Title: In re Laskowski
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 96886
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: October 16, 2012

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 96,886 
 
In the Matter of JOSEPH M. LASKOWSKI, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT 
 
 
On December 8, 2006, this court suspended the respondent, Joseph M. Laskowski, 
from the practice of law in Kansas for an indefinite period of time. See In re Laskowski, 
282 Kan. 710, 147 P. 135 (2006). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to 
pay the costs of the disciplinary action, comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 379), and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
380).   
 
 
On August 9, 2011, the respondent filed a petition with this court for reinstatement 
to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary 
Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the 
respondent met all requirements set forth by the court. 
 
 
The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and 
recommendations that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas.   
 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent be reinstated to the practice 
of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing 
legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of 
the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the 
respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has 
2 
 
paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing 
Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent's name upon the 
roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.  
 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order of reinstatement of Joseph M. 
Laskowski shall be published in the Kansas reports, and the costs of the reinstatement 
proceedings are assessed to the respondent.   
 
 
Dated this 16th day of October, 2012.