Title: In re Holyoak - Indefinite suspension video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 114836
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 2016

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 114,836 
 
In the Matter of KERRY DALE HOLYOAK, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 10, 2016. Indefinite suspension. 
 
Kate F. Baird, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Alexander M. Walzcak, 
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, were on the formal 
complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Kerry Dale Holyoak, 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, Kerry Dale Holyoak, of Leawood, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1989. 
 
 
On March 23, 2015, 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 April 9, 2015. A hearing was held 
on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on 
July 1, 2015, where the respondent was present and was represented by counsel. The 
hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 5.4(d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
639) (professional independence of a lawyer); 7.1(a) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 653) 
(communications concerning a lawyer's services); 8.4(c) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) 
2 
 
 
 
(engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(g) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
672) (engaging in conduct adversely 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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
"8. 
Wilson County Holdings, LLC (WCH), a subsidiary of Stranded Oil 
Resources Corporation based in Austin, Texas, developed a project to revitalize an 
oil field located in Fredonia, Kansas. To carry out the project, they sought to 
purchase mineral rights within the City of Fredonia from individual lot owners, 
based on the size of each lot. 
 
 
"9. 
On January 30, 2013, Donald Missey, Project Manager for WCH, 
sent the respondent and his wife an offer to purchase the mineral rights associated 
with his residential property and commercial property. The total mineral purchase 
price for the respondent's two properties totaled $938.52. 
 
 
"10. 
On February 1, 2013, the respondent and his wife, Kerry I. Holyoak, 
sent Mr. Missey a letter rejecting WCH's offer. The respondent and his wife made a 
counter offer. The offer to lease their mineral rights for an annual payment of 
$34,450 plus .689% of revenues in excess of $5,000,000 annually. In addition, the 
respondent's letter provided: 
 
'To date we have chosen not to share our research, data or any 
information related to this offer with anyone. We recognize the 
sensitivity of such a proposal and would agree to sign a 
confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement. This counterproposal 
is valid until 5:00 PM on Friday, February 15, 2013.' 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
"11. 
On February 12, 2013, Mr. Missey responded to the respondent's 
offer. Mr. Missey told the respondent that he had passed their offer on to their 
management team for evaluation. It appears that WCH did not accept or reject the 
respondent's counter offer during the time allotted. 
 
 
"12. 
On April 29, 2013, the respondent and his wife wrote to Mr. Missey 
again. In that correspondence, they clearly stated they were only willing to consider 
leasing their mineral rights. They made a new offer. According to their April 29, 
2013, letter, they were willing to accept a lease signing bonus of $35,156.25 plus 
annual royalties of 3/16 for their relative portion of the pooled units [(gross revenue 
x .1875) x .05]. In addition to making an additional offer, the respondent and his 
wife posed a number of detailed questions regarding the project to Mr. Missey at 
that time. 
 
 
"13. 
On May 17, 2013, Mr. Missey wrote to the respondent and his wife 
and rejected their latest offer. Through Mr. Missey, WCH made another proposal to 
the respondent and his wife. 
 
 
"14. 
On June 3, 2013, the respondent and his wife made a verbal 
presentation to the mayor and commissioners of Fredonia at the regularly scheduled 
City Council meeting. They expressed their concerns about the mineral rights of the 
residents of Fredonia, Kansas, related to the project being conducted by WCH. 
 
 
"15. 
On August 5, 2013, the respondent and his wife wrote to the 
Fredonia, Kansas, City Manager and Mr. Missey. The respondent provided a 
proposed franchise agreement. According to the respondent, he and his wife 
'discussed this proposed franchise agreement with numerous citizens' who were 
'willing to sign a petition or vote in a special election.' Also according to the 
respondent, the proposed franchise agreement sought to accomplish the following: 
 
'1. 
Pool the mineral rights of the residents of the entire city [sic] 
of Fredonia, Kansas; 
4 
 
 
 
 
'2. 
Authorize a lease of said mineral rights to Wilson County 
Holdings, LLC for the purpose of horizontally drilling under 
the city [sic] for the exploration and production of oil and gas 
minerals; 
 
'3. 
Require Wilson County Holdings, LLC to compensate each 
landowner their proportionate share of a 3/16 royalty on 
production of all gas and oil gross revenues; 
 
'4. 
Require Wilson County Holdings, LLC to properly survey the 
entire city [sic] of Fredonia in order to accurately determine 
the square footage allocation of each parcel owner, in an 
effort to illustrate an accurate representation of the mineral 
owner's percentage of the overall pool, for future 
compensation purposes; 
 
'5. 
Establish procedures for responding to emergencies; 
 
'6. 
Require specific performance from Wilson County Holdings, 
LLC whenever there is an incident of damage reported that 
has been caused by their drilling and exploration activities; 
 
'7. 
Revert ownership of mineral rights that have been sold to 
Wilson County Holdings during the period January 2011 to 
date, to the original surface owner, and treat payments made 
for said sales, as advances on future royalties.' 
 
 
"16. 
On May 16, 2014, the respondent and his wife wrote to WCH. In the 
letter, the respondent and his wife indicated that they had reconsidered their position 
and would agree to sell the mineral rights associated with their residential property 
to WCH. However, they indicated their interest in selling the mineral rights was 
contingent upon WCH purchasing their home at a price of $250,000 plus moving 
5 
 
 
 
expenses. The respondent and his wife indicated that they were only interested in 
leasing the mineral rights associated with their commercial property. 
 
 
"17. 
On May 29, 2014, Bill Metzler met with the respondent and his wife 
at their residence. The respondent and his wife told Mr. Metzler that if WCH would 
pay them $1.9 million, they would agree not to pursue any legal action against WCH 
due to its underground drilling project. To memorialize that agreement, the 
respondent and his wife presented Mr. Metzler with a 'Covenant Not to Sue' and 
'Purchase Contract.' 
 
 
"18. 
Also during that meeting, the respondent and his wife made oral 
statements and representations concerning the transactions proposed. Mr. Metzler 
memorialized the respondent's statement in the form of an affidavit, which provided 
as follows: 
 
'a. 
Kerry Dale Holyoak is legal counsel to 50 local landowner 
clients who have engaged him "to bring the company down" 
and "stop the project"; 
 
'b. 
The Holyoaks prefer to enroll their children in private school 
and relocate Kerry Dale Holyoaks' [sic] law practice in 
Kansas City but need WCH's help [sic] finance that move; 
 
'c. 
In exchange for payment of $1.9 million the Holyoaks would 
agree to leave the town "quickly and quietly"; 
 
'd. 
The $1.9 million dollar [sic] payment to KWADCO, a 
Bahamas Corporation, via an offshore wire to an unidentified 
account at the Royal Bank of Canada; 
 
'e. 
The landowners opposed to WCH will not do anything if the 
Holyoaks "don't take the lead for them"; and 
 
6 
 
 
 
'f. 
The Holyoaks will only sign the covenant not to sue if WCH 
purchases Kerry Dale Holyoak's law practice in addition to 
the Holyoaks' mineral rights and house, and if WCH refuses, 
then the Holyoaks will commute from Kansas City to ensure 
its allies "stand and fight" against WCH.' 
 
The respondent later explained that he was not attempting to sell his law practice. 
Rather, he agreed to sell his property and in order to value the property, he took into 
account the value of his law practice. 
 
 
"19. 
The 'Covenant Not to Sue' prepared by the respondent and given to 
Mr. Metzler provides as follows: 
 
'COVENANT NOT TO SUE 
 
'THIS Agreement made and entered this _____day of ____________, 
2014, by and between Kerry Dale Holyoak and Kerry Irene Holyoak, 
a married couple (hereinafter referred to as PLAINTIFFS), located at 
530 N. 10th Street, Fredonia, KS 66736 and Wilson County 
Holdings, and Stranded Oil (hereinafter referred to as 
DEFENDANTS), located at 1135 N 15th St., Fredonia, KS 66736. 
 
'In exchange for the complete compliance of all terms of the 
PURCHASE CONTRACT for the sale of all real estate owned by the 
PLAINTIFFS within Wilson County, Kansas, plus the cost of 
professional movers, and additional consideration in the amount of 
$____________ (_________millions) paid to (KWADCO, a Bahamas 
Corporation) the chosen entity to receive compensation for and on behalf 
of Kerry Dale Holyoak and Kerry Irene Holyoak, by Wilson County 
Holdings. (Funds to be paid by wire transfer to the Royal Bank of 
Canada, Account No. ________________.) 
 
7 
 
 
 
'WITNESSETH: 
 
'1. 
PLAINTIFFS, have a cause of action against 
DEFENDANTS for fraud and misrepresentation with regard to the 
manner in which DEFENDANTS coerced mineral purchases and mineral 
leases from the residents within the city limits of Fredonia, Kansas. 
 
'2. 
PLAINTIFFS understand that should they initiate a 
lawsuit against DEFENDANTS for their claims it would cause no less 
than fifty additional plaintiffs to come forward and file similar lawsuits 
for similar claims. The potential number of plaintiffs could escalate to as 
many as have sold or leased their mineral rights to DEFENDANTS 
under false pretenses, thereby constituting grounds for a class action 
lawsuit. 
 
'3. 
PLAINTIFFS agree not to initiate or participate in any 
lawsuit or action against DEFENDANTS as counsel, co-counsel, local 
counsel, witness, plaintiff, party, or otherwise, with regard to any and all 
of the business activities of DEFENDANTS, within the region of Wilson 
County, Kansas. 
 
'4. 
PLAINTIFFS further agree not to participate in any legal 
action against DEFENDANTS at any point in the future, as pertaining to 
the operations of DEFENDANTS in Wilson County, Kansas. 
 
'5. 
PLAINTIFFS agree not to provide any legal advice to 
anyone seeking information about DEFENDANTS and/or their business 
operations. 
 
'NON-DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 
 
'1. 
PLAINTIFFS agree to permanently dispose of any 
and all documentation, records, recordings, witness statements, 
8 
 
 
 
personal contact information for potential litigants, research and all 
other forms of discovery as it pertains to evidence which could be 
used against DEFENDANTS in a lawsuit of any nature. 
 
'2. 
PLAINTIFFS agree to relocate their family and 
business a distance of not less than 75 miles away from Fredonia, 
Kansas. 
 
'3. 
PLAINTIFFS agree not to return to Fredonia, Kansas, 
except to engage in contacts or business unrelated to potential 
litigation against DEFENDANTS. 
 
'4. 
DEFENDANTS agree to assist PLAINTIFFS with 
their move by covering the cost of a professional moving company to 
assist the parties in moving their personal belongings from their 
home, their office building and their storage unit and relocating them 
to a new home more than 75 miles away. 
 
'5. 
PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS agree not to 
disclose any of the terms of this agreement. If either party discusses 
the terms of this agreement, the offending party will bear the burden 
of the cost of any litigation including reimbursement of attorney fees 
and expenses for the non-offending party. 
 
'6. 
Time is of the essence in this agreement. If 
DEFENDANTS fail to complete and comply with the terms of this 
agreement by the _____ day of _______________, 2014, then neither 
party shall be bound by the terms of this agreement and 
PLAINTIFFS will be free to engage in litigation against 
DEFENDANTS regarding the extraction of minerals from the city 
[sic] of Fredonia or from any other location and may do so as parties, 
witnesses, legal counsel and/or support staff or in any other manner 
for any entity or entities engaged in litigation against 
9 
 
 
 
DEFENDANTS or any discussion of or exposure of the actions of 
DEFENDANTS. 
 
'7. 
Bill Metzler, as agent for DEFENDANTS has 
complete authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of 
DEFENDANTS and bind the DEFENDANTS to all terms thereof. 
 
'8. 
This covenant does not indicate the guilt or innocence 
of either party. 
 
'This document is the only covenant between PLAINTIFFS and 
DEFENDANTS regarding litigation against DEFENDANTS, and any 
statements or provisions made by either party that are not contained 
in this document are neither valid nor binding.' 
 
 
"20. 
The 'Purchase Contract' prepared by the respondent provided as 
follows:  
 
'PURCHASE CONTRACT 
 
'THIS CONTRACT made and entered into this _______ day of 
____________, 2014, by and between KERRY DALE HOLYOAK 
and KERRY IRENE HOLYOAK, a married couple, of Wilson 
County, Kansas, (hereinafter called "Sellers"), and 
_______________________ as agent for WILSON COUNTY 
HOLDINGS/STRANDED OIL, a corporate entity of 
________________________, (hereinafter called "Purchaser") 
 
'WITNESSETH: 
 
'1. 
Sellers agree to sell and convey to Purchaser and 
Purchaser agrees to buy and to pay for the following described real 
10 
 
 
 
property subject to compliance with the following terms and 
conditions as set forth herein: 
 
Lots Eleven (11) and Twelve (12), Block Six (6), 
Hamilton's Addition to the City of Fredonia 
(commonly known as the residence located at 530 N. 
10th Street, Fredonia, Kansas 66736) 
 
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot One (1), 
Block Fifteen (15), City of Fredonia, thence North 
60.36 feet, thence East 34.3 feet, thence South 23.06 
feet, thence West 8.7 feet, thence South 7.6 feet, 
thence West 5 feet; thence South 29.7 feet, thence 
West 20.6 feet to the point of beginning. (commonly 
known as the office building located at 521 Madison 
Street, Fredonia, Kansas 66736) 
 
'2. 
Sellers are the owners of said real property and are 
not engaged in and have not previously engaged in any litigation 
which may impact their ownership or control of said property. Sellers 
have not entered into any other agreements which may impact their 
ownership or control of said property and have not incurred expenses 
against and have not suffered any liens to be held against the real 
property. In the event that any of the conditions set forth in this 
paragraph have been broken, this transaction shall become void and 
the purchase funds shall be immediately refunded to Purchaser. 
 
'3. 
Purchaser shall pay to Sellers the purchase price of 
$__________ to be made in one earnest money payment of 
$10,000.00 plus a lump sum payment of $__________ payable to 
Sellers as the price of the real property and mineral rights plus 
$__________ for the Sellers' moving expenses by a commercial 
moving company. 
11 
 
 
 
 
'4. 
Sellers shall have thirty (30) days to remove all 
unattached items of personal property and vacate the residence and 
the office building and deliver all keys to Purchaser. 
 
'5. 
Sellers agree to deliver and Purchaser agrees to 
accept the property in its present condition with all attachments and 
Sellers agree to provide a Warrant [sic] Deed to Purchaser. 
 
'6. 
All taxes and assessments against the property prior 
to the date of this agreement and for prior years shall be paid by 
Sellers. Purchaser shall be responsible for all taxes and assessments 
coming due from the date of this agreement forward. 
 
'7. 
The sale of said real property shall also include the 
transfer of all Sellers' mineral rights. Sellers are the owners of said 
mineral rights and are not engaged in and have not previously 
engaged in any litigation which may impact their ownership or 
control of said mineral rights. Sellers have not entered into any other 
agreements which may impact their ownership or control of said 
mineral rights, have not incurred expenses against and have not 
suffered any liens to be held against said mineral rights. In the event 
that any of the conditions set forth in this paragraph have been 
broken, this transaction shall become void and the purchase funds 
shall be immediately refunded to Purchaser. 
 
'8. 
______________________________, as agent for 
Purchaser has complete authority to enter into this agreement on 
behalf of Purchaser and bind Purchaser to all terms thereof.' 
 
 
"21. 
On June 4, 2014, Mr. Metzler sent an email to the respondent. At that 
time, Mr. Metzler informed the respondent that their May, 2014, proposal was under 
review. 
12 
 
 
 
 
 
"22. 
The next day, June 5, 2014, the respondent and his wife replied to 
Mr. Metzler's email message. The respondent and his wife, as a courtesy, informed 
Mr. Metzler that it was their intention to file a written protest to WCH's petition to 
the KCC requesting an Order Granting Exception from Casing and Completion 
Requirements. The respondent and his wife also informed Mr. Metzler that they 
planned to appear at the hearing set for June 16, 2014, and provide testimony and 
evidence in support of their concerns. The respondent and his wife set a deadline of 
June 6, 2014. 
 
 
"23. 
On June 6, 2014, Jonathan Rosen, outside compliance counsel for 
WCH wrote to the respondent and his wife regarding serious concerns about the 
May, 2014, offer. Mr. Rosen stated: 
 
'We have serious concerns about your proposed and uninvited 
scheme to receive an exorbitant offshore wire to a nominee account 
in exchange for a series of tainted inducements, including the honest 
services of a licensed attorney and an illicit competitive advantage.' 
 
Mr. Rosen included in his correspondence the oral statements made by the 
respondent as recorded by Mr. Metzler in his affidavit. 
 
 
"24. 
Mr. Rosen also stated: 
 
'I specifically note that these representations and assertions are 
memorialized and/or corroborated by the proposed covenant not to 
sue and purchase contract, which you gave to WCH in support of the 
"offer" on May 29, 2014. 
 
'We have reviewed these facts and, as a former federal and state 
prosecutor, I believe your scheme implicates significant ethical and 
legal concerns. 
 
13 
 
 
 
'First, we have concerns that your proposal betrays Mr. Holyoak's 
ethical and fiduciary obligations as a licensed attorney. 
 
'Second, you rely on an illicit competitive advantage in an attempt to 
coerce payment from WCH. Wholly independent of Mr. Holyoak's 
status as a licensed fiduciary, you purport to be civic leaders who 
exert influence over a significant number of local landowners. You 
condition your uninvited promise to abandon these followers and, in 
your opinion, facilitate the success of WCH's project, only if WCH 
purchases your business location in addition to your mineral rights 
and home. Your bad faith implicates state and federal criminal law. 
See, e.g., K.S.A. 21-6501 (defining extortion, in part, as an act which 
causes "the competition of the person from whom the payment is 
demanded, solicited or received to be diminished or eliminated."). 
See also 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). 
 
'Third, your scheme structures an offshore transaction to a Bahamas 
shell corporation in an apparent effort to conceal your beneficial 
interest in any ill-gotten gains. Despite your ready access to local 
banks, your covenant not to sue requires an offshore wire to a 
nominee account maintained by a Bahamas corporation, KWADCO. 
WCH has absolutely no information on the offshore account, the 
nominee corporation or your compliance with criminal laws 
requiring that you disclose to the Internal Revenue Service your 
financial interest or signature authority over such offshore accounts. 
Moreover, you demanded this specific manner of payment in full 
knowledge that WCH's prior offer, dated January 30, 2013, 
specifically identified that payment would be made via a domestic 
bank draft payable to you individually. 
 
'Fourth, the desperation conveyed with the "offer" is further evidence 
of bad faith. As reflected by your inability to marshal any support for 
your bogus claims against WCH and purported plan at the Fredonia 
14 
 
 
 
City Commission in June 2013, Mr. Holyoak's public masquerade as 
a citizen attorney general has failed. This is further demonstrated by 
WCH's past and continuing success in partnering with landowners to 
support the project. While WCH does not begrudge any prospective 
seller's good faith effort to maximize his or her self-interest, we 
strenuously object to using illicit means to achieve your personal 
ambition. 
 
'Further, yesterday we received additional evidence of your attempt 
to coerce the elicit [sic] payment in the form of your June 5, 2014 e-
mail to Mr. Bill Metzler of WCH concerning the Kansas Corporation 
Commission ("KCC"). In that e-mail, you make the further offer to 
"forego filing the objection or intervening in any KCC proceedings 
now or in the future" if WCH pays you the $1.9 million demanded 
prior to the expiration of the protest period for WCH's applications 
for exceptions to the KCC. This is further evidence of your 
continuing practice of bad faith with respect to the project. 
 
'As a good corporate actor in a highly regulated marketplace, WCH 
has zero tolerance for unethical and illegal conduct. Over the past 18 
months, WCH has engaged in a fully transparent process to 
successfully purchase mineral rights from a substantial number of 
landowners. WCH remains interested in acquiring such rights at a 
fair market value, but WCH has never and will never condone or 
participate in any instance of fraud, extortion or other such matters. 
 
'Please provide your response directly to me concerning the serious 
items no later than June20, [sic] 2014 so that we may continue our 
review of these issues along with considerations of duties or 
obligations to disclose all relevant facts to appropriate enforcement, 
regulatory and licensing authorities.' 
 
15 
 
 
 
 
"25. 
In a letter also dated June 6, 2014, the respondent and his wife 
responded to Mr. Rosen's letter. The Holyoaks' letter provides: 
 
 
'We are in receipt of your letter dated June 6, 2014, wherein 
you have grossly mischaracterized and misunderstood not only our 
"offer" but also our intentions. We accept your letter as WCH's 
refusal of our offer to settle. 
 
 
'It is my understanding that MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, 
BROCK & KENNEDY, CHARTERED of Wichita, Kansas is counsel 
of record for WCH in the KCC administrative proceedings. As a 
matter of courtesy, we are including a copy of our protest to the 
KCC. 
 
 
'You have characterized our request for an "exorbitant 
offshore wire" as though it is some sort of extortion. To be clear, our 
interests are tied up in real estate and business interests within and 
around the city [sic] of Fredonia, Kansas. Our offer is fair and can in 
no way be construed as extortion or illicit or illegal. There is nothing 
illegal about receiving funds in an offshore account. It is called asset 
protection. [Footnote: Neither in his correspondence nor during his 
testimony at the hearing on this matter did the respondent 
satisfactorily explain what he meant by "asset protection."] Your 
assumptions about our relationship with the IRS are also baseless. 
We are honest tax payers. Our "offer" was not tied to some arbitrary 
or fanciful number. These numbers directly relate to the value of our 
lives in Fredonia, Kansas and are based upon the following: 
 
1. 
We have 107-year old Victorian home we 
value at $250,000 which we have continued to 
renovate and improve. 
 
16 
 
 
 
2. 
We have an office building we value at 
$90,000 which we have also continued to 
renovate and improve. 
 
 
3. 
We have a small town law practice which 
generates around $330,000 per year in gross 
revenues. We did a simple "business 
valuation" of 5 times gross revenue to arrive 
at the figure of $1,650,000. 
 
 
'We do not agree with the practices of Wilson County 
Holdings. We have tried to invite their cooperation in protecting the 
financial and environmental interests of this community as members 
of the community and NOT as legal counsel for anyone. However, 
representatives of WCH have regularly refused to grant leases to 
small property owners and have offered to purchase mineral rights 
for a one-time payment of 4 cents per square foot or, in the 
alternative, that the property owners receive nothing. This does not 
constitute an "arm's-length" transaction, is not a meeting of the 
minds, severely lacks any semblance of good faith negotiation and is 
nothing more than an "it's my [sic] or the highway" negotiation. This 
seems especially unfair since WCH has been aware of the potential 
value of oil production to the land owners from the outset. Only 
recently have they granted any leases to a few local small property 
owners without whom they could not even run horizontal casings. 
 
 
'At no time have I, Kerry D. Holyoak, announced that I am 
legal counsel for anyone in any proceeding regarding WCH. My wife 
and I are concerned citizens who do not agree with the WCH project 
based upon their refusal to deal fairly with small property owners and 
their initial promises not to engage in fracking. Our home and our 
business are directly affected by the drilling and oil production 
17 
 
 
 
activities of WCH and we have a right to state our concerns and be 
treated fairly. 
 
 
'We view our offer as being no different than the farmers who 
were fairly compensated with millions of dollars to sell their acreage 
and minerals. Owners of large tracts of land have also been fairly 
compensated for the value of their minerals by being granted a 3/16 
lease. Owners of small tracts of land within the city, such as ours, 
have been denied any lease by WCH but are instead offered 4 cents 
per square foot to sell all mineral rights in perpetuity. Therefore, we 
and other small property owners are being denied fair value for the 
pooled minerals under our own land and this is in violation of our 
correlative rights and forms part of the basis for our protest, a copy 
of which is included for your review. 
 
 
'Our business is not a farm, but it is a business with value 
nonetheless. We do not wish to live in a town facing potential ruin by 
the environmental effects of the WCH project. These environmental 
concerns are not imaginary but are evident by the WCH request for 
an exception to the industry standard of cementing wall casings and 
another exception to allow them to flare gas taken during petroleum 
extraction. Based on these concerns, we requested that they consider 
purchasing ALL of our interests and not just our real estate and 
mineral rights. 
 
 
'We did tie this to a request to a Covenant Not to Sue and 
Confidentiality [sic] Agreement. We did not do this in any attempt to 
extort the company. They have the right to proceed with their project 
and we have the right to protest their actions. In fact, we have the 
right as citizens to seek redress in administrative and judicial venues 
whether we first make an offer to settle or not. We believe that 
certain other residents and citizens of the City of Fredonia may also 
have valid causes of action for fraud and conversion against Wilson 
18 
 
 
 
County Holdings. We do not represent them as counsel but we have 
met with them in the past as friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens 
and we are willing to help other counsel and further actions against 
WCH should they want to take action. In the event that we reach a 
resolution with WCH, I would be surprised if other citizens choose to 
take action. 
 
 
'I find it amazing that you choose to use your status to 
threaten me with potential state and/or criminal prosecution in an 
effort to gain an advantage for your client in a civil matter and then 
you choose to characterize my motives as unethical. 
 
 
'I also find it amazing that you consider it a violation of the 
federal tax code for someone to use an offshore bank account in 
order to minimize tax liability. 
 
 
'I also find it amazing that you appear to characterize WCH 
as some sort of victim of what you characterize as our "scheme" and 
fail to see the deceitful manner in which they have dealt with some 
citizens in order to obtain mineral rights for much less than fair value 
and deny others any recompense at all. 
 
 
'You have chosen to call me names and threaten my wife and 
I and our livelihood. You characterize our attempt to present a 
franchise agreement to the City of Fredonia and WCH as that of a 
failed "public masquerade as a citizen attorney general". We did that 
on our own time and expense as citizens in [sic] attempt for all of the 
small landowners to be treated fairly. The city [sic] was not 
interested in such an agreement as they had already received a lease 
from WCH. The only response by WCH Representative Don Missey 
was "that's interesting." We can see now how that effort would be 
repugnant to WCH in their efforts to purchase small land owner's 
mineral rights for a pittance and not share with the small landowners 
19 
 
 
 
the real financial benefits of pumping the oil from underneath their 
properties. 
 
 
'Nevertheless we are also mediators and we saw an 
opportunity to resolve our complaints without litigation. It is a 
completely normal practice to make such types of agreements in 
business as we have proposed. 
 
 
'Based upon your rather demeaning and caustic letter, it 
appears that WCH is not as interested in reaching any kind of 
resolution with us as they are in using your position as a former 
federal prosecutor to intimidate and frighten us from exercising our 
rights as private citizens and from attempting to negotiate a 
settlement. 
 
 
'It was and continues to be our good faith intention to offer 
WCH an opportunity to avoid litigation and resolve this and future 
matters. 
 
 
'Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact 
this office. 
 
 
"26. 
On July 8, 2014, Jonathan A. Schlatter and Douglas S. Laird filed a 
complaint against the respondent. 
 
 
"27. 
The respondent's law practice was established as a limited liability 
company with the Kansas Secretary of State's office. As of June 6, 2014, the 
respondent listed his wife, Kerry I. Holyoak, as an owner of his law firm. The 
respondent's wife is not an attorney. The respondent has since corrected this 
problem. 
 
 
"28. 
The respondent has a website which advertises his legal services. As 
of June 12, 2014, the respondent's website also featured his wife's services as a 
20 
 
 
 
mediator. It was unclear from a review of the respondent's website whether the 
respondent's wife was also an attorney practicing law in the respondent's firm. The 
respondent has since removed references to his wife from his website. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"29. 
In the formal complaint, Mr. Walczak included specific rules which 
he alleged the respondent violated. In deliberating this matter, in addition to the 
rules alleged in the formal complaint, the hearing panel considered whether the 
respondent violated two additional rules:  KRPC 5.3(b) and KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
"30. 
It is appropriate to consider violations not specifically included in the 
formal complaint under certain circumstances. The law in this regard was thoroughly 
examined in State v. Caenen, 235 Kan. 451, 681 P.2d 639 (1984), as follows: 
 
 
'Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (232 Kan. clxvi), requires the 
formal complaint in a disciplinary proceeding to be sufficiently clear 
and specific to inform the respondent of the alleged misconduct. 
 
 
'The seminal decision regarding the applicability of the due 
process clause to lawyer disciplinary proceedings is found in In re 
Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117, reh. denied 
391 U.S. 961, 88 S. Ct. 1833, 20 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1968). There the 
United States Supreme Court held that a lawyer charged with 
misconduct in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is entitled to 
procedural due process, and that due process includes fair notice of 
the charges sufficient to inform and provide a meaningful 
opportunity for explanation and defense. 
 
 
'Decisions subsequent to Ruffalo have refined the concept of 
due process as it applies to lawyer disciplinary hearings, and suggest 
that the notice to be provided be more in the nature of that provided 
in civil cases. The weight of authority appears to be that, unlike due 
21 
 
 
 
process provided in criminal actions, there are no stringent or 
technical requirements in setting forth allegations or descriptions of 
alleged offenses. . . . Due process requires only that the charges must 
be sufficiently clear and specific to inform the attorney of the 
misconduct charged, but the state is not required to plead specific 
rules, since it is the factual allegations against which the attorney 
must defend. . . . However, if specific rules are pled, the state is 
thereafter limited to such specific offenses. . . . 
 
 
'Subsequent to the Ruffalo decision, the due process 
requirements in lawyer disciplinary proceedings have been given 
exhaustive treatment by this court. In State v. Turner, 217 Kan. 574, 
538 P.2d 966 (1975), 87 A.L.R.3d 337, the court summarized prior 
Kansas and federal precedent on the question, including Ruffalo, and 
held in accordance with established precedent that the state need not 
set forth in its complaint the specific disciplinary rules allegedly 
violated . . . , nor is it required to plead specific allegations of 
misconduct. . . . What is required was simply stated therein: 
 
"'We must conclude that where the facts in 
connection with the charge are clearly set out in the 
complaint a respondent is put on notice as to what 
ethical violations may arise therefrom. . . . 
 
"'It is not incumbent on the board to notify the 
respondent of charges of specific acts of misconduct 
as long as proper notice is given of the basic factual 
situation out of which the charges might result.'" 
 
235 Kan. at 458-59 (some citations omitted). Thus, only when the formal complaint 
alleges facts that would support findings of violations of additional rules, will 
considering additional violations be allowed. The hearing panel will address the 
above-stated law with respect to KRPC 5.3(b) and KRPC 8.4(g) separately below. 
22 
 
 
 
 
"KRPC 5.3(b) 
 
 
"31. 
KRPC 5.3(b) provides:  
 
'With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated 
with a lawyer: 
 
. . . . 
 
'(b) 
a lawyer having direct supervisory authority 
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with 
the professional obligations of the lawyer . . . .' 
 
In this case, the evidence presented at the hearing on this matter clearly established 
that the respondent failed to supervise a nonlawyer, his wife, as required by KRPC 
5.3(b). The formal complaint, however, is void of sufficient facts to put the 
respondent on notice that he may have violated KRPC 5.3(b). As such, the hearing 
panel is unable to conclude, based upon Caenen, that the respondent violated KRPC 
5.3(b). 
 
"KRPC 5.4(d) 
 
 
"32. 
KRPC 5.4(d) provides that: 
 
 
'A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a 
professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for 
a profit, if: 
 
(1) 
a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except 
that a fiduciary representative of the estate of 
a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the 
23 
 
 
 
lawyer for a reasonable time during 
administration . . . .' 
 
The respondent formed his law practice as a limited liability company. The 
respondent's wife, a nonlawyer, was registered as an owner of the company with the 
Kansas Secretary of State. The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 5.4 in 
this regard. As such, based upon the respondent's stipulation and the facts presented, 
the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 5.4. (It is worth 
repeating, the respondent has resolved this issue.) 
 
"KRPC 7.1(a) 
 
 
"33. 
Lawyers must not make false or misleading statements about their 
services. 'A communication is false or misleading if it . . . contains a material 
misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement 
considered as a whole not materially misleading.' KRPC 7.1. The respondent 
stipulated that he violated KRPC 7.1 by including references to his wife and the 
mediation services that she provides on his law firm's website. On the website, the 
respondent omitted facts which were necessary to make the website considered as a 
whole not materially misleading. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 7.1. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(c) 
 
 
"34. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The 
respondent misrepresented information when he communicated with Mr. Missey and 
Mr. Metzler and when he drafted the covenant not to sue. Specifically, the 
respondent claimed that he represented 50 other landowners when he did not. As 
such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
24 
 
 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"35. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). 
With regard to KRPC 8.4(g), the disciplinary administrator included sufficient facts 
in the formal complaint to warrant consideration of such a violation. Thus, under 
Caenen, the hearing panel concludes that it is proper to consider a violation of 
KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
"36. 
The respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his 
fitness to practice law. First, the respondent drafted the covenant not to sue. In that 
covenant, the respondent included the following provision: 
 
 
'1. 
PLAINTIFFS agree to permanently dispose of any 
and all documentation, records, recordings, witness statements, 
personal contact information for potential litigants, research and all 
other forms of discovery as it pertains to evidence which could be 
used against DEFENDANTS in a lawsuit of any nature.' 
 
The respondent's offer to destroy evidence is conduct which adversely reflects on his 
fitness to practice law. 
 
 
"37. 
Second, the respondent offered to settle his claims by having WCH 
wire transfer $1.9 million dollars to an offshore account in the Bahamas. The 
respondent stated that he wished to have the money transferred to the offshore 
account as a form of 'asset protection.' The respondent, however, denied that he was 
attempting to avoid paying taxes on the money. The respondent was unable to offer 
any legitimate explanation for 'asset protection.' Based on all the evidence, it is 
reasonable for the hearing panel to conclude that the respondent was attempting to 
avoid paying taxes on the money he hoped to get from WCH. 
 
 
"38. 
Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 
8.4(g). 
25 
 
 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"39. 
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. 
 
 
"40. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public to 
maintain his personal integrity. The respondent also violated his duty to the legal 
profession. 
 
 
"41. 
Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"42. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent 
caused actual injury to the legal profession. 
 
 
"43. 
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: 
 
 
"44. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on one occasion. In 1993, the disciplinary administrator informally 
admonished the respondent for violating the rules requiring diligent representation 
and adequate communication. 
 
 
"45. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct was 
motivated by dishonesty and selfishness. The respondent sought to use unlawful 
26 
 
 
 
means to obtain $1.9 million. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent's misconduct was motivated by dishonesty and selfishness. 
 
 
"46. 
Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule 
violations. The respondent violated KRPC 5.4(d), KRPC 7.1(a), KRPC 8.4(c), and 
KRPC 8.4(g). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"47. 
Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct. The 
respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 5.4(d) (relating to the ownership of his 
law office) and KRPC 7.1(a) (relating to his website). The respondent, however, 
refused to admit that he engaged in any misconduct relating to his dealings with 
WCH. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent refused to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. 
 
 
"48. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1989. At the 
time of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 20 
years. 
 
 
"49. 
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 circumstance present: 
 
 
"50. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The discipline imposed in 1993 is 
remote in character and in time to the misconduct in this case. 
 
 
"51. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has 
thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
27 
 
 
 
'5.11 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
 
. . . . 
 
(b) 
a lawyer engages in any other intentional 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation that seriously adversely 
reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
 
'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. 
 
'5.13 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer's fitness to practice law. 
 
'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 
 
 
"52. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of 6 months. Counsel for the respondent recommended that 
the respondent be permitted to continue to practice and that he be censured by the 
Kansas Supreme Court. 
 
 
"53. 
The respondent engaged in serious misconduct which involved 
misrepresentations. Based upon the seriousness of the misconduct, a suspension is 
28 
 
 
 
warranted. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the 
respondent be suspended for a period of 6 months. 
 
 
"54. 
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 Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350). 
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 the hearing before the panel and the hearing before this 
court. The respondent did not file exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing reports. 
As such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c) and (d) 
(2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 369). 
 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 5.4(d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 639) 
(professional independence of a lawyer); 7.1(a) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 653) 
(communications concerning a lawyer's services); 8.4(c) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) 
(engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation); and 8.4(g) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
29 
 
 
 
672) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and it 
supports the panel's conclusions of law. We adopt the panel's conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the hearing before the panel, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of 
Kansas for a period of 6 months. Respondent recommended he be disciplined by public 
censure. The hearing panel agreed with the office of the Disciplinary Administrator in 
recommending a 6-month suspension. 
 
 
At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the 
office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas for a period of 6 months. 
Respondent stated that he was not opposed to a 6-month suspension. This court is 
not bound by the recommendations of the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel. In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 911-12, 317 P.3d 756 (2014). The 
hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us from 
imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 369); see In re Kline 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). After 
careful consideration, the court holds that a greater sanction is appropriate under 
the circumstances. The uncontested findings demonstrate respondent committed 
multiple acts of professional misconduct, the most troubling being: (1) He engaged 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. KRPC 
8.4(c). Here, the respondent misrepresented information when he 
communicated with Donald Missey and Bill Metzler and in his proposed 
covenant not to sue. Specifically, the respondent claimed that he represented 
50 other landowners when he did not. (2) He engaged in multiple acts of 
conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law. KRPC 8.4(g). 
30 
 
 
 
First, the respondent drafted the covenant not to sue. In that covenant, the 
respondent included a provision to permanently dispose of any and all 
documentation, records, recordings, witness statements, personal contact 
information for potential litigants, research, and all other forms of discovery as 
it pertains to evidence which could be used by his clients and others against 
defendants in a lawsuit of any nature. The respondent's offer to destroy 
evidence is conduct which adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. 
Second, the respondent offered to settle his claims by having WCH wire 
transfer $1.9 million dollars to an offshore account. The respondent stated that 
he wished to have the money transferred to the offshore account as a form of 
"asset protection." The respondent, however, denied that he was attempting to 
avoid paying taxes on the money. The respondent was unable to offer any 
legitimate explanation for "asset protection." Based on all the evidence, it was 
reasonable for the hearing panel to conclude that the respondent was 
attempting to avoid paying taxes on the money he hoped to get from WCH. 
 
 
The respondent refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his 
conduct, particularly as it pertains to the covenant not to sue. We rarely see 
such behavior unaccompanied by any misgivings that reflects so poorly on our 
profession. We find his conduct, which ultimately evolved into a scheme of 
bribery and extortion, to be of such a serious magnitude and unconscionable 
nature that an indefinite period of suspension is warranted. If not fully 
accepting and appreciating that falsely claiming to the representation of over 
50 litigants and offering to destroy all evidence that could be used on their and 
others' behalf in exchange for wiring $1.9 million to an offshore account is 
wrongful, nothing short of the action we are taking today will adequately 
protect the public.  
 
31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Kerry Dale Holyoak be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 
203(a)(2) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 293), as of the date of this order.  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 
218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401), and in the event respondent seeks reinstatement, he 
shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 403).  
 
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.