Title: In re Johnson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 124619
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 6, 2022

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 124,619 
 
In the Matter of R. JACOB JOHNSON, 
Respondent. 
 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed May 6, 2022. Published censure. 
 
Julia A. Hart, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and W. Thomas Stratton Jr., 
Interim Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner.  
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the 
cause, and R. Jacob Johnson, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an attorney discipline proceeding against R. Jacob Johnson, 
of Wichita. Johnson received his license to practice law in Kansas on September 28, 
2007. Johnson is also licensed in Missouri on inactive status, admitted in 2008 and in 
Colorado on active status, admitted in 2010. 
 
On September 20, 2021, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 
complaint against Johnson alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). The complaint was filed after Johnson advised the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office of a Stipulation, Agreement and Affidavit Containing the 
Respondent's Conditional Admission of Misconduct (joint stipulation) filed with the 
Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. In the joint stipulation Johnson agreed 
he had engaged in conduct that constituted grounds for disciplinary actions pursuant to 
2 
 
 
 
the Colorado Rules of Attorney Discipline and he had violated Colorado Rules of 
Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(b). 
 
Johnson filed a timely answer to the formal complaint and cooperated with the 
investigation. On November 2, 2021, the parties entered into a summary submission 
agreement under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 223 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277). In the 
summary submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and Johnson stipulated 
and agreed that Johnson violated: 
 
• KRPC 8.4(b) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 434) (commit a criminal act); and  
• Kansas Supreme Court Rule 221 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 276) (discipline 
imposed in another jurisdiction—duty to report). 
 
Before us, the parties jointly recommend censure and such censure be published in 
the Kansas Reports. 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission below. 
 
"Findings of Fact. Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent 
engaged in the misconduct alleged in the Formal Complaint filed on September 20, 2021, 
as follows: 
 
. . . . 
 
"4. 
On December 23, 2019, respondent notified the Kansas Office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator ('ODA'), by self-report, that he had entered 
3 
 
 
 
into a deferred judgment agreement on a conviction of misdemeanor 
assault in Douglas County, Colorado.   
 
"5. 
On this same date, respondent notified the ODA that he had reported this 
deferred judgement to the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation and 
was cooperating with that investigation. 
 
"6. 
Also on December 23, 2019, respondent notified the Missouri Office of 
Chief Disciplinary Counsel by self-report that he had entered into the 
deferred judgment agreement.   
 
"7. 
On June 26, 2020, the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel 
and respondent entered a joint 'Stipulation, Agreement and Affidavit 
Containing the Respondent's Conditional Admission of Misconduct' 
('joint stipulation').  
 
"8. 
On June 30, 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court filed an 'Order 
Approving Amended Conditional Admission of Conduct and Imposing 
Sanctions under C.R.C.P. 251.22,' regarding respondent's Colorado 
attorney discipline case.  
 
"9. 
On April 1, 2021, the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, in 
accordance with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.1(b), issued a written 
admonition to the respondent, regarding his conduct and attorney 
discipline in Colorado. 
 
"10. 
Respondent notified the ODA by self-report of the above discipline from 
Missouri on September 16, 2021. 
 
"11. 
The Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel joint stipulation 
that respondent entered into contained the following material facts: 
 
 
4 
 
 
 
"a. On November 17, 2019, Respondent consumed alcohol at 
two different times. First, he consumed alcohol while 
watching a football game. Later, Respondent went to a 
restaurant to get food for his family. While at the restaurant, 
Respondent consumed alcohol while watching another 
football game. 
 
"b. When Respondent arrived home, Respondent and his wife 
got into an argument. The argument turned physical and 
Respondent grabbed his wife around the neck. Respondent 
then pushed her back, causing her head to strike the wall. 
Their three-week-old child was in immediate proximity at 
the time. 
 
"c. The altercation occurred very suddenly and was over very 
quickly when Respondent left the house. 
 
"d. Respondent's wife called the police, which arrived shortly 
after the altercation had ended. A deputy with the Douglas 
County Sheriff's Office arrested Respondent. 
 
"e. Respondent was charged with assault in the third degree as 
an act of domestic violence and child abuse in Douglas 
County case number 19M2576. The child abuse charge was 
later dismissed. 
 
"f. On November 27, 2019, Respondent entered into a guilty 
plea to assault in the third degree, as an act of domestic 
violence, as a part of an 18-month deferred judgement and 
sentence. The agreement involved supervised probation and 
the possibility of early termination after twelve months. 
5 
 
 
 
Respondent was required to complete an alcohol and 
domestic violence evaluation. 
 
"g. Respondent timely self-reported his conviction to the Office 
of the Attorney Regulation Counsel. 
 
"h. Respondent and his wife were under considerable stress at 
the time because they were caring for a newborn child with 
significant health issues and were not getting much sleep, 
which resulted in Respondent's wife wanting Respondent to 
be home as much as possible to help take care of their 
children. 
 
"i. Respondent states he has not consumed alcohol since 
November 17, 2019. 
 
"j. Respondent has completed random UA's as part of his probation, 
has participated in domestic violence classes, and is in compliance 
with his criminal probation. 
 
"k. Respondent has met with Dr. Emrick numerous times since 
November 17, 2019. Dr. Emerick issued a detailed report which 
recommends, inter alia, that Respondent complete his probation and 
maintain a total abstinence from alcohol through his period of 
criminal probation.  
 
"l. Respondent is remorseful for his conduct. 
 
"12. 
In the joint stipulation respondent agreed with the Colorado Office of 
Attorney Regulation that he engaged in conduct which constituted 
grounds for discipline pursuant to Colorado Rules of Attorney 
6 
 
 
 
Discipline. He also agreed he was [in] violation [of] Colorado Rules of 
Professional Conduct, 8.4(b).  
 
"13. 
In the joint stipulation the parties recommended a one-year period of 
suspension, with all but five months stayed, so long as respondent 
successfully completed a twenty-four-month probation with the 
following conditions: 
 
"a. Comply with all terms of criminal probation in Douglas 
County, Colorado case number 19M2576. 
 
"b. Not engage in further violations of the Colorado Rules of 
Professional Conduct. 
 
"c. Abstain from alcohol and drugs, without a legal 
prescription. To ensure compliance, respondent agreed to 
the following conditions: 
 
"d. Submit to continuous alcohol monitoring via a 
SOBERLINK device; 
 
"e. Submit to random UA's; and 
 
"f. Sign monthly certifications that he had abstained from such 
substances. 
 
"g. Continue with professional counseling and treatment. 
 
"14. 
In the joint stipulation, the parties agreed that respondent had no prior 
instances of attorney discipline in Colorado. 
 
7 
 
 
 
"15. 
On June 30, 2020, based on the joint stipulation, the Colorado Supreme 
Court, through the presiding disciplinary judge, ruled that respondent 
violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b). 
 
"16. 
In the June 30, 2020, order, entitled, 'Order Approving Amended 
Conditional Admission of Misconduct and Imposing Sanctions under 
C.R.C.P. 251.22,' the parties' joint recommendation for attorney 
discipline was accepted and respondent was suspended for a one-year 
period, with all but five months stayed, so long as he successfully 
completed a twenty-four-month probation with the aforementioned 
conditions. 
 
"17. 
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) is identical to KRPC 
8.4(b). 
 
"18. 
On April 1, 2021, the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, 
through the Missouri Supreme Court, issued a written admonition to the 
respondent.  
 
"19. 
The written admonition contained the following material facts: 
 
'[Missouri] Supreme Court Rule 4-8.4(b) identifies as professional 
misconduct commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 
In November of 2019, you entered into a plea of guilty to a charge of 
third-degree assault and received a deferred sentence. According to the 
pleadings, and your wife's statement, which you provided to us, you and 
your wife got into an argument on November 17, 2019, at your home in 
Colorado. You grabbed your wife's neck/sweatshirt and pushed her back 
causing her head to hit the wall. You subsequently entered into a 
stipulated discipline with the Colorado disciplinary authorities, whereby 
your Colorado license was suspended for one year, with seven of those 
8 
 
 
 
months stayed upon completion of a two-year period of probation. You 
have advised me that your Colorado license is 'fully reinstated,' . . . you 
meet with a counselor once a month, and provide breath samples twice a 
day via Soberlink. You have been on Inactive Status in Missouri since 
2010.' 
 
"20. 
Respondent has had no prior instances of attorney discipline in Missouri. 
 
"21. 
Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) is identical to KRPC 
8.4(b). 
 
"22. 
Kansas Supreme Court Rule 221(c) (effective January 1, 2021, formerly 
Kan. S. Ct. R. 202) provides in material part: 
 
'When the licensing authority for another jurisdiction 
disciplines an attorney for a violation of the rules governing 
the legal profession in that jurisdiction, for purpose of a 
disciplinary board proceeding under these rules the 
following provisions apply: 
 
. . . . 
 
'(2) If the determination of this violation was based on less 
than clear and convincing evidence, the determination is 
prima facie evidence of the commission of the conduct that 
formed the basis of the violation and raises a rebuttable 
presumption of the validity of the finding of misconduct. 
The respondent has the burden to disprove the finding in a 
disciplinary proceeding.' 
 
9 
 
 
 
"23. 
Up to the date of this filing respondent has cooperated with the 
investigation in this disciplinary matter initially pro se and continued to 
cooperate by and through his counsel. 
 
"Conclusions of Law. Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent 
violated the following Supreme Court Rules and Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:  
 
"24. 
 KRPC 8.4(b) (Commit a Criminal Act) 
 
"25. 
Kansas Supreme Court Rule 221 (Discipline Imposed in Another 
Jurisdiction—Duty to Report. 
 
"Applicable Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances: 
 
"26. 
Respondent has been licensed as an attorney since 2007. 
 
"27. 
This is Respondent's first disciplinary offense.  
 
"28. 
Respondent has engaged in therapy, substance abuse treatment in order 
to address issues that led to this incident. 
 
"29. 
Respondent timely has taken steps to address issues that led to this 
incident. 
 
"30. 
Respondent has cooperated with the criminal and disciplinary process 
and has acknowledged his transgressions. 
 
"31. 
There is evidence of a mental impairment and/or alcohol abuse that 
Respondent timely addressed and has since demonstrated by a 
meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation, and that 
these steps of recovery make it unlikely of the reoccurrence of similar 
misconduct. 
10 
 
 
 
 
"32. 
Respondent has shown remorse for his actions that caused this complaint 
to be filed. 
 
. . . . 
 
"Recommendations for Discipline:   
 
"35. 
Petitioner and Respondent agree and acknowledge that the conduct 
involved in this matter occurred November 17, 2019, in Douglas County, 
Colorado, and it resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, with a period of 
probation.  
 
"36. 
Respondent successfully completed his misdemeanor probation through 
the court on November 18, 2020.   
 
"37. 
Respondent self-reported this conviction to the Colorado Office of 
Attorney Regulation Counsel. The Colorado Attorney regulation counsel 
reports that Respondent completed his period of suspension on January 
1, 2021, and since then has begun his probation plan. Respondent has 
complied with the conditions of his probation plant to date, and his 
probation is set to expire on January 1, 2023.  
 
. . . . 
 
"Additional Statements and Stipulations 
 
"40. 
Petitioner and Respondent hereby waive hearing on the Formal 
Complaint as provided in Kansas Supreme Court Rule 222(c).  
 
11 
 
 
 
"41. 
Petitioner and Respondent agree that no exceptions to the findings of fact 
and conclusions of law will be taken. 
 
"42. 
Respondent understands and agrees that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
223(f), this Summary Submission Agreement is advisory only and does 
not prevent the Supreme Court from making its own conclusions 
regarding rule violations or imposing discipline greater or lesser than the 
parties' recommendation. 
 
"43. 
Respondent also understands and agrees that after entering into this 
Summary Submission Agreement, he will be required to appear before 
the Kansas Supreme Court for oral argument under Supreme Court Rule 
228(i). 
 
"44. 
Petitioner and Respondent agree that the exchange and execution of 
copies of this Agreement by electronic transmission shall constitute 
effective execution and delivery of the Agreement and that copies may 
be used in lieu of the original and the signatures shall be deemed to be 
original signatures. 
 
"45. 
A copy of the Summary Submission will be provided to the Board Chair 
as required by Supreme Court Rule 223(e)." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the disciplinary 
panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations exist 
and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 
375 (2011); see also Kansas Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 
12 
 
 
 
281) (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). 
 
The Disciplinary Administrator provided Johnson with adequate notice of the 
formal complaint. The Disciplinary Administrator also provided Johnson with adequate 
notice of the hearing before the panel, but he waived that hearing after entering into the 
summary submission agreement. Under Rule 223, a summary submission agreement is  
 
"[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent to proceed by 
summary submission must be in writing and contain the following: 
(1) an admission that the respondent engaged in the misconduct; 
(2) a stipulation as to the contents of the record, findings of fact, and conclusions 
of law—including each violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct, the Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys, or the attorney's oath 
of office; 
(3) a recommendation for discipline; 
(4) a waiver of the hearing on the formal complaint; and 
(5) a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or 
conclusions of law will be taken." Rule 223(b) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 273).  
 
The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission 
and canceled a hearing under Rule 223(e)(2). As a result, the factual findings in the 
summary submission are admitted. See Kansas Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2022 
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 288) ("If the respondent files a statement . . . that the respondent will not 
file an exception . . . , the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final hearing 
report will be deemed admitted by the respondent."). 
13 
 
 
 
 
When signed by the parties, the written summary submission agreement contained 
all the information required by Rule 223. The current version of Rule 223 also requires 
the summary submission to include any applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. 
See Rule 223(b)(2)(D) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277). Here, the Office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator (ODA) and Johnson agreed to those factors, but the summary submission 
did not explain whether a factor should be considered an aggravator or a mitigator. At 
oral argument, the ODA clarified only the first listed factor was an aggravator and all 
others were mitigators. Johnson orally agreed with this categorization. The first factor 
specified that Johnson has been an attorney since 2007. The ODA explained an attorney 
with this level of experience would understand the ethical obligations. The mitigating 
circumstances included that this was Johnson's first disciplinary offense, he had 
completed therapy, he had taken steps to address the issues that led to the complaint, he 
had cooperated in the criminal and disciplinary process, he had presented evidence of a 
mental impairment or alcohol abuse he had timely addressed, and he had shown remorse.   
 
The summary submission and the parties' stipulations before us establish by clear 
and convincing evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 8.4(b) and Rule 221. We 
adopt the findings and conclusions set forth by the parties in the summary submission and 
at oral argument. 
 
The remaining issue is deciding the appropriate discipline. The parties jointly 
recommend that he be censured by the Supreme Court and that censure be published in 
the Kansas Reports.  
 
14 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that R. Jacob Johnson is censured in the state of 
Kansas, effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Kansas Supreme Court 
Rule 225(a)(5) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281) for violations of KRPC 8.4(b) and Rule 221. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to Johnson 
and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.