Title: In re Dellett.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 110452
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2014

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No.  110,452 
 
In the Matter of KEVIN E. DELLETT, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 28, 2014. Two-year suspension 
suspended, and respondent placed on 2 years' supervised probation. 
 
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. 
 
N. Trey Pettlon, III, of Law Office of Pettlon & Ginie, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Kevin E. 
Dellett, 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, Kevin E. Dellett, of Overland Park, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1995. 
 
 
On September 20, 2012, 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 and also eventually filed a plan of 
probation. On February 11, 2013, the deputy disciplinary administrator and respondent 
agreed to a lengthy, written stipulation which the hearing panel accepted at the April 10, 
2013, hearing on the formal complaint. 
 
 
Based upon this stipulation, the hearing panel determined respondent violated 
KRPC 1.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 446) (competence); 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
2 
 
464) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (communication); 1.5(a) (2013 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 503) (fees); 1.16(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 569) (termination of 
representation); and 8.4(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to 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 and Conclusions of Law 
 
. . . . 
 
"11. 
On February 11, 2013, Ms. Knoll, the respondent, and his counsel 
entered into a written stipulation. The parties presented the stipulation to the hearing 
panel. The hearing panel accepts the stipulation of the parties. The stipulation provides, 
as follows: 
 
 
'COMES NOW Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary 
Administrator, pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules Relating to 
Discipline of Attorneys and Respondent, Kevin Dellett, by and through 
counsel, Trey Pettlon and agree to the following stipulation of facts: 
 
 
'1. 
Kevin E. Dellett is an attorney at law, Kansas Attorney 
Registration No.16764. His last registration address with the Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts of Kansas is [], Overland Park, Kansas 66213. The 
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Kansas on April 28, 
1995. 
 
 
'2. 
On April 22, 2008, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator received a complaint from [C.H.N.] regarding 
Respondent. Case number DA 10,498. 
 
 
'3. 
Respondent filed a response to the Complaint on May 
19, 2008. 
 
3 
 
 
'4. 
In the response, Respondent admitted that he failed to 
respond to several requests for updates. 
 
 
'5. 
In the response, Respondent admitted he did not move 
the case along as quickly as the client would have liked. 
 
 
'6. 
The Respondent agreed to participate in the Attorney 
Diversion Program. Respondent entered the Program on September 29, 
2010. 
 
 
'7. 
As part of the agreement, the Respondent stipulated to 
the following: 
 
'DA 10,498 
 
a. 
Respondent was retained by 
DiscountCoffee.com to represent it in an action filed 
against it in the District Court in Johnson County, 
Kansas. 
 
b. 
Respondent received a $5,000 retainer on July 
24, 2007. 
 
c. 
Respondent filed a general denial and then on 
August 23, 2007, he filed an Answer and Counterclaim. 
 
d. 
The client requested updates on the status of the 
case on September 28, 2007, October 3, 2007, October 
4, 2007, October 8, 2007, and October 15, 2007. 
 
e. 
Respondent emails client on October 18, 2007, 
and informs client that Respondent would be seeking an 
extension of time to file answers. 
 
4 
 
f. 
Client requests an update on November 26, 
2007, December 26, 2007, January 10, 2008, and 
another time in January 2008. 
 
g. 
Respondent admits to client he has not been 
communicating with the client via email sent February 
12, 2008. 
 
h. 
Client terminates Respondent on February 13, 
2008. 
 
 
'8. 
On November 20, 2008, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator received a complaint from [M.V.] regarding Respondent. 
Case number DA 10,669. 
 
 
'9. 
Respondent filed a response to the Complaint on 
February 5, 2009. 
 
 
'10. 
In the response, Respondent noted he communicated 
often with complainant. 
 
 
'11. 
Respondent met with the incarcerated client [, J.P.,] 
twice. 
 
 
'12. 
In the response, Respondent admitted he did not directly 
inform his client that the client's jury trial was continued once. 
 
 
'13. 
In the response, Respondent admitted he did not directly 
inform the client that he had requested another continuance of the trial. 
He did notify a third party that was involved with the client. 
 
 
'14. 
The court denied the request. Respondent does not recall 
informing complainant of his plan to request reconsideration of the 
denial of the continuance. 
5 
 
 
 
'15. 
Respondent's cell phone records indicate he attempted to 
reach complainant on July 24 and July 25. The trial was scheduled for 
August. 
 
 
'16. 
Respondent was terminated on July 25. 
 
 
'17. 
Respondent agreed to participate in the Attorney 
Diversion Program. Respondent entered the Program on September 29, 
2010. 
 
 
'18. 
As part of the agreement, Respondent stipulated to the 
following: 
 
'DA 10,669 
 
a. 
Respondent was retained to represent [J.P.] who 
was charged with aggravated indecent liberties with a 
child. The retainer was paid by the Complainant, [M.V.], 
[J.P.]'s wife. 
 
b. 
Respondent agreed to represent [J.P.] for 
$15,000 for a preliminary hearing, plea negotiations, 
plea and sentencing. If a trial was required, the fee 
would be $5,000 more. 
 
c. 
The fee agreement provides:  ". . . upon signing 
of this contract such fees are non-refundable." 
 
d. 
On July 25, 2008, Respondent was terminated 
from representing [J.P.]. At the time of the discharge, 
[J.P.] had waived his preliminary hearing. There had 
been no plea and no work performed as to sentencing. 
An accounting was requested. Respondent refused to 
6 
 
return any of the retainer, citing the "non-refundable" 
clause in the fee agreement. 
 
e. 
Respondent did not normally keep time records 
on criminal defense cases. 
 
 
'19. 
In his response, Respondent admitted he deposited all 
funds into his operating account. 
 
 
'20. 
On November 18, 2009, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator received a complaint from [attorney] Mark Rohrbaugh 
regarding Respondent. Case number DA 10,[956]. 
 
 
'21. 
Respondent filed a response to the Complaint on January 
12, 2010. 
 
 
'22. 
In his response, Respondent admitted to violating KRPC 
1.3 and KRPC 1.4. 
 
 
'23. 
Respondent agreed to participate in the Attorney 
Diversion Program. Respondent entered into the Diversion Program on 
September 29, 2010. 
 
 
'24. 
In the Agreement, Respondent stipulated to the 
following: 
 
'DA 10,956 
 
 
a. 
Respondent was retained by [A.S.] to represent 
her in a domestic case. 
 
b. 
Respondent entered his appearance in 2006. 
Between December 2006 and the fall of 2008, a Third-
7 
 
Party Petition for Separate Maintenance was filed and a 
parenting plan was negotiated. 
 
c. 
Respondent requested additional time to file an 
answer to the original proceeding. 
 
d. 
Respondent was granted extra time but did not 
file an answer. 
 
e. 
In October 2008, [A.S.]'s husband filed a Third-
Party Petition for divorce. Respondent admits receiving 
the Petition. 
 
f. 
In December 2008, a Motion for Default 
Judgment was filed in the divorce action. Respondent 
admits receiving the Motion. 
 
g. 
Respondent admits he failed to respond to the 
motion, failed to notify the client of the hearing and 
failed to appear at the hearing. 
 
h. 
Respondent admits being contacted by the court 
about the missed hearing. Respondent failed to take any 
action to correct the situation. 
 
i. 
Default judgment was entered. Respondent 
failed to notify his client after receiving the decree of 
divorce. The client learned from her then ex-husband 
that they were divorced. 
 
j. 
[A.S.] retained new counsel who filed a motion 
to set aside the divorce. 
 
8 
 
k. 
The court found grounds to reaffirm the divorce 
but set aside all other rulings. 
 
 
'25. 
The Agreement also provides:  The Disciplinary 
Administrator and the Respondent agree that the Respondent violated 
KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16 and 8.4(d)[.] 
 
 
'26. 
As part of the diversion agreement, Respondent agreed 
to the following: 
 
a. 
Prior to June 25, 2011, Respondent was to 
complete fourteen hours of CLE, including four hours 
designated as ethics hours. Proof of compliance was to 
be in the form of a CLE transcript. 
 
b. 
Within one week of receiving a document 
pertaining to a client, the Respondent was to send a copy 
to the client. Respondent was to make every effort to 
return phone calls within two business days. Respondent 
was to make every effort to respond to written 
correspondence within one week. 
 
c. 
Respondent was to meet all court deadlines. 
 
d. 
Respondent was to work with KALAP. 
 
e. 
The Respondent was required to remove any 
reference to a non-refundable fee and to follow the 
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct as they relate to 
fees and retainers. The Respondent was to use a fee 
agreement that clearly stated the payment terms and 
when Respondent was to commence work on the case. 
The Respondent was to provide a sample fee agreement 
to the practice supervisor, John Gerstle. 
9 
 
 
f. 
Respondent was to resolve the fee dispute with 
Complainant [V] through the Johnson County Bar 
Association Fee Dispute Committee. 
 
g. 
Respondent was to review all of his cases every 
60 days and cross-check with court dockets to make sure 
he was meeting deadlines. He was to reconcile his 
calendar on a daily basis. 
 
h. 
Respondent was to meet with and provide John 
Gerstle access to his files. 
 
 
'27. 
Respondent did submit the fee dispute to the Johnson 
County Bar Association. 
 
 
'28. 
Mediation was never conducted, instead, it was agreed 
that Respondent would return $10,000.00 from the $15,000.00 retainer 
Respondent had asserted was non-refundable. 
 
 
'29. 
Respondent paid $2,000.00 to [V] on October 6, 2011. 
 
 
'30. 
Respondent made the final $8,000.00 restitution 
payment on October 27, 2011. 
 
 
'31. 
Respondent is working with KALAP. 
 
 
'32. 
Respondent completed the required CLE hours on June 
30, 2011. The Agreement required the hours to be completed by June 25, 
2011. 
 
 
'33. 
Respondent and Gerstle did meet frequently. 
 
10 
 
'DA 11,445 
 
 
'34. 
On October 13, 2011, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator received a complaint from [M.M.] regarding the 
Respondent. Case number DA 11,445. 
 
 
'35. 
[M.M.] is deaf. She sought out Respondent's assistance 
because she believed that the Olathe Club for the Deaf defamed, bullied, 
slandered and libeled her. The acts against her started in 2008. The 
Olathe Club for the Deaf is a domestic corporation. 
 
 
'36. 
[M.M.] caused a binder of papers to be delivered to 
Respondent on December 30, 2009. She had previously personally met 
with Respondent to discuss the matter. 
 
 
'37. 
Respondent, through counsel, responded to the 
complaint on December 4, 2011. Respondent acknowledged that he did 
not respond to every email. Respondent reports he did not respond if he 
did not have new information. 
 
 
'38. 
Respondent admitted he did not file suit or send a 
demand letter as promptly as the client would have liked. Some of the 
delay is attributable to the client not promptly providing material; the 
voluminous amount of material provided that needed to be reviewed to 
determine and research the legal claims that were possible; and some is 
attributable to Respondent and client travelling. 
 
 
'39. 
Respondent believed client to be a good person who was 
wronged. Respondent also came to realize that the case was not going to 
result in any significant monetary recovery, and, in fact, the expenses 
might exceed any recovery. 
 
 
'40. 
Respondent researched several theories. It became clear 
that [M.M.] was going to have difficulty proving damages. 
11 
 
 
 
'41. 
Respondent filed suit on behalf of [M.M.] against the 
Olathe Club of the Deaf on October 28, 2011. 
 
 
'42. 
In the December 4, 2011, letter, counsel reports that 
Respondent and [M.M.] had worked out their difficulties and Respondent 
agreed to continue to represent her pro bono. Although she offered to pay 
a fee on more than one occasion, he knew she could not afford to pay an 
hourly fee. 
 
 
'43. 
On October 21, 2011, Respondent told Complainant he 
was still working on her case. He filed suit a few days later, on October 
28, 2011. 
 
 
'44. 
On January 12, 2012, the Judge wrote a bench note 
stating: "Serve or Dismiss/to Be Served by 03/23/12." 
 
 
'45. 
On January 27, 2012, a Motion for Extension of Time to 
accomplish service was filed. An Order Granting an Extension of time 
was entered on January 27, 2012. 
 
 
'46. 
Respondent did not provide [M.M.] with a copy of the 
Motion and Order for Extension of Time to accomplish service. 
 
 
'47. 
The investigator met with [M.M.] on March 2, 2012. It 
was during this meeting [M.M.] learned the case was in danger of being 
dismissed due to the lack of service. After the meeting with the 
investigator, [M.M.] emailed the investigator regarding the service issue. 
 
 
'48. 
On March 23, 2012, a Request and Service Instruction 
Form Summons and Petition to the Olathe Club of the Deaf was issued. 
 
12 
 
 
'49.  
Respondent served an individual named Leonard Hall on 
March 23, 2012. Mr. Hall is the attorney for the Olathe Club of the Deaf; 
he is not the registered agent. Mr. Hall agreed to accept service. 
 
 
'50. 
The Olathe Club of the Deaf filed a "Memorandum" on 
April 12, 2012, contending that the suit was not timely filed and 
Respondent did not properly obtain service because he served the Club's 
lawyer, not the registered agent. 
 
 
'51. 
All [M.M.] wanted was an apology from the Club. On 
August 20, 2012, the Respondent obtained a written letter of apology 
from the Club. 
 
 
'52. 
On August 21, 2012, Respondent presented the Court 
with a joint motion for dismissal and order. 
 
 
'53. 
The court dismissed the action with prejudice. 
 
'DA 11,521 
 
 
'54. 
On January 30, 2012, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator received a complaint from [C.C.L.] regarding the 
Respondent. 
 
 
'55. 
Respondent filed a response February 22, 2012. 
 
 
'56. 
Complainant met with Respondent on January 6, 2012. 
 
 
'57. 
Complainant retained Respondent on January 10, 2012, 
to represent him in a criminal case in which Complainant had been 
charged with domestic violence. 
 
13 
 
 
'58. 
Complainant paid Respondent $4010.00 on January 10, 
2012. Respondent reduced his fee from the original quote. The ten 
dollars was to pay the District Attorney fee for police reports. 
 
 
'59. 
The retainer was not deposited in either of Respondent's 
attorney trust accounts. It was deposited in his operating account 
pursuant to the Commitment Agreement. 
 
 
'60. 
Complainant called Respondent's office on January 11, 
2012, and requested a return call. 
 
 
'61. 
Respondent e-mailed a "Retainer Agreement" to 
Complainant on January 12, 2012. Complainant never executed the 
agreement. 
 
 
'62. 
Complainant called Respondent's cell phone on January 
12, 2012, and there was no answer. 
 
 
'63. 
On January 12, 2012, Respondent contacted the assigned 
prosecutor to determine the State's position on modification of the No 
Contact Order, in the event [C.C.L.'s wife] wanted the No Contact Order 
modified. Respondent was advised that the State was opposed to a 
modification. Respondent was advised that [C.C.L.]'s wife had submitted 
paperwork requesting a modification to no violent contact and that the 
State had forwarded that request on to the judge. Respondent contacted 
the judge and was told the judge had modified the no contact order to 
allow phone and electronic communication. 
 
 
'64. 
Respondent advised the client and his wife of the 
modification. 
 
 
'65. 
Respondent told Complainant that he would review the 
police reports on January 17, 2012. He did not review the reports until 
January 18, 2012, because he did not receive the discovery from the 
14 
 
District Attorney's Office until January 18, 2012. His assistant redacted 
them on January 19, 2012. 
 
 
'66. 
On January 18, 2012, Complainant called Respondent's 
office in the morning and requested a return call. He then called 
Respondent's cell phone two times in the afternoon. There was no 
answer. 
 
 
'67. 
Respondent reports his phone log indicated complainant 
tried calling twice on January 19, 2012. 
 
 
'68. 
Respondent admits to missing Complainant's calls. 
Respondent had his assistant call Complainant back on January 19, 2012, 
to set up a meeting to review the police reports on the next day, January 
20, 2012. 
 
 
'69. 
On January 20, 2012, Complainant and Respondent met 
for approximately an hour. Respondent provided the redacted police 
reports to Complainant. Respondent agreed to contact the prosecution on 
Monday, January 23, 2012, to discuss further modification of the No 
Contact Order. 
 
 
'70. 
Early on January 23, 2012, Complainant called 
Respondent and told him he was considering terminating Respondent's 
representation. 
 
 
'71. 
Respondent set up a meeting for that afternoon. 
 
 
'72. 
Complainant met with Respondent and voiced concern 
that Respondent did not have time to properly represent him. 
 
 
'73. 
Complainant asked for half of his retainer to be returned 
and to modify the unsigned retainer agreement so that those funds would 
15 
 
be paid at the end of the representation. Respondent spent 1.75 hours 
with Complainant. 
 
 
'74. 
Respondent refused to refund any money and did not 
agree to any modification of the retainer agreement. Respondent 
indicated he was eager to continue to represent Complainant. 
Complainant agreed to continue the representation. 
 
 
'75. 
Respondent believed that Complainant left the meeting 
satisfied that Respondent did have the time to represent him and 
understood the strategy to be employed. Respondent continued to work 
on the case. 
 
 
'76. 
Respondent reports that he had no contact with 
Complainant on January 24, 2012, or January 25, 2012. 
 
 
'77. 
On January 26, 2012, Respondent called Complainant. 
Complainant said he was driving and would call Respondent back. 
Complainant emailed Respondent and terminated his services. 
Complainant asked for a refund of $3,500 based on his calculation that 
Respondent had spent 2 hours working on Complainant's case. 
Complainant demanded that payment be made within 7 days or he would 
file a disciplinary complaint. 
 
 
'78. 
Complainant filed the complaint on January 30, 2012, 
three days before the deadline he set. 
 
 
'79. 
Respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw on February 1, 
2012. 
 
 
'80.  
Respondent emailed a billing statement for $1,382.50, 
representing 5.75 hours, to [Complainant] at 8:47 p.m. on February 1, 
2012. Respondent proposed to refund $2,700.00. 
 
16 
 
 
'81. 
Complainant suggested Respondent was owed for 3.1 
hours and requested a refund of $3,165.00. 
 
 
'82. 
Respondent agreed in a subsequent email that his fee 
should be reduced to $1,132.50 because he inadvertently charged for the 
original consultation. Respondent intended a half hour of the initial 
consultation to be free. Accordingly, Respondent offered to refund 
$2,877.50. 
 
 
'83. 
Respondent then offered to reduce his fee to $1,000.00, 
as a compromise, in order to resolve the fee dispute without having to 
submit the matter to the Johnson County Fee Dispute Committee. On 
February 3, 2012, Respondent provided a $3,000.00 refund check to 
Complainant. 
 
 
'84. 
 The unexecuted retainer agreement provided, in 
material part: 
 
"Initial retainer:  At or before the signing of this 
agreement, you agree to pay a flat fee of $4,000.00, 
representing a "Commitment Fee" intended to commit 
the Firm to represent you and not as a fee to be earned 
by future services. You agree that the Commitment Fee 
is earned in full when tendered and will be deposited in 
the general operating account and will not be held "in 
trust" for you. You acknowledge that the Commitment 
Fee represents a sum that you are paying to ensure the 
Firm's availability to represent you in this matter. You 
further acknowledge that the Commitment Fee 
represents a sum that you agree the Firms' services and 
efforts are worth irrespective of the actual total amount 
of time devoted to the representation. 
* * * 
17 
 
Costs of Delay:  If resolution of the case is delayed or 
complicated as a result of your actions, (for example, if 
you fail to appear as ordered, cancel appointments, or 
fail to provide information or documents necessary for 
your representation) you agree to pay additional attorney 
fees based on my hourly rate of $350.00/hr. At such 
point, the Firm charges for attorney services in intervals 
of one-tenth of an hour, or 6-minute intervals rounded up 
to the nearest one-tenth. For example, a six minute 
telephone call is billed as .1 hour; a seven minute 
telephone call is billed as .2 hour. 
* * * 
"USE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL Occasionally, it may be 
necessary for outside counsel to appear in your case due 
to unavoidable scheduling conflicts such as hearing in 
different courts at the same time. You agree to allow the 
Firm, at its discretion, to retain outside counsel to appear 
in your case if and when such a scheduling conflict 
occurs. We agree that the Firm will pay any fee for any 
services of such outside counsel and that you are not 
responsible for any fee owed to any such outside 
counsel. 
* * * 
"ATTORNEY CASE-LOAD You understand that the 
Firm's attorneys have a significant case load, and that 
yours is not our only case. You understand that the 
Firm's attorneys must determine in their sole discretion 
when work is to be performed on your case. 
Additionally, we strive to return phone calls by the end 
of the next business day, but many times this may not be 
possible due to a number of factors, such as hearings, 
depositions, meetings etc." 
 
The above stated acts by the Respondent, Kevin Dellett violate Kansas 
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, and 8.4(d).' 
18 
 
 
 
"12. 
Based upon the parties' stipulation, the hearing panel concludes as a 
matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.5, 
KRPC 1.16, and KRPC 8.4(d), as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.1 
 
 
"13. 
Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC 
1.1 provides the requirement in this regard: 
  
 
'A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.' 
 
The respondent failed to provide competent representation to A.S. The respondent failed 
to inform his client that a motion was filed, failed to respond to the motion, failed to 
appear in court, and, after default judgment was entered, failed to inform his client that 
default judgment had been entered. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent failed to provide competent representation to A.S. by failing to utilize the 
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, in violation of 
KRPC 1.1. 
  
"KRPC 1.3 
 
 
"14. 
KRPC 1.3 provides:  'A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.' In this case, the respondent failed to provide diligent 
representation to C.H.N., A.S., and M.M. With regard to C.H.N., the respondent failed to 
move her case along quickly. The respondent failed to respond to a motion filed in A.S.'s 
litigation. Finally, the respondent failed to timely file suit or send a demand letter on 
behalf of M.M. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent repeatedly 
violated KRPC 1.3. 
  
19 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
 
"15. 
Lawyers must provide adequate communication to [their] clients. 
Specifically, KRPC 1.4(a) provides as follows:  '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' The respondent failed to provide adequate communication to C.H.N., J.P., 
A.S., and M.M. 
  
 
"16. 
The respondent failed to respond to several requests for updates from 
C.H.N. Regarding J.P., the respondent failed to inform J.P. that the scheduled jury trial 
was continued. Additionally, the respondent failed to inform J.P. that the respondent had 
requested an additional continuance of the jury trial. The respondent failed to notify A.S. 
that a hearing has been scheduled. Additionally, the respondent failed to inform A.S. that 
the court entered default judgment in her case. Finally, with regard to M.M., the 
respondent failed to provide M.M. with a copy of a motion filed in the litigation. 
 
 
"17. 
Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent repeatedly violated 
KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
"KRPC 1.5 
 
 
"18. 
'A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.' KRPC 1.5(a). Nonrefundable fees 
are per se unreasonable. The respondent charged J.P. a nonrefundable fee. Additionally, 
the respondent included a provision in C.C.L.'s engagement contract that the fee was 
earned in full when the fee was paid. Such a provision is tantamount to charging a 
nonrefundable fee. The hearing panel concludes, as a result, that the respondent twice 
violated KRPC 1.5(a) by charging a nonrefundable fee. 
 
"KRPC 1.16 
 
 
"19. 
'Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the 
extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests.' KRPC 1.16(d). This provision 
requires lawyers to 'refund[] any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.' The 
respondent charged J.P. a fee and then refused to refund the unearned portion of the fee 
20 
 
upon termination of the representation. Because the respondent refused to refund an 
unearned fee, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d). 
  
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"20. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this case, the respondent 
engaged in conduct that prejudiced the administration of justice when he failed to appear 
in court on behalf of A.S. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"21. 
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. 
 
 
"22. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
competent and diligent representation. The respondent also violated his duty to his clients 
to provide adequate communication. Further, the respondent violated his duty to his 
clients to charge a reasonable fee. Additionally, the respondent violated his duty to his 
client to properly terminate representation. Finally, the respondent violated his duty to the 
legal system to refrain from interfering with the administration of justice. 
 
 
"23. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"24. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to his client and the legal system. 
 
21 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"25. 
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: 
 
 
"26. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. With regard to C.H.N., J.P., and A.S., the 
respondent was placed on diversion for the misconduct. The respondent failed to comply 
with the terms and conditions of diversion and, as a result, the disciplinary administrator 
revoked the respondent's diversion. 
 
 
"27. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent engaged in selfish conduct 
when he charged nonrefundable fees. As such, the hearing panel concludes that that 
misconduct was motivated by selfishness. 
 
 
"28. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by repeatedly violating KRPC 1.3 and KRPC 1.4. As such, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
 
"29. 
Multiple Offenses. The respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 
1.4, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 1.16, and KRPC 8.4(d). Because the respondent violated six 
different rules, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple 
offenses. 
 
 
"30. 
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 1995. At 
the time of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for more than 10 
years. 
 
 
"31. 
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: 
22 
 
 
 
"32. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent testified that he 
suffers from attention deficit disorder and depression. The hearing panel concludes that 
the respondent's mental health issues may have contributed to the respondent's violations. 
 
 
"33. 
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. In the stipulation and during the formal hearing, the respondent fully 
and freely acknowledged the misconduct. 
 
 
"34. 
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 presented letters which establish the 
respondent's previous good character and reputation in his community. 
 
 
"35. 
Remorse. At the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent 
expressed genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
"36. 
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 
 
(b) 
a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'6.22 
Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a 
court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a 
23 
 
client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a 
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 
 
 
"37. 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, the deputy disciplinary 
administrator and the respondent recommended that the respondent's probation plan be 
adopted and that the respondent be allowed to continue to practice law subject to the 
supervision detailed by the respondent's probation plan. 
 
 
"38. 
A hearing panel may recommend probation only in certain 
circumstances. 
 
'The Hearing Panel shall not recommend that the Respondent be placed 
on probation unless: 
 
(i) 
the respondent develops a workable, substantial, 
and detailed plan of probation and provides a 
copy of the proposed plan of probation to the 
Disciplinary Administrator and each member of 
the Hearing Panel at least fourteen days prior to 
the hearing on the Formal Complaint; 
 
(ii) 
the Respondent puts the proposed plan of 
probation into effect prior to the hearing on the 
Formal Complaint by complying with each of 
the terms and conditions of the probation plan; 
 
24 
 
(iii) 
the misconduct can be corrected by probation; 
and 
 
(iv) 
placing the Respondent on probation is in the 
best interests of the legal profession and the 
citizens of the State of Kansas.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g)(3). 
 
 
"39. 
After careful consideration, the hearing panel concludes that, pursuant to 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g)(3), it is proper to recommend probation in this case. The 
respondent developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of probation and timely 
provided a copy of the proposed plan of probation to the disciplinary administrator and 
each member of the hearing panel. The Respondent put the proposed plan of probation 
into effect prior to the hearing on the formal complaint by complying with each of the 
terms and conditions of the probation plan. The misconduct can be corrected by 
probation. Finally, placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of the legal 
profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas. 
 
 
"40. 
The hearing panel recommends that the respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for a period of two years. The hearing panel further recommends that 
the court suspend the imposition of the suspension and place the respondent on probation, 
according to the terms and conditions detailed below: 
 
 
"41. 
Duration of Probation. The respondent will remain on probation for 24 
months from the date of the Supreme Court's opinion. 
 
 
"42. 
Limitation of Practice. The respondent will limit his practice to criminal, 
traffic, and collection cases. The respondent will not practice in any other areas of law. 
The respondent will change all advertisements, including his website to reflect the 
practice limitations within 30 days of the date of this report. 
 
25 
 
 
"43. 
Supervision. Frank Gilman will supervise the respondent's practice. As 
the respondent's practice supervisor, Mr. Gilman will be afforded all immunities granted 
by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223. 
 
'a. 
The respondent will allow the practice 
supervisor access to his client files, calendar, and trust account 
records. 
 
'b. 
The respondent will comply with any requests 
made by the practice supervisor. 
 
'c. 
The respondent will meet with the practice 
supervisor every two weeks. During the regular meetings, the 
respondent and the practice supervisor will (1) discuss open 
cases, including cases which present any difficulties, (2) review 
the respondent's calendar for the upcoming two weeks for 
deadlines, court appearances, etc., and (3) review the 
respondent's trust account records. 
 
'd. 
If, after 12 months, the practice supervisor 
concludes that meeting every two weeks is not necessary, the 
practice supervisor may meet with the respondent on a monthly 
basis for the remaining probation period. 
 
'e. 
The practice supervisor will provide written 
monthly reports to the disciplinary administrator. The monthly 
reports will detail the respondent's compliance with each of the 
terms and conditions of probation. 
 
'f. 
If the practice supervisor discovers that the 
respondent violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct or 
any term or condition of probation, the practice supervisor will 
immediately report the violation to the disciplinary 
administrator.' 
26 
 
 
 
"44. 
Law Office Organization. The respondent will establish and utilize a 
diary and docketing system which includes a mechanism by which approaching court 
deadlines and statutes of limitations are noted. The respondent will review each of his 
cases at least every two weeks to determine what action needs to be taken. The 
respondent will update his calendar on a daily basis. The respondent will reconcile his 
calendar with his assistant's calendar on a daily basis. The respondent will reconcile his 
calendar with the Johnson County District Court's calendar on a weekly basis. 
 
 
"45. 
Audits. The practice supervisor will conduct audits of the respondent's 
files every six months, beginning September 1, 2013, and continuing throughout the time 
the respondent remains on probation. The practice supervisor will make a report of each 
audit. In conducting the audits, the practice supervisor will review each of the 
respondent's open case files. In the report of the audit, the practice supervisor will 
determine if deadlines were met, if the respondent maintained adequate communication, 
and if there were any irregularities in the cases. Additionally, the practice supervisor will 
note any matters which amount to a violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct or the Rules Relating to the Discipline of Attorneys. In the audit report, the 
practice supervisor will also provide the respondent with a list of changes to incorporate 
in his practice to improve the respondent's practice. The practice supervisor will provide 
a copy of the audit report to the respondent and the disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
"46. 
Fee Agreements. The respondent will enter into written fee agreements 
with all clients. The respondent will enter into written hourly fee agreements with all 
clients except clients with minor traffic ticket cases. For minor traffic ticket cases, the 
respondent will enter into a written fixed fee agreement. The respondent will provide a 
sample form written hourly fee agreement and a sample form written fixed fee agreement 
to the practice supervisor and the disciplinary administrator within 30 days of the date of 
this report. All unearned fees are fully refundable. 
 
 
"47. 
Court Deadlines. The respondent will meet all deadlines set by the courts 
or statutes. The respondent will appear in court for all hearings scheduled on cases in 
which he is counsel of record. 
 
27 
 
 
"48. 
Billing Statements. The respondent will provide each client, other than 
clients with minor traffic ticket cases, with a monthly billing statement that details the 
services performed, the date which each service was performed, the time spent for each 
service, and the amount to be charged for each service. The respondent will provide a 
sample form of a billing statement to the practice supervisor and the disciplinary 
administrator within 30 days of the date of this report. 
 
 
"49. 
Communication. The respondent will return all telephone calls from 
current clients within two business dates of receipt, unless the respondent is in jury trial. 
If the respondent is in a jury trial and unable to timely return telephone calls, the 
respondent will ensure that all clients are made aware of the respondent's jury trial 
schedule with a recorded voicemail message. The respondent will return all telephone 
calls received while in jury trial within two days following the conclusion of the jury 
trial. The respondent will respond to all written correspondence from current clients 
within one week. 
 
 
"50. 
KALAP Monitoring. Throughout the period of probation, the respondent 
will continue to be monitored through KALAP. The respondent will comply with all 
terms and conditions contained in the monitoring agreement. The respondent will keep 
his KALAP monitor informed of his treatment plan and the names of the treatment 
providers. 
 
 
"51. 
Psychological Evaluation. The respondent will undergo a thorough 
psychological evaluation by a forensic psychologist within 60 days following the release 
of this report. The respondent will provide a copy of the psychological report to the 
practice supervisor, the KALAP monitor, the disciplinary administrator, and the 
respondent's treatment professionals. The respondent will comply with all 
recommendations made by the forensic psychologist in the psychological evaluation. 
 
 
"52. 
Treatment. The respondent will continue to comply with the treatment 
plan established by his treatment professionals by participating in counseling and by 
taking prescribed medications. The respondent will not discontinue his participation in 
counseling or discontinue taking his medication unless the treatment providers determine 
that counseling or medication is no longer warranted. A treatment provider will provide 
28 
 
the practice supervisor, the disciplinary administrator, and the KALAP monitor with 
quarterly updates. The quarterly updates will include the respondent's compliance with 
the treatment plan, the respondent's progress in treatment, and the respondent's prognosis. 
The respondent will execute releases necessary to allow his practice supervisor, the 
disciplinary administrator, and the respondent's KALAP monitor to discuss his treatment 
with the treatment providers. 
 
 
"53. 
Cooperation. The respondent will attend any scheduled meetings with 
the disciplinary administrator. The respondent will provide information as requested by 
the disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
"54. 
Additional Violations. The respondent will comply with the Kansas 
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Relating to the Discipline of Attorneys. If 
the respondent violates the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to 
the Discipline of Attorneys, or any term or condition of probation, during the period of 
probation, the respondent will immediately report the violation to the disciplinary 
administrator. 
 
 
"55. 
Termination of Probation. The respondent will remain on probation, 
even after 24 months' time, until the Supreme Court releases the respondent from 
probation. 
 
 
"56. 
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 the attorney 
has violated the KRPC, and, if so, 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 
29 
 
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 received 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, we deem the panel's findings of fact admitted. See Supreme Court 
Rule 212(c) and (d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375).  
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 1.1 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
446) (competence); 1.3 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 464) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 484) (communication); 1.5(a) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 503) (fees); 1.16(d) 
(2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 569) (termination of representation); and 8.4(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 655) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). Further, this 
evidence supports the panel's conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings 
and conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. The hearing panel recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for 2 years, that the imposition of the suspension be suspended, and that respondent 
be placed on probation with the terms and conditions detailed above. The panel's 
recommendation is advisory only and does not prevent us from imposing a different 
sanction. See Supreme Court Rule 212(f). At the hearing before this court, at which the 
respondent appeared, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator urged us to adopt the 
probation plan recommended by the panel. 
 
We have considered respondent's violations, the aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances, the relevant ABA Standards, and respondent's detailed probation plan, as 
well as his demeanor and presentation before this tribunal. We conclude it is in the 
30 
 
interest of the citizens of Kansas and the legal profession to suspend respondent for 2 
years but to suspend that suspension as long as respondent adheres to the probation plan 
detailed in the final hearing report with one change. We modify the probation plan to the 
extent it placed respondent on probation until released by this court and instead direct 
respondent be placed on probation for a 2-year term.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Kevin E. Dellett be suspended from the practice 
of law in the state of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2013 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 300), for 2 years effective as of the date of this opinion. The 
imposition of this suspension from the practice of law shall be suspended, and respondent 
shall be placed on probation according to the terms discussed in paragraphs 42-54 and 56 
of the panel's hearing report.  
 
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.