Title: In re Meyer (Six-month suspension) video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 111125
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 30, 2014

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No.  111,125 
 
In the Matter of TREY T. MEYER, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed May 30, 2014. Six-month suspension. 
 
Kate F. Baird, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Gregory A. Lee , of Cooper & Lee, LLC, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Trey T. Meyer, 
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, Trey T. Meyer, of Lawrence, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas since 1999. 
 
 
On September 12, 2013, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent filed an answer on October 3, 2013. A hearing was 
held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on 
November 5, 2013. 
 
 
The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 459) (scope of representation); 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) (diligence); 
2 
 
 
 
1.4(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 8.4(c) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
655) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
 
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 
 
. . . . 
"DA11422 
 
"7. 
V.H., a Michigan resident, was served with a petition seeking a 
declaratory judgment regarding real property located in Shawnee County, Kansas. In 
December, 2010, V.H. retained the respondent to represent her interests in the case. V.H. 
paid the respondent $2,000 for the representation. 
 
"8. 
In January, 2011, the respondent entered his appearance and filed an 
answer on behalf of V.H. Thereafter, the respondent failed to respond to discovery 
requests. The respondent failed to meet the deadline to exchange witness and exhibit lists. 
Additionally, the respondent failed to adequately communicate with V.H. 
 
"9. 
During the summer of 2011, the respondent moved his office. The 
respondent failed to inform V.H. that he had moved his office. V.H. traveled from 
Michigan to Kansas to meet with the respondent. When V.H. arrived, she discovered that 
the respondent had moved his office. V.H. was unable to meet with the respondent. 
 
"10. 
V.H. filed a complaint against the respondent. Later, the respondent 
entered into the attorney diversion program, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(d). In the 
diversion agreement, the respondent stipulated that he: 
 
'. . .  violated KRPC 1.3 by failing to respond to the discovery requests, 
to the requests for admissions and [sic] providing a timely witness and 
3 
 
 
 
exhibit list; and the parties agree Respondent violated KRPC 1.4 for 
failing to promptly communicate with Complainant.' 
 
The respondent failed to comply with the diversion agreement and the respondent's 
participation in the attorney diversion program was terminated. In the diversion 
agreement, the respondent agreed: 
 
'that if he fail[ed] to comply with any of the terms and conditions of 
diversion, the factual stipulation made at paragraph 8 and the rule 
violations admitted above will be introduced into evidence at a Formal 
Hearing held in this matter.' 
 
 
"DA11672 
 
"11. 
On August 8, 2012, T.G., a resident of Jefferson County, Kansas, 
retained the respondent to file an action in divorce on her behalf. T.G. paid the 
respondent $1,500 for the representation. The respondent characterized the fee as a flat 
fee for the representation. 
 
"12. 
T.G. wished to have the matter filed in Douglas County, Kansas, rather 
than Jefferson County, Kansas, because T.G.'s estranged husband's family had a personal 
relationship with a judge in Jefferson County and because her community is small and 
she wished to keep her personal matter private. The respondent told [] T.G. that they 
could file the divorce action in Douglas County if parties could reach an agreement. 
 
"13. 
The respondent prepared a petition for divorce to be filed in Douglas 
County District Court. T.G. signed the petition on August 13, 2012, and returned the 
verified petition to the respondent on August 14, 2012. Additionally, on August 14, 2012, 
T.G. provided the respondent with the filing fee. 
 
"14. 
On August 14, 2012, the respondent sent T.G. an electronic mail 
message and stated that the petition would be filed that week. 
 
4 
 
 
 
"15. 
The respondent failed to take any action to attempt to reach an agreement 
with T.G.'s estranged husband so that the action could be filed in Douglas County. 
 
"16. 
On August 20, 2012, T.G. sent the respondent an electronic mail 
message and asked for a status update. The respondent replied that he will check with the 
clerk's office and 'see where we stand.' 
 
"17. 
On August 21, 2012, T.G. sent the respondent an electronic mail 
message and asked the respondent to seek an order directing that T.G.'s estranged 
husband [] move out and pay child support. T.G. suffered verbal and physical abuse by 
her estranged husband. T.G.'s children observed the verbal abuse. 
 
"18. 
The respondent understood that there was significant tension in the home 
and T.G. needed to obtain temporary orders directing T.G.'s estranged husband to move 
from the home. On August 23, 2012, the respondent promised T.G. that the petition 
would be filed immediately. The respondent failed to file the petition. 
 
"19. 
On August 29, 2012, T.G. sent the respondent an electronic mail 
message and again asked the respondent if the petition had been filed. T.G. expressed her 
hopes that the petition be filed before the weekend. T.G. asked the respondent to notify 
her when the petition was filed so that she could anticipate when her estranged husband 
would learn of the matter. 
 
"20. 
On August 31, 2012, the respondent informed T.G., via electronic mail 
message, that her 'case materials' had been forwarded to the court and that he would let 
her know when he received file-stamped copies. 
 
"21. 
During the morning of September 4, 2012, a Jefferson County Sheriff's 
Deputy served T.G. with a divorce petition which had been filed by her estranged 
husband in Jefferson County, Kansas. T.G. called the respondent and informed him that 
she had been served with a divorce petition filed by her estranged husband. The 
respondent told T.G. that he filed a divorce petition on her behalf in Douglas County, 
5 
 
 
 
Kansas. T.G. called the Douglas County District Court Clerk's office and was told that a 
divorce petition had not been filed on her behalf. 
 
"22. 
The respondent filed a petition on behalf of T.G. A certified copy of the 
petition indicates that the petition was filed on September 4, 2012, at 2:31 p.m. 
 
"23. 
Whether the petition was filed by mail or by hand-delivery was disputed 
at the hearing on the formal complaint. According to Cindy Winger, an employee of the 
Douglas County Clerk's Office, the petition for divorce was presented to the Clerk of the 
Douglas County District Court by hand-delivery. Ms. Winger testified that because her 
initials are on the petition and because the case number and division number are in her 
handwriting, she could conclude that the petition was presented to the Clerk of the 
District Court by hand-delivery. On the other hand, the Respondent testified that he put 
the petition for divorce in the mail to the Clerk of the District Court on August 30, 2012, 
prior to leaving for a personal trip to Texas. The court did not have evidence of a letter 
that was mailed with the pleadings. Additionally, the respondent did not have evidence of 
a letter that was mailed with the pleadings. Based on all the evidence, the hearing panel 
finds that the respondent or someone on his behalf hand-delivered the petition for divorce 
to the Douglas County District Court Clerk's office on Tuesday, September 4, 2012, at 
2:31 p.m. 
 
"24. 
Because T.G. did not file first, she lost the ability to obtain an ex parte 
temporary order, she lost the advantage of having her divorce possibly go smoothly 
(because her husband believed she was repeatedly lying about having filed for divorce) 
[Footnote:  The litigation that ensued following this volatile situation cost T.G. 
approximately $10,000 in attorney fees.], and she lost the advantage of having a 
temporary order issued immediately with custody and residence orders. 
 
"25. 
Following September 4, 2012, T.G. continued to correspond with the 
respondent. T.G. reported a highly volatile situation with her estranged husband and 
again asked the respondent to obtain an order directing that T.G.'s husband move from 
the home. 
 
6 
 
 
 
"26. 
On September 9, 2012, T.G. again asked the respondent to file a 'move-
out' order immediately. To demonstrate the extreme situation and tension to the 
respondent, T.G. forwarded audio communications between T.G. and her estranged 
husband to the respondent. 
 
"27. 
On September 11, 2012, T.G. sent the respondent another electronic mail 
message and attached another audio recording. The respondent replied to T.G. and 
indicated that he would attempt to reach an agreement with T.G.'s estranged husband's 
attorney that day. 
 
"28. 
On September 13, 2012, T.G. sent the respondent another electronic mail 
message and indicated that she assumed that the respondent filed everything as she 
directed. T.G. reminded the respondent of the urgency of the situation and the need for 
the orders. 
 
"29. 
On September 14, 2012, the respondent replied that the only way to 
obtain temporary possession of the residence was by agreement. The respondent 
promised that he would file a motion that day and schedule a hearing on the motion as 
soon as possible. However, the respondent failed to file a motion on behalf of T.G. to 
obtain exclusive possession of the residence. Further, the respondent failed to file an 
answer on behalf of T.G. 
 
"30. 
Because the respondent failed to take appropriate actions to resolve 
T.G.'s issues, T.G. terminated the respondent's employment. T.G. retained Sherri 
Loveland. On September 18, 2012, Ms. Loveland entered her appearance on behalf of 
T.G. and filed an answer to the petition. By September 24, 2012, Ms. Loveland served 
discovery requests, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, filed a motion for 
exclusive possession of the marital residence, and made a request that the court enter 
orders of custody and parenting of the couple's son. 
 
"31. 
T.G. requested that the respondent return the fee which T.G. paid the 
respondent. When the fee was not timely returned, Ms. Loveland contacted the 
respondent. The respondent informed Ms. Loveland that the check had been mailed to her 
7 
 
 
 
office, which is located approximately one block from the respondent's office, but the 
envelope was returned due to insufficient postage on the envelop. Eventually, while at the 
Douglas County Courthouse, the respondent provided Ms. Loveland with a trust account 
check in the amount of $1,500, representing T.G.'s fee. 
 
"32. 
On September 20, 2012, T.G. filed a complaint against the respondent. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
"33. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 8.4(c), and 
KRPC 8.4(d), as detailed below. 
 
 
"KRPC 1.2 
 
"34. 
Lawyers must abide by a client's decision concerning the lawful 
objectives of the representation and lawyers must consult with their client as to the means 
used to accomplish the objectives. KRPC 1.2(a). The respondent stipulated that he 
violated KRPC 1.2. T.G. directed the respondent to file the divorce action in Douglas 
County.  In order to file the divorce case in Douglas County, the respondent had to reach 
an agreement with T.G.'s estranged husband. The respondent took no steps to attempt to 
reach an agreement with T.G.'s estranged husband. Additionally, T.G. repeatedly 
requested that the respondent file a motion for temporary orders, including custody and 
possession of the marital home due to verbal and physical abuse. The respondent never 
filed the motion. Finally, the respondent failed to seek temporary orders as requested by 
his client, in either Douglas County or Jefferson County. As such, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.2. 
 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
"35. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The respondent stipulated that he violated 
KRPC 1.3. The respondent failed to diligently and promptly represent T.G. The 
8 
 
 
 
respondent failed to timely file the action in divorce, the respondent failed to attempt to 
reach an agreement with T.G.'s estranged husband, and the respondent failed to request 
temporary orders. The respondent's lack of diligence caused T.G. actual injury—she was 
forced to share a residence with her abusive estranged husband for an extended period of 
time. 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. 
 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
"36. 
KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.4. In this case, the 
respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he failed keep T.G. informed about the status of 
the representation. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
 
"KRPC 8.4(c) 
 
"37. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The respondent 
engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he misrepresented to T.G. that her 
case had been filed on numerous occasions, when it had not been filed. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"38. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). The respondent engaged in 
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he failed to either file a 
motion to dismiss the Douglas County case or withdraw from the representation in the 
Douglas County case. Additionally, the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) when he filed 
the action in Douglas County where venue was not proper and the relief requested by 
9 
 
 
 
T.G. was not available. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated 
KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
"39. 
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. 
 
"40. 
Duty Violated.  The respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation. The respondent also violated his duty to his clients to provide 
reasonable communication. Finally, the respondent violated his duty to the public to 
maintain his personal integrity. 
 
"41. 
Mental State.  The respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his 
duties. 
 
"42. 
Injury.  As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to V.H. and T.G. 
 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
"43. 
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: 
 
10 
 
 
 
"44. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses.  On March 1, 2012, the respondent entered 
into the attorney diversion program for having violated KRPC 1.3 and KRPC 1.4, based 
on the respondent's misconduct committed during his representation of V.H. 
 
"45. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive.  The respondent engaged in dishonest 
conduct by falsely informing T.G. that her divorce action had been filed when it had not 
been filed. Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent's misconduct was 
motivated by dishonesty. 
 
"46. 
A Pattern of Misconduct.  The respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by repeatedly falsely assuring T.G. that he was timely handling her case. As 
such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
"47. 
Multiple Offenses.  The respondent violated KRPC 1.2, KRPC 1.3, 
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 8.4(c), and KRPC 8.4(d). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes 
that the respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
"48. 
Vulnerability of Victim.  V.H. and T.G. were particularly vulnerable to 
the respondent's misconduct. V.H. was vulnerable because she lived out-of-state and T.G. 
was vulnerable given the deterioration of her marriage. 
 
"49. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1999. At the time 
of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for approximately 13 years. 
 
"50. 
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: 
 
"51. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.  The respondent testified about 
11 
 
 
 
his personal problems and it appears that his personal problems may have contributed to 
his violations. 
 
"52. 
The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by the Attorney's 
Cooperation During the Hearing and the Attorney's Full and Free Acknowledgment of 
the Transgressions.  During the formal hearing, the respondent stipulated to the facts 
alleged by the disciplinary administrator. 
 
"53. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.41 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
. . . .  
(b) 
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for 
a client and causes serious or potentially serious 
injury to a client; or 
 
(c) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with 
respect to client matters and causes serious or 
potentially serious injury to a client. 
 
'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 
 
(b) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'5.11 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
. . . .  
12 
 
 
 
(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.' 
 
"Recommendation 
 
"54. 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, the deputy disciplinary 
administrator recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of three to six 
months. The deputy disciplinary administrator further recommended that the respondent 
undergo a reinstatement hearing, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 219, prior to consideration 
of reinstatement. The respondent requested that he be allowed to continue to practice law 
and that his license not be suspended. 
 
"55. 
The hearing panel has carefully considered the discipline to impose in 
this case. Because of the respondent's repeated misrepresentations and failure to take 
action on behalf of T.G., she had to continue to reside with her abusive estranged 
husband and suffered a level of terror and conflict. The injury suffered as a result of the 
respondent's misconduct is serious and warrants suspension from the practice of law. The 
hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of six months. Further, prior to consideration of any petition 
for reinstatement, the hearing panel recommends that the respondent undergo a 
reinstatement hearing, pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 219. 
 
"56. 
The hearing panel recommends that, at the reinstatement hearing, the 
respondent be required to provide written evidence that he has undergone a complete 
alcohol evaluation and has completed the recommendations for treatment, if any. Finally, 
13 
 
 
 
the respondent owes apologies to his clients. The respondent should be required to 
provide a copy of the written apologies sent by the respondent to V.H. and T.G. 
 
"57. 
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, the discipline to be imposed. Attorney misconduct must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 
375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356). 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]). 
 
The respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he 
filed an answer; he filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. With no 
exceptions before us, the panel's findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court 
Rule 212(c), (d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375). Furthermore, the evidence before the 
hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 1.2 (2013 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 459) (scope of representation); 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) 
(diligence); 1.4(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 8.4(c) (2013 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 655) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by clear and convincing evidence 
and supports the panel's conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and 
conclusions. 
 
14 
 
 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office 
of the Disciplinary Administrator increased its recommendation for respondent's 
suspension from 3 to 6 months. The respondent requested that he receive a public 
censure. In the alternative, he requested suspension of 3 months, to be delayed until mid-
June 2014 to allow him time to complete several pending cases. 
 
 
The hearing panel recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of 
6 months and that, prior to any consideration of a petition for reinstatement, he undergo a 
reinstatement hearing pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 219 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 407). The hearing panel recommended that at the reinstatement hearing the 
respondent be required to provide written evidence that he has undergone a complete 
alcohol evaluation and has completed the recommendations for treatment, if any. Further, 
the hearing panel recommended that the respondent be required to apologize to his clients 
V.H. and T.G. and to provide a copy of the written apologies sent by him. 
 
 
We hold that respondent should be suspended for a period of 6 months effective as 
of the date of this opinion and that he be subject to a Rule 219 hearing before his 
suspension may be lifted. At the reinstatement hearing, the respondent shall be required 
to present clear and convincing evidence that he has undergone a complete alcohol 
evaluation and has completed the recommendations for treatment, if any. In addition, the 
respondent shall provide to the hearing panel and the office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator a written report from a licensed psychiatric, psychological, or social work 
professional approved by the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program that includes an 
opinion there are no current impediments to his ability to practice law. Further, 
respondent shall provide to the hearing panel a plan under which his law practice after 
reinstatement will be supervised, for a period of time to be set by the panel, by an 
15 
 
 
 
attorney acceptable to the Disciplinary Administrator and which will contain such other 
provisions as the Disciplinary Administrator shall deem appropriate. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Trey T. Meyer be suspended from the practice of 
law in the state of Kansas for a period of 6 months, in accordance with Supreme Court 
Rule 203(a)(2) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 300). 
 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 406) and Rule 219. At the reinstatement hearing, he 
shall be required to present clear and convincing evidence that he has undergone a 
complete alcohol evaluation and has completed the recommendations for treatment, if 
any. In addition, the respondent shall provide to the hearing panel and the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator a written report from a licensed psychiatric, psychological, or 
social work professional approved by the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program that 
includes an opinion there are no current impediments to his ability to practice law. 
Further, respondent shall provide to the hearing panel a plan under which his law practice 
after reinstatement will be supervised, for a period of time to be set by the panel, by an 
attorney acceptable to the Disciplinary Administrator and which will contain such other 
provisions as the Disciplinary Administrator shall deem appropriate. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports. 
 
 
MORITZ, J., not participating. 
 
GERALD T. ELLIOTT, District Judge, assigned.