to Allstate.  Respondent advised the court that he thought 
he sent the production request to Allstate that went with the objections in 
February and that he did not think Allstate received any of the discovery 
 
10 
 
requests after mid-February.  At the time of the hearing in August on 
August 3, 2007, Respondent thought the McKinsey request came in after 
mid-February of 2007.  At the hearing Respondent did not have access to 
the file.  Respondent has now reviewed the file and knows that the 
requests for production and interrogatories dealing with the McKinsey 
documents were in fact sent to Allstate which is confirmed by the 
Bokenkroger email.  
 
 
'After the hearing on August 2, 2007, Judge Manners vacated his 
previous order and gave Allstate thirty days in which to produce the 
documents.  He set a penalty of $25,000.00 per day for every day after 
thirty days Allstate did not produce the documents.  Allstate continued to 
refuse to produce the documents until April of 2008 when Allstate was 
required to produce the same documents in Florida to the Commissioner 
of Insurance. 
 
 
'On October 10, 2007, Allstate paid the judgment of Plaintiffs 
Deer plus interest.  Allstate made a claim against Respondent and 
Wallace Saunders and those claims together with claims of Aldridge for 
bad faith, negligent claims handling, breach of fiduciary duty and for 
punitive damages were recently settled for a confidential amount.' 
 
 
"4. 
The Missouri Disciplinary Hearing Panel accepted the parties' stipulation 
and concluded that the Respondent violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 
(MRPC) 4-1.3 and 4-1.4(a).  The Missouri Supreme Court accepted the decision of the 
Disciplinary Hearing Panel and concluded that the Respondent violated MRPC 4-1.3 and 
MRPC 4-1.4.  As a result of the violations, on November 13, 2008, the Missouri Supreme 
Court reprimanded the Respondent.  
 
 
"5. 
On March 12, 2009, the Disciplinary Administrator filed a Formal 
Complaint in the instant case.  The Respondent filed a timely Answer.  Later, on April 
22, 2009, the Respondent provided an Affidavit admitting the misconduct.  The 
Respondent and the Disciplinary Administrator also entered into a Stipulation of Facts. 
 
 
11 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
 
"1.  
Based upon the Respondent's stipulation, the findings of the Missouri 
Supreme Court, and the above findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter 
of law, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202, that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3 and 
KRPC 1.4, as detailed below. 
 
 
"2.  
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202 provides that '[a] final adjudication in another 
jurisdiction that a lawyer has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the 
misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this state.'  The Missouri 
Supreme Court found the facts as detailed above in ¶3 and, as a result, concluded that the 
Respondent violated its rules regarding diligence and communication. 
 
 
"3.  
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients.  See KRPC 1.3.  The Respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent Allstate when he did not timely object or respond to the requests for 
discovery.  Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing his client, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
 
"4.  
KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter . . . .'  In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 
1.4(a) when he failed to advise Allstate that the file had been lost, when he failed to 
advise Allstate that he did not timely object to or respond to discovery, when he failed to 
advise Allstate that he filed a motion, when he failed to advise Allstate that the motion 
had been denied, when he failed to advise Allstate a motion had been filed to strike their 
pleadings, and when he failed to advise Allstate that their pleadings were stricken.  
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a).  
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
 
"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the 
factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
 
12 
 
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. 
 
 
"Duty Violated.  The Respondent violated his duty to his client to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. 
 
 
"Mental State.  The Respondent negligently and knowingly violated his duty. The 
Respondent negligently failed to diligently represent Allstate.  The Respondent 
knowingly failed to properly keep Allstate advised as to the current status of the case. 
 
 
"Injury.  As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused 
potential harm to Allstate. 
 
 
"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors.  Aggravating circumstances are any 
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed.  In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, 
found the following aggravating factors present: 
 
 
"Prior Disciplinary Offenses.  In 2002 and again in 2007, the Respondent 
participated in the Attorney Diversion Program.  In the 2002 case, the Respondent 
violated KRPC 3.3 and KRPC 3.4 by failing to comply with discovery orders and failing 
to deal with the Court with candor.  In the 2007 case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.7 
by continuing to represent a client when a partner in the Respondent's law firm was 
representing the plaintiff in a law suit adverse to the Respondent's client.  
 
 
"Selfish Motive.  The Respondent's misconduct in this case was motivated by 
selfishness. The Respondent testified that he did not keep Allstate advised regarding the 
case because 'he did not want to take the heat' and what happened was 'embarrassing.'   
 
 
"A Pattern of Misconduct.  The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
when, for a period of approximately 6 months, the Respondent failed to diligently 
respond to discovery requests and failed to properly advise his client of the status of the 
case. 
 
13 
 
 
 
"Multiple Offenses.  The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3 and KRPC 1.4.  As a 
result, the Respondent committed multiple offenses.   
 
 
"Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The Kansas Supreme Court 
admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in the state of Kansas in 1976.  At the time 
of the misconduct, the Respondent had been practicing law for more than 30 years.  
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent had substantial experience 
in the practice of law.   
 
 
"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: 
 
 
"The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His or Her 
Cooperation During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the 
Transgressions.  The Respondent fully cooperated in the investigation and the hearing 
process.  The Respondent's attitude during the disciplinary proceedings was one of 
cooperation and full acknowledgment of the transgressions. 
 
 
"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 enjoys the respect of his peers as evidenced 
by several letters received by the Hearing Panel.   
 
"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
 
 
 
'4.42  
Suspension is generally appropriate when: 
 
 
 
(a)  
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client 
and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or 
 
 
14 
 
 
 
(b)  
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'4.43  
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent 
and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes 
injury or potential injury to a client.' 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be censured 
and that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports.  The Respondent recommended 
that he be informally admonished. 
 
 
"An informal admonition is insufficient based upon the seriousness of the 
misconduct.  For a period of approximately six months, the Respondent failed to properly 
inform his client regarding the status of the case.  The Respondent's misconduct led to the 
Court's order sanctioning the Respondent's client $10,000 per day.  While Allstate was 
not required to pay that sanction, there was serious potential injury. 
 
 
"Based upon the ABA Standards, it appears that the Hearing Panel should 
consider whether to suspend the Respondent or to censure the Respondent. 
 
 
"In this case, the Missouri disciplinary authorities received the same evidence 
and determined that a reprimand was appropriate.  The Missouri reprimand is the same as 
a Kansas published censure.  While the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court is in no 
way binding on the Hearing Panel or the Kansas Supreme Court, the decision certainly 
can be considered.  Further, the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the 
Respondent be censured.  Despite the serious nature of the misconduct, published censure 
is appropriate because the Respondent has taken steps to ensure that he will not repeat 
this misconduct.  The Respondent has a system in place to review documents that are not 
immediately matched up with a file.  Additionally, published censure is appropriate given 
the compelling mitigating factors. 
 
 
15 
 
 
"Based upon the Respondent's stipulations, the Disciplinary Administrator's 
recommendation, the above findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the factors in 
mitigation, and the ABA Standards, as well as the decision of the Missouri Supreme 
Court, and the Respondent's remedial conduct, the Hearing Panel unanimously 
recommends that the Respondent be censured by the Kansas Supreme Court.  The 
Hearing Panel further recommends that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports.  
 
 
"Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by the 
office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed.  Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence.  In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 
204 P.3d 610 (2009); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321).  
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. at 505 (quoting In 
re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]).   
 
The respondent filed no exceptions to the panel's final hearing report.  Thus, the 
hearing panel's final report is deemed admitted.  Supreme Court Rule 212(c) (2009 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 337).  Upon our review of the entire record we conclude that the panel's 
findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and support the panel's 
conclusions of law.  We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions, which 
establish the misconduct of respondent by clear and convincing evidence.  See In re 
Lober, 288 Kan. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. at 725); see also Supreme Court 
Rule 211(f).   
 
 
16 
 
With respect to the discipline to be imposed, the panel's recommendation of 
published censure is advisory only and shall not prevent the court from imposing a 
different discipline.  In re Cline, 289 Kan. 834, 846, 217 P.3d 455 (2009); Supreme Court 
Rule 212(f).  Under the ABA guidelines, either suspension or reprimand would be 
appropriate sanctions.  A minority of the court supports suspension because of the serious 
nature of the offense, the fact respondent has had two prior complaints (albeit handled 
through diversion), and respondent's lengthy delay in fully informing his client of the 
misplaced discovery and the possible sanctions.  Nevertheless, a majority of the court 
determines that the recommendations of the Disciplinary Administrator and the panel are 
appropriate.   
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Paul P. Hasty, Jr., be and he is hereby disciplined 
by published censure in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3) (2009 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 272).    
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion be published in the official Kansas 
Reports and that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the respondent. 
 
DAVIS, C.J., not participating. 
 
SANDERS, JOHN E., District Judge, assigned.1 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE: District Judge Sanders was appointed to hear case No. 103,300 
vice Chief Justice Davis pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by art. 3, ' 
6(f) of the Kansas Constitution.