Title: In re Link
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 107751
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 2012

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 107,751 
 
In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 6, 2012. Eighteen-months' supervised 
probation. 
 
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. 
 
Laura B. Shaneyfelt, of Shaneyfelt Law, of Wichita, argued the cause, and David K. Link, 
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, David K. Link, of Wichita, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1999. 
 
 
On January 3, 2011, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent filed an answer on January 25, 2011. On February 24, 
2011, the respondent filed a proposed plan of probation. A hearing based on stipulated 
facts was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of 
Attorneys on December 6, 2011, where the respondent was personally present and was 
represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.3 
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) 
2 
 
(communication); and 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct 
involving misrepresentation and reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law). 
 
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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"11. 
The written stipulation included the following: 
 
 
'Comes now the Respondent, David K. Link, with counsel, Laura 
B. Shaneyfelt and the Disciplinary Administrator's office by Kate F. 
Baird, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator and jointly offer the following 
as true and material statements of fact. 
 
 
'1. 
David K. Link (hereinafter "the Respondent") is an 
attorney licensed in the state of Kansas, Attorney Registration No. 
19213. . . . The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Kansas 
on September 27, 1999. 
 
 
'2. 
From 2003 through the present, the Respondent's law 
practice has included providing legal counsel to individuals seeking 
immigration benefits or involved in immigration removal proceedings. 
 
 
'3. 
Three separate disciplinary complaints were docketed 
between March and November of 2009 against the Respondent. Each of 
the complaints was filed by, or on behalf of, a client of the Respondent 
who had been seeking immigration benefits or involved in immigration 
removal proceedings. 
 
 
 
3 
 
'DA10,738 Complaint of [E.T.] 
 
 
'4. 
[E.T.] was in immigration removal proceedings in 2005. 
On September 14, 2005, the Respondent represented [E.T.] at a bond 
hearing where an Immigration Judge (IJ) in Kansas City, Missouri 
granted a $10,000.00 bond. [E.T.] was released from custody pending 
further hearing. [E.T.] returned to his home in Atlanta, Georgia. 
 
 
'5. 
A Master Hearing was set by the Court for July 18, 
2006. The Respondent was retained by [E.T.] to represent him in seeking 
relief from deportation from the IJ. 
 
 
'6. 
The Respondent appeared with his client at the July 18, 
2006 Master Hearing. At the hearing, the Immigration Judge accepted 
[E.T.'s] stipulation that he was deportable. The Court preliminarily 
acknowledged that [E.T.] was eligible to seek discretionary relief from 
deportation. A hearing on the merits of his request to seek relief from 
removal was set for October 19, 2007. The Court directed that [E.T.'s] 
application for relief be filed on or before September 18, 2006. 
 
 
'7. 
In 2005, Federal regulations required the submission of 
biometrics prior to consideration of certain applications for relief from 
deportation. At the July 18, 2006, hearing the Court orally directed that 
the requisite biometrics be provided by [E.T.] no later than 60 days prior 
to the scheduled hearing date of October 19, 2007. 
 
 
'8. 
[E.T.] tried to contact the respondent by phone after the 
July 18, 2006, hearing regarding his efforts. In his complaint, he alleged 
that the respondent did not return his calls. The Respondent admits that 
he did not return every phone call received from [E.T.]. [E.T.] had 
returned to Georgia after the July, 2006 hearing. Respondent reports that 
the move made communication more difficult. 
 
4 
 
 
'9. 
The Respondent did not file [E.T.'s] application for 
cancellation of the removal order before the September 18, 2006 
deadline. 
 
 
'10. 
The Respondent did not file a request for an extension of 
time within which [E.T.'s] application for cancellation of removal could 
be filed. 
 
 
'11. 
The biometrics in support of [E.T.'s] application was 
ordered to have been supplied no later than August 19, 2007. Respondent 
did not submit the paperwork necessary to obtain an appointment to 
secure his client's fingerprints until September 22, 2007. Notice was sent 
by the Service to [E.T.] on October 5, 2007, with a copy to the 
Respondent. The notice to [E.T.] was returned to the Service as 
undeliverable. Biometrics were not obtained within the time period 
proscribed by the Court. 
 
 
'12. 
[E.T.'s] fingerprints were obtained on October 18, 2007, 
one day before the scheduled hearing on [E.T.'s] application for relief. 
 
 
'13. 
The Respondent filed [E.T.'s] application for relief from 
deportation on October 19, 2007, the day of the scheduled hearing. 
 
 
'14. 
At the October 19, 2007, hearing on [E.T.'s] application 
for relief, the Immigration Court procedurally defaulted the application 
after ruling that it had been abandoned. The court determined that the 
required fingerprints had not been provided as directed and that the 
application was not timely filed. The relief was denied. 
 
 
'15. 
Respondent advised his client to pursue an appeal to the 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Respondent related that the IJ may 
have abused his discretion in pre-terminating his client's application 
based on the procedural default. Respondent's experience suggested that 
5 
 
the immigration courts did not always strictly adhere to the imposed 
procedural deadlines by imposing default. 
 
 
'16. 
The Respondent represented [E.T.] in an unsuccessful 
appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 
 
 
'17. 
After the BIA dismissal of [E.T.'s] appeal, the 
Respondent referred his client to another attorney for the purpose of 
pursuing relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent 
reports that he knew the referral would result in the filing of a 
disciplinary complaint. 
 
 
'18. 
[E.T.] filed a disciplinary complaint on March 2, 2009, 
against the Respondent. The Respondent admits that his conduct in 
representing [E.T.] was in violation of KRPC 1.3 (Diligence) and KRPC 
1.4 (Communication).  
 
'DA10,935 Complaint of [A.A.] 
 
 
'19. 
In September, 2007, [A.A. and J.M.] retained the 
Respondent to assist them in their efforts to obtain lawful residency for 
[J.M.]. They delivered $1,885.00 to the Respondent. The Respondent's 
fee was $1,500.00. The balance was provided to satisfy the $385.00 
filing fee. 
 
 
'20. 
Respondent discussed with the couple the merits of the 
alternatives available to them as they sought lawful residency for [J.M.], 
as well as the difficulties presented with each. [A.A.] was a U.S. citizen. 
One of the alternatives discussed was a marriage-based application for 
permanent residence by [J.M.], to be based upon Visa Petition for Alien 
Relative with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
 
6 
 
 
'21. 
The Respondent recommended that [A.A.] file the visa 
petition based on a common law marriage. The Respondent discussed 
with them the need to secure certain documents in support of the effort. 
 
 
'22. 
After September, 2007, [A.A.] would regularly call the 
Respondent's office to inquire about the progress of the matter. When she 
called, the complainant would be referred to a legal assistant of the 
Respondent. In February, 2008, the complainant was informed that the 
assistant was no longer with the office. At or near the same time, [A.A.] 
was advised that the couple needed to provide the Respondent with a 
copy of [J.M.'s] previous divorce decree and that they needed to come to 
the office to complete or sign additional paperwork. The couple 
complied with the direction and proceeded to the Respondent's office. 
 
 
'23. 
Respondent had accumulated all of the documents that 
he had requested by May, 2008. 
 
 
'24. 
Respondent admits that the [A.A./J.M.] client file 
languished from May, 2008 into 2009. During this period of time, the 
Respondent learned that [J.M.] left the country, despite Respondent's 
legal advice to the contrary. 
 
 
'25. 
[A.A.] telephoned the Respondent in the months 
following May, 2008. The Respondent did not always return her 
telephone calls. [A.A.] undertook efforts to investigate the status of 
[J.M.'s] petition on her own. She learned that she would need to provide 
an access code associated with [J.M.'s] petition to gain information about 
the petition from a government website. [A.A.] called the Respondent 
over a period of three weeks in an effort to get the code number that had 
been assigned to the petition. Her calls were not immediately returned. 
 
 
'26. 
[A.A.] was finally able to reach the Respondent by 
phone; she understood from him that the petition had been filed. She 
asked him for the number associated with [J.M.'s] petition and he 
7 
 
provided her with a receipt number. At the time the Respondent provided 
[A.A.] with the number, the Respondent had not filed the petition. [A.A.] 
learned from U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services that the number 
that she was relying on to gain information was unrelated to a petition 
filed on behalf of [J.M.]. 
 
 
27. 
Respondent admits that the petition had not been filed 
when he provided [A.A.] with the receipt number. The number provided 
to [A.A.] by the Respondent was associated with another client's 
immigration matter. 
 
 
'28. 
No Visa Petition was ever filed by the respondent on 
behalf of [J.M.]. 
 
 
'29. 
[A.A.] filed a disciplinary complaint on October 27, 
2009, against the Respondent. Respondent admits that his conduct in the 
[A.A./J.M.] matter violates KRPC 1.3 (Diligence); KRPC 1.4 
(Communication); and KRPC 8.4(c) (Misconduct). 
 
'DA10,937 Complaint of [M.R.] 
 
 
'30. 
In January, 2007, the Respondent was retained to assist 
three members of the [M.R.] family as they faced immigration removal 
proceedings. The family had applied for asylum about ten years prior to 
consulting the Respondent. Their claims were denied by the USCS 
Asylum office and their cases referred to immigration for removal 
proceedings. Respondent was paid a $5,000.00 retainer. 
 
 
'31. 
The Respondent appeared with the [M.R.] family at a 
February 26, 2007, Master Hearing in the Immigration Court. The Court 
set a March 3, 2008, date to further consider their request for relief from 
removal. 
 
8 
 
 
'32. 
At the February, 2007, hearing, the Court orally imposed 
a deadline of February 20, 2008, for the [M.R.] family to submit their 
application for relief. The court directed that all supporting 
documentation be submitted with the application. The family was 
directed to be fingerprinted at the Application Service Center before the 
next court date. 
 
 
'33. 
The Respondent did not file an application for relief on 
behalf of the [M.R. family] before the February 20, 2008, deadline. The 
application was filed on February 21, 2008. 
 
 
'34. 
Communication between the Respondent and his clients 
proved difficult. One of the children was relied upon to translate 
conversations between the Respondent and the [M.R.] parents.  
 
 
'35. 
The Respondent did not complete the paperwork 
necessary for his clients to be fingerprinted before the March 3, 2008, 
hearing. In his response to the [M.R.] complaint, the Respondent admits 
that he regretted that the fingerprinting had not been accomplished before 
the Hearing but denies that the fact impacted his clients' position. 
 
 
'36. 
On March 3, 2008, the Court denied the relief sought by 
the [M.R. family], finding that the application had been abandoned. The 
Court granted the [M.R. family] until April 2, 2008 to appeal the 
decision. No appeal was taken by the Respondent. Respondent believed 
that his client's chances at success were optimized by pursuing temporary 
protected status. 
 
 
'37. 
Respondent reports that he discussed the merits of 
appeal with his clients and consulted with the [M.R. family] regarding 
their alternatives. The Respondent filed applications for Temporary 
Protected Status on behalf of the [M.R.] family. On May 19, 2008, the 
Respondent provided the [M.R. family] with copies of the applications 
for Temporary Protected Status that had been filed. As of September, 
9 
 
2010, the family remained in the United States on temporary protected 
status. 
 
 
'38. 
[M.R.] filed a disciplinary complaint on November 9, 
2009, against the Respondent. Respondent admits that his conduct in the 
[M.R.] matter violated KRPC 1.3 (Diligence).' 
 
 
"12. 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, the Respondent testified about 
how he implemented his proposed plan of probation. Additionally, the Respondent's 
proposed practice supervisor also testified about the implementation of the Respondent's 
proposed plan of probation. 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
 
"13. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, and KRPC 8.4(c), as detailed 
below. 
 
 
"14. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent his clients in this case. The Respondent failed to provide diligent 
representation to [E.T.] when he failed to timely file [E.T.'s] application for relief and 
when he failed to assist [E.T.] with timely providing his fingerprints. The Respondent 
failed to provide diligent representation to [A.A.] and [J.M.] when he failed to file 
[J.M.'s] petition for permanent residence or take any other action on behalf of [J.M.] from 
May, 2008, forward. Finally, the Respondent failed to diligently represent the [M.R. 
family] when he failed to timely file their application for relief and when he failed to 
assist the [M.R. family] with timely providing their fingerprints. Because the Respondent 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, the 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
 
"15. 
KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when he failed to return 
10 
 
calls to [E.T.], [A.A.], and [J.M.]. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
 
"16. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The Respondent 
engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he told [A.A.] that he had filed a 
petition on behalf of [J.M.] and when he provided [A.A.] with a false access code 
number. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 
8.4(c). 
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
 
"17. 
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. 
 
 
"18. 
Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. Additionally, the Respondent 
violated his duty to the public and to the legal profession to maintain his personal 
integrity. 
 
 
"19. 
Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
 
"20. 
Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent 
caused actual injury to his clients. 
 
 
"21. 
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: 
11 
 
 
 
"22. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent provided false information 
to [A.A.]. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that this misconduct was motivated by 
dishonesty. 
 
 
"23. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. Three separate immigration clients filed 
complaints against the Respondent. Each of the three complaints included a complaint 
regarding the Respondent's lack of diligence. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes 
that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
 
"24. 
Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, and 
KRPC 8.4(c). Thus, the Respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"25. 
Vulnerability of Victim. Based upon the immigration difficulties facing 
the Respondent's clients, the Hearing Panel concludes that [E.T.], [A.A.], [J.M.], and the 
[M.R.] family were vulnerable to the Respondent's misconduct. 
 
 
"26. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in 1999. Additionally, the 
Respondent previously practiced law in Guam. The Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law. 
 
 
"27. 
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: 
 
 
"28. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. The Respondent's disciplinary record is a mitigating factor. 
 
 
"29. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent suffers from 
depression. Further, it appears to the Hearing Panel that the Respondent's depression 
contributed to his misconduct. 
12 
 
 
 
"30. 
The Present and Past 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. The Respondent entered into an extensive stipulation in this case. In the 
stipulation, the Respondent admitted to many of the facts alleged in the formal complaint. 
Additionally, the Respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, and 
KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
 
"31. 
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 is an active and productive member of the 
bar in Wichita, Kansas. He enjoys the respect of his peers and clients and generally 
possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced by several letters received by the 
Hearing Panel. 
 
 
"32. 
Remorse. At the formal hearing, the Respondent expressed genuine 
remorse and shame for violating the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. 
 
 
"33. 
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. 
 
'4.62 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
deceives a client, and causes injury or potential injury to the 
client. 
 
13 
 
'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 
 
 
"34. 
The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Hearing 
Panel recommend that the Respondent be suspended for a period of six months. 
Additionally, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the imposition of 
the suspension be suspended and that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period 
of 18 months. Alternatively, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator argued that should 
the proposed plan of probation not be accepted by the Hearing Panel or the Court and the 
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law, that the Respondent undergo a 
reinstatement hearing at the conclusion of the period of suspension, pursuant to Kan. Sup. 
Ct. R. 219. 
 
 
"35. 
Counsel for the Respondent recommended that the Respondent's 
proposed plan of probation be adopted and that the Respondent be allowed to continue to 
practice law. 
 
 
"36. 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g) provides: 
 
 
'(1) 
If the Respondent intends to request that the Respondent 
be placed on probation for violating the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct or the Kansas Supreme Court Rules, the Respondent shall 
provide each member of the Hearing Panel and the Disciplinary 
Administrator with a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of 
probation at least ten days prior to the hearing on the Formal Complaint. 
The plan of probation must contain adequate safeguards that will protect 
the public and ensure the Respondent's full compliance with the 
disciplinary rules and orders of the Supreme Court.  
 
14 
 
 
'(2) 
If the Respondent provides each member of the Hearing 
Panel and the Disciplinary Administrator with a plan of probation, the 
Respondent shall immediately and prior to the hearing on the Formal 
Complaint put the plan of probation into effect by complying with each 
of the terms and conditions of the probation plan.  
 
 
'(3) 
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 ten 
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; 
 
(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.' 
 
 
"37. 
In this case, the Respondent developed a workable, substantial, and 
detailed plan of probation. The Respondent provided a copy of the proposed plan of 
probation to the Disciplinary Administrator and each member of the Hearing Panel 
months in advance of the hearing on the formal complaint. Further, the Respondent put 
15 
 
the proposed plan of probation into effect prior to the formal hearing by complying with 
each of the terms and conditions of the probation plan. The misconduct committed by the 
Respondent in this case 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. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Hearing Panel to consider probation in this 
case. 
 
 
"38. 
Despite the conclusion that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c) 
(misconduct), the Hearing Panel was struck by the Respondent's integrity as observed by 
the Hearing Panel during the hearing on the formal complaint. And, as a result, based 
upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed above, the Hearing 
Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for a period of six months. The Hearing Panel further recommends that the 
imposition of the suspension be suspended and that the Respondent be placed on 
probation for a period of 18 months, subject to the following terms and conditions: 
 
 
'1. 
Inventory of Cases and Clients. The Respondent 
shall maintain an inventory of all open cases and clients. The 
Respondent shall update the inventory on a daily basis. The 
inventory shall include the client's name, the client's contact 
information, the client's immigration-related goal, the tasks that 
remain to be completed, all pending deadlines, and the forum (if 
any) in which the matter is pending. 
 
 
'2. 
Client Communication. The Respondent shall 
contact each client by letter at least once every three months 
regarding the status of the matter. 
 
 
'3. 
Nature of Cases. The Respondent shall not 
accept cases that have a low probability of success and are 
without a clearly established means of attempting to reach the 
client's goal. 
 
16 
 
 
'4. 
Development of New Communication Tools. The 
Respondent shall develop and implement a new written 
communication tool to be provided to new clients at the outset of 
a new engagement, that will assist them in understanding the 
reasonable timetable of the case; any target dates for completion 
of specific legal tasks; and all procedural and filing deadlines. If 
an anticipated deadline or filing date as set out in the initial 
written communication to a new client cannot be met, the 
Respondent shall notify the client by letter of the reason and the 
new time frame for completion. 
 
 
'5. 
Practice Supervision. David Hiebert shall serve 
as the Respondent's practice supervisor. The Respondent shall 
provide Mr. Hiebert with an updated copy of the inventory of 
cases and clients on a monthly basis. The Respondent shall allow 
Mr. Hiebert access to his client files, calendar, and trust account 
records. The Respondent shall comply with any requests made 
by Mr. Hiebert. Mr. Hiebert shall prepare a quarterly report to 
the Disciplinary Administrator regarding the Respondent's status 
on probation. Mr. Hiebert will be acting as an officer and an 
agent of the court while supervising the probation and 
monitoring the Respondent's legal practice. As supervising 
attorney, Mr. Hiebert shall be afforded all immunities granted by 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223 during the course of his supervising 
activities. 
 
 
'6. 
Client Billing. The Respondent shall implement 
and maintain a system to track all time spent on each case. The 
system shall allow the Respondent to determine the amount of 
unearned fees to be refunded in the event the Respondent's 
representation is terminated prior to the completion of the 
representation. The Respondent shall discuss the implementation 
of the system with Mr. Hiebert and adopt recommendations 
made by Mr. Hiebert in tracking his time. 
17 
 
 
 
'7. 
Restitution. The Respondent shall refund $1,885 
to [A.A.] within 30 days of the date of this report. The 
Respondent shall work with the [M.R] family in an attempt to 
reach an agreement as to restitution. The Respondent shall pay 
the agreed amount of restitution within 30 days of the agreement. 
In the event they are unable to reach an agreement, the 
Respondent shall fully cooperate with the Wichita fee dispute 
committee in resolving the matter. 
 
 
'8. 
Office Assistance. The Respondent shall 
continue to employ a legal assistant. 
 
 
'9. 
Office Procedures. Within ten days of this 
report, the Respondent shall provide Mr. Hiebert and the 
Disciplinary Administrator with written office procedures 
designed to monitor the status, deadlines, and court appearances 
of all matters in which he has undertaken representation. The 
Respondent shall modify that procedure if directed to do so by 
Mr. Hiebert or the Disciplinary Administrator. The Respondent 
shall follow the written office procedures. 
 
 
'10. 
Audits. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this 
report, Mr. Hiebert shall conduct an initial audit of the 
Respondent's files. Thereafter, every six months, Mr. Hiebert 
shall conduct additional audits. If Mr. Hiebert discovers any 
violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Mr. 
Hiebert shall include such information in his report. Mr. Hiebert 
shall provide the Disciplinary Administrator and the Respondent 
with a copy of each audit report. The Respondent shall follow all 
recommendations and correct all deficiencies noted in Mr. 
Hiebert's periodic audit reports. 
 
18 
 
 
'11. 
Psychological Treatment. The Respondent shall 
continue his treatment for depression throughout the period of 
supervised probation, unless the counselor determines that 
continued treatment is no longer necessary. The counselor shall 
notify Mr. Hiebert and the Disciplinary Administrator in the 
event that the Respondent discontinues treatment against the 
recommendation of the counselor during the probationary period. 
The Respondent shall provide the counselor with an appropriate 
release of information to allow the counselor to provide such 
information to Mr. Hiebert and the Disciplinary Administrator. 
 
 
'12. 
Continued Cooperation. The Respondent shall 
continue to cooperate with the Disciplinary Administrator. If the 
Disciplinary Administrator requests any additional information, 
the Respondent shall timely provide such information.  
 
 
'13. 
Professional Liability Insurance. The 
Respondent shall continue to maintain professional liability 
insurance. 
 
 
'14. 
Additional Violations. The Respondent shall not 
violate the terms of his probation or the provisions of the Kansas 
Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event that the Respondent 
violates any of the terms of probation or any of the provisions of 
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct at any time during the 
probationary period, the Respondent shall immediately report 
such violation to the Disciplinary Administrator. The 
Disciplinary Administrator shall take immediate action directing 
the Respondent to show cause why the probation should not be 
revoked.' 
 
 
"Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by the 
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
19 
 
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 Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334). 
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 was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer, and adequate notice of both the hearing before the panel and the hearing 
before this court. The respondent filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing 
report. As such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) 
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352). We conclude the hearing panel's findings are supported 
by clear and convincing evidence and that the hearing panel's conclusions of law 
regarding aggravating and mitigating factors are supported by the facts. Thus, the only 
issue before us is the appropriate discipline. 
 
At the hearing before this court, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator 
recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of 6 months, that the 
imposition of the suspension be suspended, and that the respondent be placed on 
probation for a period of 18 months; some changes to the probation plan proposed by the 
respondent and adopted by the hearing panel were requested, however. The respondent 
requested that the hearing panel adopt the probation plan as he filed it with the office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator, which he has implemented.  
 
20 
 
The hearing panel unanimously recommended that the respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law for a period of 6 months, that the imposition of the suspension be 
suspended, and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of 18 months, 
subject to specified terms and conditions. The court accepts the hearing panel's 
recommendation of probation with the modification to the probation plan requested by 
the office of the Disciplinary Administrator.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that David K. Link be suspended from the practice of 
law for a period of 6 months in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203 (2011 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 280). His suspension is stayed, and he is placed on probation for 18 months on 
the following terms and conditions: 
 
1. 
Inventory of Cases and Clients. The respondent shall maintain an inventory 
of all open cases and clients. The respondent shall update the inventory on a daily basis. 
The inventory shall include the client's name, the client's contact information, the client's 
immigration-related goal, the tasks that remain to be completed, all pending deadlines, 
and the forum (if any) in which the matter is pending. 
 
2. 
Client Communication. The respondent shall contact each client by letter at 
least once every 3 months regarding the status of the matter. 
 
3. 
Nature of Cases. The respondent shall not accept cases that have a low 
probability of success and are without a clearly established means of attempting to reach 
the client's goal. 
 
4. 
Development of New Communication Tools. The respondent shall develop 
and implement a new written communication tool to be provided to a new client at the 
21 
 
outset of a new engagement. The tool should assist the client in understanding the 
reasonable timetable of the case, any target dates for completion of specific legal tasks, 
and all procedural and filing deadlines. If an anticipated deadline or filing date as set out 
in the initial written communication to a new client cannot be met, the respondent shall 
notify the client by letter of the reason and the new time frame for completion. 
 
5. 
Practice Supervision. David Hiebert shall serve as the respondent's practice 
supervisor. The respondent shall provide Mr. Hiebert with an updated copy of the 
inventory of cases and clients on a monthly basis. The respondent shall allow Mr. Hiebert 
access to his client files, calendar, and trust account records. The respondent shall comply 
with any requests made by Mr. Hiebert. Mr. Hiebert shall prepare a monthly report 
regarding the respondent's status on probation and provide the report to the Disciplinary 
Administrator during the first 6 months of the respondent's probation and shall prepare 
and provide the Disciplinary Administrator with a quarterly report for the remaining year 
of respondent's probation. Mr. Hiebert will be acting as an officer and an agent of the 
court while supervising the probation and monitoring the respondent's legal practice. As 
supervising attorney, Mr. Hiebert shall be afforded all immunities granted by Supreme 
Court Rule 223 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 395) during the course of his supervising 
activities. 
 
6. 
Client Billing. The respondent shall implement and maintain a system to 
track all time spent on each case. The system shall allow the respondent to determine the 
amount of unearned fees to be refunded in the event the respondent's representation is 
terminated prior to the completion of the representation. The respondent shall discuss the 
implementation of the system with Mr. Hiebert and adopt recommendations made by Mr. 
Hiebert in tracking his time. 
 
7. 
Restitution. The respondent reports he has refunded $1,885 to A.A. If that 
has not been done, respondent shall accomplish this task within 30 days of the filing of 
22 
 
this opinion. The respondent shall continue to attempt to reach an agreement with the 
M.R. family regarding restitution. The respondent shall pay the agreed amount of 
restitution within 30 days of the agreement. In the event they are unable to reach an 
agreement, the respondent shall fully cooperate with the Wichita fee dispute committee in 
resolving the matter. 
 
8. 
Office Assistance. The respondent shall continue to employ a legal 
assistant. 
 
9. 
Office Procedures. The respondent has provided Mr. Hiebert and the 
Disciplinary Administrator with written office procedures designed to monitor the status, 
deadlines, and court appearances of all matters in which he has undertaken 
representation. The respondent shall modify that procedure if directed to do so by Mr. 
Hiebert or the Disciplinary Administrator. The respondent shall follow the written office 
procedures. 
 
10. 
Audits. Mr. Hiebert has conducted an initial audit of the respondent's files. 
Beginning 6 months after the first audit and continuing every 6 months, Mr. Hiebert shall 
conduct additional audits. If Mr. Hiebert discovers any violations of the KRPC, Mr. 
Hiebert shall include such information in his report. Mr. Hiebert shall provide the 
Disciplinary Administrator and the respondent with a copy of each audit report. The 
respondent shall follow all recommendations and correct all deficiencies noted in Mr. 
Hiebert's periodic audit reports. 
 
11. 
Psychological Treatment. The respondent shall continue his treatment for 
depression throughout the period of supervised probation, unless the counselor 
determines that continued treatment is no longer necessary. The counselor shall notify 
Mr. Hiebert and the Disciplinary Administrator in the event that the respondent 
discontinues treatment against the recommendation of the counselor during the 
23 
 
probationary period. The respondent shall provide the counselor with an appropriate 
release of information to allow the counselor to provide such information to Mr. Hiebert 
and the Disciplinary Administrator. 
 
12. 
Continued Cooperation. The respondent shall continue to cooperate with 
the Disciplinary Administrator. If the Disciplinary Administrator requests any additional 
information, the respondent shall timely provide such information.  
 
13. 
Professional Liability Insurance. The respondent shall continue to maintain 
professional liability insurance. 
 
14. 
Additional Violations. The respondent shall not violate the terms of his 
probation or the provisions of the KRPC. In the event that the respondent violates any of 
the terms of probation or any of the provisions of the KRPC at any time during the 
probationary period, the respondent shall immediately report such violation to the 
Disciplinary Administrator. The Disciplinary Administrator shall take immediate action 
directing the respondent to show cause why the probation should not be revoked. 
 
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. 
 
 
BEIER, J., not participating. 
 
REBECCA W. CROTTY, District Judge, assigned.