Title: In re Vanderbilt. ]
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 105492
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 3, 2011

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 105,492 
 
In the Matter of JIMMIE A. VANDERBILT, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 3, 2011. Indefinite 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. 
 
Jimmie A. Vanderbilt, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam: This is an original attorney discipline proceeding filed by the office 
of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Jimmie A. Vanderbilt, of 
Baldwin City, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1995.  
 
 
On September 28, 2010, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint. Respondent 
eventually signed a stipulation of facts with the Disciplinary Administrator's office. A 
panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on the complaint 
and determined that respondent violated KRPC 8.4(a) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 603) 
(misconduct); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); 
8.4(g) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice law); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327) 
(failure to file timely answer in disciplinary proceeding). The panel made the following 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended this court indefinitely suspend 
2 
 
respondent's law license. A majority of this court agrees and imposes an indefinite 
suspension. 
 
"FINDINGS OF FACT 
. . . . 
 
 
"2. 
The Respondent was previously married to Lisa Vanderbilt. From this 
union, two children were born. Following the Respondent's divorce from Lisa Vanderbilt, 
the Court ordered that the Respondent pay child support. The Respondent's monthly child 
support obligation of $940 was calculated based upon the salary that he received when he 
was the Jefferson County Attorney. The Respondent has not worked as the Jefferson 
County Attorney since January, 2005. 
 
"3. 
The Honorable Philip Sieve was assigned to preside over post-divorce 
matters in the Respondent's case. In late 2008, Judge Sieve issued an order to show cause 
why the Respondent should not be held in contempt for not complying with the child 
support order in effect. Judge Sieve scheduled the hearing on the order to show cause for 
December 18, 2008. 
 
"4. 
On December 18, 2008, the Respondent appeared pro se at the show 
cause hearing. Darla Ottensmeier, an enforcement officer for the Kansas State 
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services also appeared. Judge Sieve determined 
that the Respondent was in arrears on the child support order in excess of $60,000. Based 
on the arrearage, Judge Sieve found the Respondent in contempt of the child support 
order. Judge Sieve informed the Respondent that he would allow him to purge the 
contempt by commencing regular monthly payments of $1,040. 
 
"5. 
The Respondent failed to purge the contempt by commencing regular 
payments. In the summer of 2009, Ms. Ottensmeier filed a motion for sanctions for the 
Respondent's failure to pay as agreed in December, 2008. 
 
"6. 
The Court took up the motion for sanctions on September 18, 2009. The 
Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. (Footnote:  A copy of the notice of hearing 
was sent to the last address the Respondent provided the court, 1040 New Hampshire, 
3 
 
Lawrence, Kansas. However, the Respondent had not practiced from that office for two 
years and did not receive the notice.) Judge Sieve granted the motion for sanctions and 
directed that a warrant be issued for the Respondent's arrest for failing to appear. 
Additionally, Judge Sieve directed that the Respondent serve 30 days in custody. 
 
"7. 
On January 8, 2010, the Court signed the warrant for the Respondent's 
arrest. On January 11, 2010, the Respondent was arrested on the bench warrant and taken 
into custody. 
 
"8. 
The Respondent represented Latiseia E. Stano in two criminal cases filed 
in the Shawnee County District Court, before the Honorable Richard Anderson. The 
cases, numbered 09CR2117 and 09CR2195, were scheduled for a plea hearing on 
January 15, 2010. The Respondent received notice of the hearing. 
 
"9. 
The Respondent represented Heather A. Wendt in a post-conviction 
matter filed in the Shawnee County District Court, before Judge Anderson. The case, 
numbered 07CR2051, was scheduled for a show cause hearing on January 15, 2010. The 
Respondent received notice of the hearing. 
 
"10. 
On January 14, 2010, Teri Leahy, a friend of the Respondent, called 
Judge Anderson's chambers. Ms. Leahy identified herself as the Respondent's assistant 
and informed the judge's assistant that something had come up and the Respondent would 
not be able to appear in court the following day. Ms. Leahy did not inform the judge's 
assistant that the Respondent was in jail. The judge's assistant informed Ms. Leahy that 
the Respondent needed to file a written motion and that the cases would be continued. 
 
"11. 
Due to his incarceration, the Respondent was unable to file a written 
motion to continue the hearings and the Respondent did not call or ask another attorney 
to appear for him at the hearings or to make a written request for a continuance. The 
Respondent failed to appear in court on January 15, 2010, in the three cases because he 
was incarcerated. 
 
4 
 
"12. 
Ms. Stano appeared in court for her plea hearing. Neither the Respondent 
nor Ms. Leahy contacted Ms. Stano to let her know that her plea hearing had been 
rescheduled. 
 
"13. 
On January 25, 2010, Judge Sieve granted the Respondent work release. 
While the Respondent was on work release, on January 29, 2010, the Respondent stopped 
by Judge Anderson's chambers. The Respondent apologized for missing the cases and 
apologized for not explaining his circumstances earlier. The Respondent explained that 
he was unable to attend the hearings because he had been in jail for failing to pay his 
child support. Judge Anderson informed the Respondent that Ms. Stano's plea hearing 
and Ms. Wendt's show cause hearing had been rescheduled to February 18, 2010. 
 
"14. 
On February 4, 2010, Judge Sieve held a review hearing. During the 
hearing, Judge Sieve suspended the balance of the 30 day sentence and released the 
Respondent from jail on the condition that the Respondent comply with the payment 
schedule. 
 
"15. 
The Respondent's child support obligation was reduced by agreement of 
the parties to $575 a month, in March, 2010. 
 
"16. 
The Respondent made no child support payments from February 5, 2005, 
shortly after he left office as the Jefferson County Attorney, until after being found in 
contempt of court. Since the contempt proceedings began, the Respondent has made the 
following child support payments: 
 
January, 2009  
 
$1,200 
March, 2009 
 
 
$1,040 
April, 2010 
 
 
$1,151 
August, 2010 
 
 
$1,900 
 
The Respondent has failed to comply with the Court's order to pay child support. The 
Respondent continues to be in contempt of court. As of November 15, 2010, the 
Respondent's child support arrearage totaled $76,963.75. 
 
5 
 
"17. 
At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent testified that he knew he 
had the right to an attorney at the hearing, but waived that right and proceeded, pro se. He 
admitted he had not kept the Kansas Supreme Court Clerk apprised of his mailing address 
because he lived in a camper and worked from whatever county law library he was at 
during a particular day which changed often. Nonetheless, he had received proper notice 
of the disciplinary hearing and had no objection to the jurisdiction, hearing date, time or 
place, or composition of the Hearing Panel. Despite receiving due notice of the hearing 
and the Formal Complaint, he did not timely file an Answer (or file one at all). 
 
"18. 
The Respondent also admitted that he drove to the hearing on a 
suspended driver's license, which had been suspended for many months. 
 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
"1. 
KRPC 8.4 is the general misconduct rule, provided by the Kansas Rules 
of Professional Misconduct. 
 
 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 
'(a) 
Violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional 
conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through 
the acts of another;  
. . . .  
'(d) 
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice;  
. . . . 
'(g) 
engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' 
 
In the Formal Complaint, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator alleged that the 
Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(a), KRPC 8.4(d), and KRPC 8.4(g). In the stipulation, the 
Respondent generally agreed that he violated KRPC 8.4. However, at the hearing, the 
Respondent specifically denied violating KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
6 
 
"2. 
Based upon the Respondent's stipulation, the Hearing Panel concludes 
that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(a) and KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"3. 
The Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(a) by engaging in professional 
misconduct. It is professional misconduct and in violation of the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct for the Respondent to fail to pay his child support, fail to keep his 
address current in his domestic case, fail to appear at the hearing on the motion for 
sanctions, be found in contempt of court, fail to purge himself of the contempt, fail to 
appear in court on January 15, 2010, and fail to provide a written Answer to the Formal 
Complaint. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated 
KRPC 8.4(a). 
 
"4. 
The Respondent engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice' when he violated court orders. The Respondent violated court 
orders by failing to pay his child support, failing to appear at the hearing on the motion 
for sanctions, failing to purge himself of the contempt, and failing to appear in court on 
January 15, 2010. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated 
KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"5. 
The Respondent argued that he did not violate KRPC 8.4(g). The 
Respondent's argument lacks merit. 
 
"6. 
KRPC 8.4(g) provides that it is 'professional misconduct for a lawyer to  
. . . engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice 
law.' The Respondent's misconduct does reflect adversely on his fitness to practice law. 
Repeatedly failing to comply with court orders and knowingly driving on a suspended 
driver's license for months adversely reflects on the Respondent's respect for and fitness 
to practice law. Therefore, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated 
KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"7. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file Answers to 
Formal Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides the requirement:  
 
7 
 
'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary 
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint 
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by 
failing to file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint. The Respondent acknowledged 
that he knew that he was required to file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint. The 
Respondent rationalized his conduct by stating that because he knew he was not going to 
be disputing any facts, he need not file a written Answer. Unfortunately for the 
Respondent, the rule does not provide that written Answers to Formal Complaints are 
only necessary when a Respondent wishes to dispute the allegations in the Formal 
Complaint. When a Hearing Panel receives a timely Answer to a Formal Complaint, the 
Hearing Panel is able to plan accordingly. In this case, given the Respondent's failure to 
Answer, the Hearing Panel did not know the Respondent's position on any of the 
allegations until the outset of the hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that 
the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
 
"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the 
factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered 
are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by 
the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. 
 
"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to the legal system, legal 
profession, and public to comply with court orders and court rules. 
 
"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duty. 
 
"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused 
actual injury. 
8 
 
 
"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any 
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, 
found the following aggravating factors present: 
 
"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. On April 22, 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court 
suspended the Respondent's license to practice of law for having violated KRPC 1.1, 
KRPC 1.3, KRPC 3.2, KRPC 8.4(d), and KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
by failing to comply with court orders over an extended period of time. From March, 
2005, through December, 2009, the Respondent failed to make any child support 
payments. The Respondent failed to comply with the court order to pay child support 
after being found in contempt. The Respondent failed to comply with the court order to 
pay child support after being incarcerated for three weeks. The Respondent's failure to 
comply with the child support order lead [sic] the Respondent to be unable to appear in 
[sic] behalf of his clients on January 15, 2010. The Respondent failed to appear in court 
for the motion for sanctions in his own divorce case because he failed to keep the court 
properly advised of his address. The Respondent has been driving on a suspended driver's 
license for months. The Hearing Panel, therefore, concludes that the Respondent engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
"Multiple Offenses. The Respondent committed multiple offenses by violating 
KRPC 8.4(a), KRPC 8.4(d), KRPC 8.4(g), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
"Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally Failing 
to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The Respondent failed to 
file an Answer to the Formal Complaint, in violation of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). The 
Respondent's failure to file an Answer obstructed the proceeding, in that, the Hearing 
Panel had no idea what the Respondent's position was regarding the facts alleged in the 
Formal Complaint until the time of the hearing. 
 
9 
 
"Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Respondent has substantial 
experience in the practice of law, having been admitted to the practice of law in the State 
of Kansas in 1994. 
 
"Indifference to Making Restitution. While child support is not restitution, the 
Respondent appears to be indifferent to complying with the child support order which 
would benefit his children. The Respondent has not made regular child support payments 
since leaving the office as the Jefferson County Attorney in January, 2005. The 
Respondent has failed to secure employment which would allow him to provide, 
financially, for his children and admitted that even absent a law license he is capable of 
gainful employment. 
 
"Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled Substances. In 
his letter of response, the Respondent disclosed that he was previously arrested in 
Leavenworth County, Kansas, for driving on a suspended driver's license and that he had 
a traffic matter pending in Saline County, Kansas, where he had been charged with 
driving a vehicle without proper registration and driving a vehicle without liability 
insurance. During the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent admitted that the 
car he was driving at the time of the stop did not have liability insurance. Also during the 
hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent admitted that his license to drive 
remained suspended. He indicated that if he paid the fine pending in Saline County, 
Kansas, he should be able to have his driver's license reinstated. 
 
"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: 
 
"Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct does 
not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
"The Present Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by His or Her Cooperation 
During the Hearing and His or Her Full and Free Acknowledgment of the 
Transgressions. During the hearing, the Respondent fully cooperated. He acknowledged 
10 
 
the facts which gave rise to the violations. Further, the Respondent stipulated to 
violations of KRPC 8.4(a) and KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"Remorse. At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent expressed genuine 
remorse for having failed to pay his child support and for violating court orders. 
 
"Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The misconduct that gave rise to the 
Respondent's previous discipline is remote in time, having occurred approximately seven 
years ago. And, much of the Respondent's previous misconduct is remote in character. 
However, the Respondent's misconduct that gave rise to the conclusion that he violated 
KRPC 8.4(d) is not remote in character to the misconduct in this case. 
 
"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'6.22 
Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a 
court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a 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. 
 
'8.1 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:  . . . 
 
(b) 
has been suspended for the same or similar 
misconduct, and intentionally or knowingly engages in 
further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential 
injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the 
profession.' 
 
 
 
11 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
"The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be 
indefinitely suspended. The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator also argued that if the 
Hearing Panel was inclined to recommend a definite suspension, that the Hearing Panel 
also recommend that the Respondent be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing 
where he could establish that he had purged himself of the contempt of court, prior to 
reinstatement. The Respondent did not make a recommendation for discipline. However, 
the Respondent argued that he did not believe that the violations warranted a suspension. 
 
"The Hearing Panel is concerned about the Respondent's apparent lack of 
understanding of the significance of his misconduct. For example, the Respondent argued 
that his misconduct was a technical violation for failing to appear in court on January 15, 
2010, at the time he was incarcerated. 
 
"The Respondent fails to see the big picture. The Respondent fails to understand 
that his misconduct started long before January 15, 2010. The Respondent's misconduct 
began in March, 2005, when he stopped paying his child support (which by itself is a 
court order) and that misconduct continues to this day. The Respondent's misconduct also 
includes his repeated violations of court orders, his failure to take proper care of business 
so that he would receive proper notice of hearings in his divorce case, and his failure to 
file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint. 
 
"Despite his statements to the contrary, the Respondent's actions seem to indicate 
that he is not interested in maintaining his law license. The Respondent failed to attempt 
to hire an attorney to represent him in the disciplinary proceeding. The Respondent failed 
to file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint. The Respondent brought no 
corroborating evidence in the form of witnesses or exhibits. The Respondent failed to 
present a plan to the Hearing Panel as to how he plans to purge himself of the contempt 
of court. 
 
"Because the Respondent was previously suspended for violating KRPC 8.4(d), 
according to ABA Standard 8.1, disbarment is appropriate. However, based upon the 
recommendation of the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator and the mitigating 
12 
 
circumstances, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time and any reinstatement 
should require that the contempt of court be purged. 
 
"Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by the 
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings 
of the disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether 
violations of KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. 
Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re 
Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) 
(2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 327). Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that 
causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly 
probable."'"288 Kan. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 
[2008]). 
 
In this case, respondent filed no exceptions to the panel's final hearing 
report. Accordingly, the report's findings and conclusions are deemed admitted. 
Supreme Court Rule 212(c) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 344). The evidence before 
the hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct of the respondent by clear 
and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of law. We therefore 
adopt the panel's findings and conclusions, except as noted below.  
 
At the hearing before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office 
asked the court to administer an indefinite suspension as recommended by the 
hearing panel. A majority of the court agrees that indefinite suspension is 
appropriate, with reinstatement conditioned upon respondent purging himself of 
13 
 
the contempt that is the subject of these proceedings. A minority of the court 
would disbar the respondent. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that JIMMIE A. VANDERBILT be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of 
this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 276).  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 370), and, if respondent seeks reinstatement, 
he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 370). 
Any request for reinstatement must demonstrate respondent has purged himself of 
the contempt of court that is at issue in these proceedings. 
 
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.