Title: In re Quinn - Indefinite suspension video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 119148
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 2018

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 119,148 
 
In the Matter of ROSIE M. QUINN, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Indefinite suspension. 
 
Penny R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Alexandar M. Walczak, 
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Rosie M. Quinn, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Rosie M. Quinn, 
of Kansas City, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas 
on May 15, 1981. Her license to practice law was temporarily suspended on October 5, 
2011, due to felony convictions on tax-related charges in the United States District Court 
for the District of Kansas.  
 
On July 18, 2014, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint 
against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 
(KRPC). Respondent initially failed to answer the formal complaint, but before a 
scheduled panel hearing she successfully moved to have her license transferred from 
temporary suspension to disability inactive status. These proceedings were stayed 
indefinitely. On April 11, 2017, respondent's license status changed back to temporary 
suspension because she had not obtained an ordered independent mental health 
2 
 
 
 
evaluation. The disciplinary proceedings resumed, and the respondent answered the 
allegations of misconduct. 
 
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on 
November 28, 2017. Respondent appeared pro se. The hearing panel determined she 
violated KRPC 8.4(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 381) (committing a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer). 
 
Before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office asked for an indefinite 
period of suspension made retroactive such that respondent would be eligible to apply for 
reinstatement immediately upon the filing of the court's decision, which also would 
trigger a required reinstatement hearing. Respondent expressed a preference not to be 
required to undergo a reinstatement hearing, so that she may immediately resume 
practicing law. We quote the report's pertinent parts below.  
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
. . . . 
 
"3. 
For years, the respondent engaged in the private practice of law in 
Kansas City, Kansas. The respondent was the sole proprietor of her law office. The 
respondent employed others at her law office. For an extended period of time, the 
respondent withheld federal employment taxes from her employees' paychecks, but did 
not pay over the withheld funds to the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter 'the IRS'). In 
total, the respondent withheld but failed to forward more than $238,000 in federal taxes 
to the IRS. 
 
 
"4. 
In 2002 and 2003, while the respondent filed individual federal income 
tax returns, the respondent failed to pay her individual federal income taxes. 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
"5. 
On June 17, 2009, a federal grand jury, convened in the United States 
District Court for the District of Kansas, returned a nine count indictment against the 
respondent including seven counts of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7202 (willful failure to pay 
employment taxes) and two counts of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (willful failure to pay 
income taxes). 
 
 
"6. 
After she was charged, the respondent paid the IRS the previously 
withheld but unpaid federal employment taxes. After the respondent paid the employment 
taxes, the grand jury returned a second indictment which reflected that the employment 
taxes were no longer owing. The criminal case proceeded to trial. On March 15, 2011, a 
jury convicted the respondent as charged. 
 
 
"7. 
On June 21, 2011, the respondent self-reported the convictions. On 
October 5, 2011, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order under Rule 203(c), 
temporarily suspending the respondent's license to practice law, due to her felony 
convictions. The respondent filed a motion to vacate the order of temporary suspension. 
On October 12, 2011, the Court denied the respondent's motion. 
 
 
"8. 
On November 18, 2011, the federal court sentenced the respondent to a 
controlling sentence of 36 months in prison, 36 months post-release supervision, and 
restitution in the amount of $70,118.34, for the interest which previously accumulated on 
the unpaid employment taxes, for the individual federal income taxes, and for the interest 
on the individual federal income taxes. On May 7, 2014, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the respondent's convictions and sentence. 
Following prison, the respondent went to a half-way house. After being released from the 
half-way house, the respondent returned home on post-release supervision. On August 5, 
2017, the respondent was released from post-release supervision. While the respondent 
has been released from post-release supervision, she continues to owe and pay restitution. 
 
 
"9. 
. . . On July 8, 2014, the hearing panel scheduled a hearing on the formal 
complaint for November 18, 2014. 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
"10. 
On July 18, 2014, Alexander M. Walczak, deputy disciplinary 
administrator, filed a formal complaint in the instant disciplinary case, alleging that the 
respondent violated [KRPC] 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). That same day, Mr. Walczak filed 
a notice of hearing, confirming that a hearing on the formal complaint was scheduled for 
November 18, 2014. The respondent failed to file a timely answer to the formal 
complaint. On October 8, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a supplement to the formal complaint, 
alleging that the respondent violated Rule 211(b) by failing to file an answer to the 
formal complaint. 
 
 
"11. 
On October 28, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a motion in limine, seeking an 
order prohibiting the respondent from attempting to impeach her criminal convictions by 
reopening or retrying the facts of her convictions, presenting evidence on her motives, 
and arguing a lack of fairness of procedural or evidentiary standards. 
 
 
"12. 
On November 7, 2014, the respondent filed a motion to transfer her 
license to disability inactive status. The respondent attached a letter from her treating 
psychiatrist, dated November 6, 2014, as well as an evaluation from her treating 
psychiatrist, dated December 23, 2010. On November 10, 2014, the hearing panel filed a 
petition with the Court under Rule 220(b) seeking to have the respondent's license 
immediately transferred to disability inactive status. That same day, the hearing panel 
indefinitely continued the hearing on the formal complaint. On November 13, 2014, 
because of the sensitive nature of the contents of the motion and attachments, Mr. 
Walczak filed a motion seeking an order sealing the motion and attachments. Also, on 
November 13, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a motion seeking an order for an independent 
mental health evaluation of the respondent to determine whether the respondent's license 
should remain transferred to disability inactive status. 
 
 
"13. 
On November 20, 2014, the Court issued an order transferring the 
respondent's license to disability inactive status. The Court's order also directed the 
respondent to undergo an independent mental health evaluation within 90 days by one of 
two mental health professionals listed in the order. Finally, the Court ordered that the 
respondent's motion and attachments be maintained under seal. 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
"14. 
On January 20, 2015, the respondent filed a motion to rescind the order 
for an independent mental health evaluation or, in the alternative, a motion allowing the 
respondent to select the evaluator. On January 30, 2015, Deborah L. Hughes, deputy 
disciplinary administrator, filed a response to the respondent's motion. On April 29, 2015, 
the Court granted the respondent's motion and directed the respondent to select a mental 
health professional from a list of five and undergo an independent mental health 
evaluation within 90 days. 
 
 
"15. 
The respondent did not submit to an independent mental health 
evaluation within 90 days, as ordered by the Court on April 29, 2015. 
 
 
"16. 
On September 21, 2016, Ms. Hughes filed a motion with the Court 
seeking an order directing the respondent to show cause why she failed to comply with 
the Court's April 29, 2015, order. The respondent did not file a response to the motion. 
 
 
"17. 
On January 26, 2017, the Court issued an order to the respondent to 
appear on March 15, 2017, and show cause why she had not complied with the April 29, 
2015, order to undergo an independent mental health evaluation. On March 15, 2017, Ms. 
Hughes and the respondent appeared before the Court. Thereafter, on April 11, 2017, the 
Court issued an order, concluding that the respondent failed to comply with the Court's 
previous orders dated November 18, 2014, and April 29, 2015. The Court directed that 
the respondent's license be transferred to temporary suspension. Finally, the Court 
directed the disciplinary administrator to proceed with the pending disciplinary 
proceedings against the respondent. 
 
 
"18. 
On June 26, 2017, the hearing panel scheduled a hearing on the formal 
complaint for November 28, 2017. On June 29, 2017, Ms. Hughes filed a notice of 
hearing, confirming that a hearing on the formal complaint was scheduled for November 
28, 2017. 
 
 
"19. 
On November 6, 2017, the respondent filed an answer to the formal 
complaint. That same day, the respondent filed an answer to the supplement to the formal 
complaint. 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
"20. 
On November 28, 2017, the hearing panel conducted the hearing on the 
formal complaint. The disciplinary administrator appeared through Ms. Hughes. The 
respondent appeared in person. During the hearing, the hearing panel admitted Exhibits 1 
through 17, offered by the disciplinary administrator and Exhibits A through H, offered 
by the respondent. Exhibits 14 and 15 were admitted under seal. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
"21. 
In the formal complaint and the supplement to the formal complaint, the 
disciplinary administrator alleged that the respondent violated [KRPC] 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 
8.4(d), and 211(b). At the hearing on the formal complaint, Ms. Hughes withdrew the 
allegations that the respondent violated [KRPC] 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 211(b). Thus, the 
hearing panel considered only whether the respondent's conduct was in violation of 
[KRPC] 8.4(b).  
 
"22. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated [KRPC] 8.4(b), as detailed below. 
 
"[KRPC] 8.4(b) 
 
 
"23. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects.' [KRPC] 8.4(b). The respondent was convicted of seven felonies for 
failing to pay over more than $268,000 withheld from employees' paychecks to the IRS. 
Additionally, the respondent was convicted of two misdemeanors for failing to pay her 
individual federal income taxes. The hearing panel concludes that convictions for 
willfully failing to pay employment taxes and willfully failing to pay individual income 
taxes are criminal acts that reflect adversely on the respondent's trustworthiness and 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated [KRPC] 8.4(b). 
7 
 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
"24. 
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. 
 
 
"25. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated her duty to the legal profession 
and to the public to maintain her personal integrity. 
 
 
"26. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated her duties. 
 
 
"27. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to the legal profession. 
 
 
"28. 
Aggravating and 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: 
 
 
a. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on three occasions. 
 
 
1) 
On October 4, 1999, following a hearing on a formal 
complaint, a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys informally admonished the respondent for having violated 
[KRPC] 1.15 (safekeeping property). 
 
8 
 
 
 
 
2) 
On May 30, 2001, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for having violated [KRPC] 1.15 
(safekeeping property). 
 
 
3) 
On May 23, 2008, the Court concluded that the 
respondent violated [KRPC] 1.15 (safekeeping property), 5.3 
(responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance), and 8.4(c) 
(professional misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation). The Court imposed conditions on the respondent. 
According to the opinion, if the respondent did not comply with the 
conditions, the Court would impose a one year suspension of the 
respondent's license to practice law. 
 
 
b. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct, the 
willful failure to pay federal employment taxes and individual federal income 
taxes, was motivated by her self-interest in fueling her gambling addiction. 
 
 
c. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by willfully failing to pay the federal employment taxes for an 
extended period of time. 
 
 
d. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Court 
admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1981. At the 
time of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for 
approximately 30 years. 
 
 
e. 
Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled 
Substances. The respondent's misconduct in this case was in violation of 26 
U.S.C. § 7202 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and resulted in the respondent's conviction 
of seven felonies and two misdemeanors. 
 
 
"29. 
Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may 
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its 
9 
 
 
 
recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following 
mitigating circumstances present: 
 
 
a. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have 
Contributed to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The 
respondent suffers from depression and an addiction to gambling. It is clear that 
the respondent's depression and addiction contributed to her misconduct. 
 
 
b. 
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. Previously, the respondent 
was an active and productive member of the bar of Kansas City, Kansas. 
Notably, the respondent spent her career representing the financially 
disadvantaged population in Kansas City, Kansas. The respondent enjoys the 
respect of her peers and former clients and generally possesses a good character 
and reputation as evidenced by several letters received by the hearing panel. 
 
 
c. 
Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. For this misconduct, 
the respondent spent three years in prison and three years on supervised release. 
 
 
d. 
Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent expressed 
genuine remorse for having engaged in the misconduct. 
 
 
e. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The misconduct which gave rise 
to the respondent's prior discipline is remote to the misconduct in this case. 
 
 
"30. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standard: 
 
"'5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in 
criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 
5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice.' 
10 
 
 
 
 
"Recommendation 
 
"31. 
Ms. Hughes recommended that the respondent's license be indefinitely 
suspended and that the suspension be made retroactive to three years prior to the date of 
this final hearing report. Alternatively, Ms. Hughes recommended that the respondent's 
license to practice law be suspended for a period of one year, made retroactive to the date 
of the hearing on the formal complaint, November 28, 2017. 
 
 
"32. 
The respondent recommended that her license be suspended for one year 
and that the effective date of the suspension be made retroactive. The respondent, 
however, did not specify to what date the order of suspension should be made retroactive. 
 
 
"33. 
The respondent presented compelling testimony that she has been 
rehabilitated. The respondent has not practiced law for eight years, as her license has 
been temporarily suspended or transferred to disability inactive status throughout that 
time period. Also, the respondent has not gambled for eight years. The respondent 
acknowledged that if she resumes gambling she will 'literally die.' 
 
 
"34. 
The hearing panel is persuaded by the compelling mitigating evidence 
presented in this case. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
the aggravating factors, the mitigating factors, and the Standards listed above, the hearing 
panel unanimously recommends that the respondent's license be suspended for a period 
of three years. The hearing panel further recommends that the suspension be made 
retroactive to the date of the respondent's temporary suspension, October 5, 2011. The 
hearing panel recognizes that based on the history of this case, if the Court adopts the 
hearing panel's recommendation, the respondent would be eligible for reinstatement 
without further proceedings at the time the Court's opinion is released. The hearing panel 
concludes that this is an appropriate discipline to be imposed because, even excluding the 
time the respondent's license was on disability inactive status, the respondent's license has 
already been suspended for more than four years. 
 
11 
 
 
 
 
"35. 
Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the disciplinary administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the panel's findings, 
and the parties' arguments and determines whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, 
what discipline should 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 also 
Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 251) (a misconduct finding must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence). "Clear and convincing evidence is 
'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly 
probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 
286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]). 
 
Respondent filed no exceptions to the final hearing report. As such, the panel's 
factual findings are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. 
R. 255).  
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 8.4(b) (misconduct). We adopt the panel's 
findings and conclusions.    
 
The only remaining issue is determining the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violation. The hearing panel unanimously recommended respondent's license be 
suspended for a three-year fixed period. The hearing panel further recommended the 
suspension be made retroactive to the date of the respondent's temporary suspension, 
October 5, 2011. Before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office recommended 
12 
 
 
 
respondent's license be indefinitely suspended and that the suspension be made 
retroactive to three years prior to the final hearing report, which would require the 
respondent to undergo a reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 219 (2018 
Kan. S. Ct. R. 264) before returning to the practice of law. As a practical matter, the 
necessity for a reinstatement hearing is the only difference between the two 
recommendations.   
 
The hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us 
from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f); In re Kline, 298 
Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013).  
 
After careful consideration, a majority of the court holds respondent should be 
indefinitely suspended effective as of October 5, 2011—the date this court first 
temporarily suspended respondent's license to practice law. The majority sets this 
effective date with the understanding respondent will be eligible to apply for 
reinstatement under Rule 219 as of the date of this decision, which will require a 
reinstatement hearing. A minority of the court would disbar respondent. 
 
In entering this order of discipline, the court notes respondent has not been 
authorized to practice law since October 2011. Accordingly, before reinstatement will be 
ordered, respondent must complete a bar exam review course approved by the court for 
that purpose, as well as complete additional continuing legal education as follows:  10 
hours of law practice management and 10 hours of ethics. Respondent may fulfill the bar 
exam review and other continuing legal education requirements while her application for 
reinstatement is pending, but they must be completed before reinstatement will be 
ordered by this court. Respondent is not required to retake the bar exam, but only a 
review course typically used in preparation in advance of the examination. Additional 
conditions for reinstatement may be explored by the Disciplinary Administrator's office, 
13 
 
 
 
a reinstatement panel, or the court during the reinstatement process. Those issues may 
include whether respondent is currently in compliance with this court's prior orders, 
including submitting to an independent mental health evaluation. See Supreme Court 
Rule 219(d)(4)(H). 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rosie M. Quinn be and she is hereby disciplined 
by indefinite suspension in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2018 Kan. S. 
Ct. R. 234), effective as of October 5, 2011. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent comply with Supreme Court Rule 219, 
including undergoing a reinstatement hearing. As part of the reinstatement process, 
respondent must complete a bar exam review course approved by the court for that 
purpose, as well as complete additional continuing legal education as follows:  10 hours 
of law practice management and 10 hours of ethics. Respondent may fulfill the bar exam 
review and other continuing legal education requirements while her application for 
reinstatement is pending, but they must be completed before reinstatement will be 
ordered by this court. Respondent is not required to retake the bar exam, but only a 
review course typically used in preparation in advance of the examination. Additional 
conditions for reinstatement may be explored by the Disciplinary Administrator's office, 
a reinstatement panel, or the court during the reinstatement process.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.