Title: In re Clothier (Three-year probation) video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 112658
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 2015

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No.  112,658 
 
In the Matter of LOUIS M. CLOTHIER, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 6, 2015. Three-year probation. 
 
Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause and was on the formal complaint 
for the petitioner. 
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Louis M. 
Clothier, 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, Louis M. Clothier, of Leavenworth, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1981. 
 
 
On July 10, 2014, 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 July 17, 2014. The parties entered 
into written stipulations of facts. A hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of 
the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on August 18, 2014, where the respondent 
was personally present and was represented by counsel. The hearing panel determined 
that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 456) (competence); 1.3 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 475) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 495) 
(communication with client); 3.5(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 626) (communication with 
2 
 
 
 
a judge without delivering copy in writing to adverse counsel); 3.5(d) (engaging in 
undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal); 8.2(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 677) (statements about judges and legal officials); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 8.4(g) 
(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 
 
 
. . . . 
 
"DA11768 
 
 
"9. 
The respondent represented an active military service member in two 
cases:  a protection from abuse action and a divorce action. Debra Snider represented the 
wife in the two cases. 
 
 
"10. 
In January, 2013, outside a courtroom in the Leavenworth County 
District Courthouse, the respondent yelled at Ms. Snider. The respondent then explained 
that he was not upset with Ms. Snider, but was angry at another lawyer in a different case. 
The respondent explained to Ms. Snider that the moral of the story was 'don't fuck with 
me.' 
 
 
"11. 
Also in January, 2013, the respondent and Ms. Snider negotiated 
language in a proposed order trying to resolve issues in the divorce case. Ms. Snider 
believed that an agreement had been reached, but the respondent refused to sign the 
order. Thereafter, Ms. Snider filed an accusation in contempt against the respondent's 
client. 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
"12. 
On February 4, 2013, the court conducted a hearing in the divorce case. 
During the hearing, the respondent stated to the court that Ms. Snider had not been honest 
with the court and made the following statement, 'I never thought I would have to report a 
fellow member of the bar to the ethics committee for being dishonest with the court.' Ms. 
Snider told the respondent to make a report in writing to the proper authority if he had a 
valid complaint. The respondent did not file a complaint against Ms. Snider. 
 
 
"13. 
On February 7, 2013, the court held a hearing on a motion filed by Ms. 
Snider. The respondent believed that he had not received proper notice of the hearing. 
The respondent went to Judge Wiley's chambers to complain about the notice. Ms. Snider 
arrived at Judge Wiley's chambers while the respondent was meeting with Judge Wiley. 
 
 
"14. 
As the respondent left Judge Wiley's chambers, the respondent 
approached Ms. Snider near Judge Wiley's administrative assistant's desk. The 
respondent handed Ms. Snider a piece of paper with proposed dates for the retrieval of 
Ms. Snider's client's personal property. Ms. Snider asked the respondent why he was 
willing to provide dates when just a few days before he was not willing to do so. 
 
 
"15. 
During the conversation, Ms. Snider 'rolled her eyes' at something the 
respondent said. The respondent became angry and called Ms. Snider a liar. The 
respondent stated that there was only one other lawyer in Leavenworth County that was 
more dishonest than Ms. Snider. 
 
 
"16. 
The respondent told Ms. Snider that she was nothing but a histrionic 
woman. During the conversation, the respondent raised his voice, he was very close to 
Ms. Snider, and he was jabbing at her with his finger. The respondent called Ms. Snider a 
'newbie' as she has not been practicing very long in the Leavenworth area. 
 
 
"17. 
Ms. Snider feared that the respondent might attack her. Judge Wiley's 
administrative assistant also feared that the respondent might attack Ms. Snider. As the 
incident progressed, the respondent leaned very close to Ms. Snider and stated, 'why don't 
you just grow a pair and punch me.' Ms. Snider told the respondent that he should 
consider self-reporting his behavior to the disciplinary administrator. 
4 
 
 
 
 
"DA11795 
 
 
"18. 
On May 15, 2012, K.B. retained the respondent to represent him in a 
divorce case and paid the respondent $2,500 for the representation. K.B. informed the 
respondent that he wanted to work out a property settlement agreement with his wife 
before the case was filed and his wife was served. K.B. and the respondent agreed that a 
settlement was not likely if the wife were served before the settlement was worked out. 
 
 
"19. 
K.B. expected to be billed only for the initial consultation until K.B. 
instructed the respondent to proceed. 
 
 
"20. 
Shortly after May 15, 2012, despite K.B.'s understanding, the respondent 
prepared divorce pleadings, including a petition and a request for temporary orders. K.B. 
had not authorized the respondent to prepare the pleadings. 
 
 
"21. 
On October 15, 2012, K.B. went to the respondent's office without an 
appointment. At that time, he was ready to file his divorce. He advised the respondent of 
his new address and his desire to have to have the divorce completed before the holidays. 
Further, K.B. informed the respondent that he wanted to bring his wife to the respondent's 
office to pick up the pleadings rather than have her served. 
 
 
"22. 
Despite K.B.'s instructions, on November 30, 2012, the respondent filed 
the divorce case in Leavenworth County District Court. The pleadings included a 
proposed stipulation and property settlement agreement. On December 6, 2012, the 
respondent sent a filed-stamped copy of the pleadings to K.B. and notified K.B. that a 
hearing had been scheduled for January 31, 2013. 
 
 
"23. 
K.B. did not authorize the respondent to prepare the proposed stipulation 
and property settlement agreement. Further, K.B. did not agree with the contents of the 
property settlement agreement. 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
"24. 
Despite K.B.'s express directions, the respondent made arrangements for 
K.B.'s wife to be served with the pleadings. 
 
 
"25. 
On December 14, 2012, K.B.'s wife filed an answer, counterclaim, and 
motion to modify the temporary orders. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to 
modify the temporary orders for January 3, 2013. The respondent failed to provide K.B. 
with a copy of the answer, counterclaim, and motion to modify. 
 
 
"26. 
On December 19, 2012, the respondent sent K.B. a letter, enclosing 
copies of K.B.'s wife's discovery requests. Again, the respondent did not inform K.B. of 
the pending motion to modify or the hearing scheduled for January 3, 2013. 
 
 
"27. 
On December 20, 2012, the respondent's staff sent an email to K.B. 
requesting that K.B. stop by the office to pick up the discovery requests filed by K.B.'s 
wife. The packet of materials did not include a copy of the answer, counterclaim, or 
motion to modify. On December 21, 2012, K.B. picked up the packet of materials. 
 
 
"28. 
K.B. remained unaware that his wife had filed an answer, counterclaim, 
and motion to modify until December 31, 2012, when the respondent left a telephone 
message for K.B., informing K.B. of the hearing scheduled for January 3, 2013. 
 
 
"29. 
On January 1, 2013, K.B. called the respondent on the telephone. K.B. 
was upset that he was just finding out about the hearing scheduled for January 3, 2013. 
During the telephone conversation, the respondent 'went off' on K.B. The respondent told 
K.B. that K.B. would do what the respondent told him to do. The respondent called K.B. 
a 'son-of-a-bitch' and a 'motherfucker.' K.B. hung up on the respondent. 
 
 
"30. 
On January 2, 2013, at 12:16 a.m., the respondent sent K.B. a copy of the 
answer, counterclaim, and motion to modify as an attachment to an electronic mail 
message. 
 
 
"31. 
On January 2, 2013, Amy Coppola contacted the respondent and 
informed him that she was taking over the representation of K.B. 
6 
 
 
 
 
"DA11873 
 
 
"32. 
On August 7, 2013, the Honorable Dan Wiley, district court judge for 
Leavenworth County, filed a complaint against the respondent. In the complaint, Judge 
Wiley complained of a number of incidents where the respondent engaged in erratic 
behavior. The incidents occurred over a period of 3 years. 
 
 
"33. 
On one occasion, after Judge Wiley announced a decision from the bench 
which was adverse to the respondent's client, the respondent followed the judge to his 
chambers and stated, 'It's a good thing that you are still wearing that robe.' When Judge 
Wiley asked the respondent what he meant by that the respondent said, 'Why don't you 
take it off and step out here and I'll show you?' The respondent's tone was hostile and 
angry and Judge Wiley perceived these words as a threat. 
 
 
"34. 
On another occasion, the respondent confronted Clinton Lee, an attorney, 
in front of Judge Wiley's administrative assistant's desk. The respondent and Mr. Lee had 
a heated exchange about a case. The exchange ended when the respondent threatened to 
'kick Mr. Lee's ass.' Judge Wiley's administrative assistant was frightened for her safety 
and the safety of Mr. Lee. 
 
 
"35. 
At a pre-trial conference, the respondent told opposing counsel to 'go 
jump in a lake.' 
 
 
"36. 
After receiving an adverse ruling in court, the respondent made the 
following statement to the judge, 'You are the poster child for judicial elections.' The 
statement was made at a time when there was a movement to alter the method by which 
judges are chosen in Leavenworth County. 
 
 
"37. 
During a hearing, the respondent stated, 'Be quiet kid, I am talking,' to a 
pro se litigant. 
 
7 
 
 
 
 
"38. 
The respondent referred to opposing counsel, from another jurisdiction, 
as 'Mr. Out-of-Town attorney.' 
 
 
"39. 
On yet another occasion, the respondent admitted to Judge Wiley after a 
hearing at which he had lost his temper that he advised his client that 'he might go to jail 
but he was going to see how far he could push the judge.' 
 
 
"40. 
On May 29, 2013, during a hearing on an order to appear and show cause 
the respondent accused Judge Wiley of colluding with opposing counsel. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  . . .  We have significant problems with the 
Court's interpretation of what the Court said. Question whether the 
Court's read or listened to the tape. Otherwise, there's just—there's just 
too many obvious differences between my notes and the Court's 
recollection. And—it appears to pretty much, in every case, favor the 
motion that's been filed so we would ask the Court to recuse itself at this 
point in time because we believe your actions and the apparent collusion 
indicates some animus towards my client at this point in time. You can't 
tell a client to build me a Empire State Building in 3 months, your 
Honor, and—then deny you said what you said, and then us—, entertain 
a motion and issue an order for—to show cause when the Empire State 
Building is not built. It can't be done and your apparent collusion with 
opposing counsel in the case or animus toward my client is to the ext—
is—to the extent that we think you should recuse yourself and allow 
someone with less emotional—apparently emotional—of feelings 
towards the case to resolve these issues. 
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
'MR. HALL:  Your Honor, I'm—just dumbfounded to have 
counsel allege that the Court— 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  Objection, your Honor. The opinion— 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
'MR. HALL:  —and opposing counsel— 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  —of counsel—of—respondent's counsel is 
irrelevant with regard to my actions. He can—and I would object to 
his— 
 
 
'THE COURT:  All right.  Well,— 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  I did not make any uh—, apparent indication 
or did not accuse him of collusion. 
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  Your Honor, I would just make a comment 
that uh, that uh, figuratively, Mr. Hall put his arm around you and said 
you're a good judge. You just do whatever you think—you know, that—
will help us. But go ahead, Judge, — 
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
'THE COURT:  You're coming dangerously close to impugning 
the Court at this moment. I'm not going to tolerate that. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  Your Honor, I've said what I've said. If you 
make—if you think that's the case, then you make the decision you got to 
make. 
 
 
'THE COURT:  Well, what you're asserting is that there's 
collusion between Mr. Hall and me and the last comment about putting 
his arm around me or I need to read whatever— 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  It's a figure of speech, your Honor. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
'THE COURT:  —that you just state— 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  I didn't— 
 
 
'THE COURT:  And it's inappropriate. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  —impugn you. 
 
 
'THE COURT:  Mr. Clothier, stop. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  I impugned him. 
 
 
'THE COURT:  Stop. It's inappropriate. You're impugning 
everybody. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  You may not like— 
 
 
'THE COURT:  Stop. 
 
 
'MR. CLOTHIER:  —what I say— 
 
 
'THE COURT:  Stop. I'm talking now. I've let you guys say what 
you wanted to say. I've listened to it. It is now my turn to talk. Stop. I 
don't want to hear another word at this moment.  . . .' 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
 
"41. 
The parties stipulated that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, 
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 3.5(c), KRPC 3.5(d), KRPC 8.2(a), KRPC 8.4(d), and KRPC 8.4(g). 
Accordingly, based on the parties' stipulation and the findings of fact above, the hearing 
panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 
3.5(c), KRPC 3.5(d), KRPC 8.2(a), KRPC 8.4(d), and KRPC 8.4(g), as detailed below. 
10 
 
 
 
 
"KRPC 1.1 
 
 
"42. 
Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC 
1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' The respondent violated KRPC 
1.1 by having K.B.'s wife served with divorce pleadings, despite his client's express 
directions. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 
1.1. 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
 
"43. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to provide diligent 
representation to K.B. by failing to promptly notify K.B. that his estranged wife filed a 
motion to modify the temporary orders. Because the Respondent failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, the hearing panel 
concludes that the Respondent (repeatedly) violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
 
"44. 
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, for a 6-month period of time, the respondent failed to keep 
K.B. informed regarding the status of the divorce proceedings, in violation of KRPC 
1.4(a). Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 
1.4(a). 
 
"KRPC 3.5(c) 
 
 
"45. 
Under KRPC 3.5(c), a lawyer shall not: 
 
11 
 
 
 
'communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of a 
cause with a judge or official before whom an adversary proceeding is 
pending except: 
 
(1) 
in the course of official proceedings in the 
cause;  
 
(2) 
in writing, if the lawyer promptly delivers a 
copy of the writing to opposing counsel or to the adverse 
party if unrepresented;  
 
(3) 
orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel 
or the adverse party if unrepresented;  
 
(4) 
as otherwise authorized by law or court rule.' 
 
In this case, the respondent violated KRPC 3.5(c) when he communicated with Judge 
Wiley without proper notice to opposing counsel, regarding the notice of a motion to 
compel return of personal property. Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
violated KRPC 3.5(c). 
 
"KRPC 3.5(d) 
 
 
"46. 
'A lawyer shall not . . .  engage in undignified or discourteous conduct 
degrading to a tribunal.' KRPC 3.5(d). In this case, the respondent engaged in undignified 
or discourteous conduct. First, the respondent engaged in undignified or discourteous 
conduct degrading to a tribunal when he stated to Judge Wiley that 'It's a good thing that 
you are still wearing that robe' and 'Why don't you take it off and step outside and I'll 
show you?' Further, the respondent violated KRPC 3.5(d) when he told Judge Wiley that 
Judge Wiley was 'poster child' for judicial elections. As a result, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 3.5(d). 
 
12 
 
 
 
"KRPC 8.2(a) 
 
 
"47. 
KRPC 8.2(a) provides: 
 
 
'A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be 
false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the 
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal 
officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal 
office.' 
 
The respondent made a statement that he knew to be false when he stated that Judge 
Wiley was in collusion with opposing counsel. As such, the hearing panel concludes that 
the respondent violated KRPC 8.2(a). 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"48. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this case, the Respondent 
engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' in relation to his 
conduct with Ms. Snider. The respondent accused Debra Snider of being dishonest. The 
respondent stated that Ms. Snider was 'nothing but a histrionic woman' and 'a newbie.' 
And, while in Judge Wiley's office, the respondent jabbed his finger at Ms. Snider and 
stated in a loud voice that Ms. Snider should 'grow a pair and punch' him. Additionally, 
the respondent engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice 
when he engaged in threatening conduct in the presence of Judge Wiley's administrative 
assistant, including when he threatened to kick Mr. Lee's 'ass.' Finally, the respondent 
engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he called 
opposing counsel, 'Mr. Out-of-Town Attorney,' when he told opposing counsel to 'go 
jump in the lake,' and when he told a pro se litigant 'Be quiet kid, I am talking.' As such, 
the hearing panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
13 
 
 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"49. 
'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). In 
this case, the respondent engaged in 'conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's 
fitness to practice law' when he called K.B. a 'son-of-a-bitch' and a 'motherfucker.' 
Further, the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g) when he told his client that 'he might go to 
jail, but he was going to see how far he could push the judge.' Accordingly, the hearing 
panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"50. 
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. 
 
 
"51. 
Duty Violated.  The Respondent violated his duty to his client to provide 
competent and diligent representation. The respondent violated his duty to his client to 
provide reasonable communication. The respondent violated his duty to the public and 
the legal profession to maintain his personal integrity. Finally, the respondent violated his 
duty to the legal system to refrain from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice. 
 
 
"52. 
Mental State.  The Respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"53. 
Injury.  As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent 
caused actual injury to his client, the legal profession, and the legal system. 
 
14 
 
 
 
 
"54. 
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: 
 
 
"55. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses.  The respondent has been disciplined on two 
previous occasions. First, in 1994, the disciplinary administrator informally admonished 
the respondent for violating KRPC 8.4(b) and KRPC 8.4(g). Then, in 2010, the 
disciplinary administrator informally admonished the respondent for having violated 
KRPC 1.9. 
 
 
"56. 
A Pattern of Misconduct.  The respondent engaged in a pattern of 
abusive behavior. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent's pattern of 
misconduct is an aggravating factor in this case. 
 
 
"57. 
Multiple Offenses.  The respondent violated eight violations of the 
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent committed multiple offenses. 
 
 
"58. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The respondent has 
substantial experience in the practice of law. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted the 
respondent to the practice of law in 1981. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent 
had been practicing law for more than 30 years. 
 
 
"59. 
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: 
 
 
"60. 
Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive.  The respondent's misconduct 
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. 
 
15 
 
 
 
 
"61. 
Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed 
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.  The respondent's mental 
health issues amount to emotional problems and the emotional problems contributed to a 
violation of the rules. 
 
 
"62. 
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 cooperated during the hearing and fully and freely 
acknowledged his misconduct. 
 
 
"63. 
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 has been an active and productive member of 
the bar of Leavenworth, Kansas. The respondent appears to enjoy the respect of his 
friends and peers and generally possesses a good character and reputation as evidenced 
by letters received by the hearing panel. 
 
 
"64. 
Mental Disability or Chemical Dependency Including Alcoholism or 
Drug Abuse When (1) there is Medical Evidence that the Respondent is Affected by a 
Chemical Dependency or Mental Disability; (2) the Chemical Dependence or Mental 
Disability Caused the Misconduct; (3) the Respondent's Recovery from the Chemical 
Dependency or Mental Disability is Demonstrated by a Meaningful and Sustained Period 
of Successful Rehabilitation; and (4) the Recovery Arrested the Misconduct and 
Recurrence of that Misconduct is Unlikely.  The respondent's mental disability is a 
mitigating factor in this case. 
 
 
"65. 
In May and June, 2013, Christy Blanchard, Ph.D., evaluated the 
respondent. She concluded that the respondent suffered from generalized anxiety 
disorder, depressive disorder not otherwise specified, attention deficit hyperactivity 
disorder not otherwise specified, and narcissistic personality disorder with obsessive 
compulsive personality disorder traits. Dr. Blanchard stated that the respondent's 
'decision to seek inpatient treatment is an excellent first step toward effectively 
addressing his mental health issues.' Dr. Blanchard continued, '[c]onsistent with Dr. 
16 
 
 
 
Robertson's recommendations, individual therapy two to three times weekly is suggested 
upon his release to maintain his gains and further progress with his treatment goals.' 
Finally, Dr. Blanchard set forth minimum treatment goals for the respondent: 
 
'1. 
Identify and modify maladaptive thought patterns, especially 
those that encourage rigid, inflexible and unrealistic expectations 
of self and others. 
 
'2. 
Develop insight into etiology of anger issues as well as the 
disproportionate magnitude of his responses. 
 
'3. 
Increase self-awareness about how his behavior affects other 
people. 
 
'4. 
Develop and implement effective stress management strategies 
so that he can create and maintain a better balance between work 
responsibilities and his personal life. Within this goal, Mr. 
Clothier should identify and incorporate pleasurable leisure 
activities into his personal life. 
 
'5. 
Develop and implement effective emotional regulation skills, 
including but not limited to strategies that: 
 
a. 
decrease anger and impulsivity; 
 
b. 
manage anger appropriately when it emerges;  
 
c. 
decrease overall worry and anxiety; and 
 
d. 
mitigate depressive symptoms. 
 
'6. 
Given that Mr. Clothier's health appears to impact his mood and 
behavior, strategies should also be developed to help him 
17 
 
 
 
maintain his newly adopted healthy lifestyle that includes 
changes to diet, as recommended by his physician, and exercise. 
 
'7. 
Receive a psychotropic medication evaluation by a board 
certified psychiatrist and adhere to prescribed medication 
regime.' 
 
 
"66. 
In August, 2013, the respondent was admitted into an inpatient 
behavioral treatment facility, Pine Grove, in Mississippi, for a period of 90 days, for 
evaluation and treatment. Upon admission, the respondent was diagnosed with impulse 
control disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and narcissistic 
personality traits. At the time of discharge, the respondent was diagnosed with bipolar I 
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, impulse control disorder, narcissistic personality 
disorder with obsessive-compulsive traits, and antisocial traits. 
 
 
"67. 
While at Pine Grove and following his period of inpatient treatment, the 
respondent has made significant improvements in his behavior and his ability to control 
his anger. 
 
 
"68. 
After leaving Pine Grove, the respondent has worked with John M. 
Robertson, Ph.D. According to Dr. Robertson's July 29, 2014, report: 
 
 
'Summary Statement.  Since his return from Mississippi, the 
behavior of Mr. Clothier has been monitored closely. The following 
observations can be made, based on my own observations in individual 
therapy sessions, statements to me from his other treaters, and reports 
from his family and his workplace. 
 
 
'At this point in time, Mr. Clothier: 
 
• 
Has a more thorough understanding of the forces 
that have driven his maladaptive behavior over 
18 
 
 
 
the course of his life—their sources, origins, and 
expressions 
 
• 
Recognizes more fully the impact his angry 
behavior has had on others in the workplace, and 
he has offered apologies to those he believes he 
has offended 
 
• 
Can communicate openly about problematic 
issues in non-defensive ways 
 
• 
Has strengthened his stress management skills 
 
• 
Has developed emotional distress tolerance 
skills 
 
• 
Can identify risk patterns early in their 
development 
 
• 
Has ceased using alcohol completely, and is 
attending AA meetings regularly 
 
• 
Has reported numerous interactions in which he 
has "caught himself" in the "about to" moment, 
just before he previously would have lost control 
of his language in professional settings—and he 
has responded more reflectively and less 
reactively as a result. 
 
 
'Since 2003, I have observed between 900 and 1,000 
professionals who were required to seek treatment because of their 
maladaptive behavior in the workplace (disruptive behavior, 
19 
 
 
 
unprofessional boundary crossings, inappropriate substance use, and 
behavior generated by various psychiatric conditions). 
 
 
'Mr. Clothier is an example of how much difference a focused, 
intensive treatment program followed by a personalized aftercare plan 
can make in the life of a professional who is highly intelligent, 
motivated, and cooperative with his treaters. 
 
 
'In the last 15 months, the "night and day" difference in his 
appearance, demeanor, and behavior is striking. He now listens. He 
accepts responsibility. He acknowledges risk. He is keen to observe the 
impact his behavior is having on others. Even his visage and mannerisms 
have changed, as he has become softer, more emotionally aware, more 
kindly, more empathic. Gone are the characteristic expressions of 
defiance, suspicion, dismissiveness, and accusatory anger. 
 
 
'Mr. Clothier is a treatment success story, and the chances of his 
relapsing into behaviors like those that got him into difficulty appear to 
be minimal. With his aftercare supports in place, I believe he is fit to 
engage in the fulltime practice of law.' 
 
 
"69. 
In addition to his mental health issues, the respondent is also an 
alcoholic. The respondent has undergone treatment for his alcoholism. The respondent is 
subject to a monitoring agreement with the Kansas Lawyers' Assistance Program. The 
respondent is compliant with the program. 
 
 
"70. 
Based upon the evidence presented by the respondent, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent's mental disability is a mitigating factor. First, there is 
medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a mental disability. Next, the mental 
disability caused the misconduct. Third, the respondent's recovery from the mental 
disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful 
rehabilitation. Finally, the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that 
misconduct is unlikely. 
20 
 
 
 
 
 
"71. 
Remorse.  At the hearing on the formal complaint, the respondent 
expresses genuine remorse for his misconduct. At some point prior to the hearing, the 
respondent made heartfelt apologies to Ms. Snider and others affected by his misconduct. 
 
 
"72. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses.  The 1994 informal admonition is remote 
in time to the misconduct in this case. The 2010 informal admonition is remote in 
character to the misconduct in this case. 
 
 
"73. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'6.32 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in 
communication with an individual in the legal system when the 
lawyer knows that such communication is improper, and causes 
injury or potential injury to a party or causes interference or 
potential interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding. 
 
'7.2 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the 
public, or the legal system.' 
 
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"74. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of 6 months. The disciplinary administrator also recommended 
that the respondent be required to undergo a hearing under Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 219 prior to 
consideration of reinstatement. The respondent recommended that his plan of probation 
be adopted and that he be allowed to continue to practice, subject to the terms and 
conditions of his proposed plan of probation. 
 
21 
 
 
 
 
"75. 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(g) sets forth the procedure to follow when 
probation is requested: 
 
'(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 fourteen 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. 
 
'(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 
fourteen 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 
22 
 
 
 
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.' 
 
 
"76. 
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 at least 14 days prior to 
the hearing on the formal complaint. The respondent put 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. It appears that the misconduct can be 
corrected by probation. 
 
 
"77. 
The only remaining factor to consider is whether . . . probation is in the 
best interests of the legal profession and the citizens of the State of Kansas. The 
respondent has made remarkable progress in the past year. Dr. Robertson accurately 
characterized the respondent's change in his demeanor and in his interactions with others 
as 'night and day.' 
 
 
"78. 
Further, two district court judges were called to comment on the 
respondent's request for probation. The following exchanges occurred during the hearing: 
 
'Q. 
[By Chairman McInteer] . . .  Do you—as a judge who has had 
Mr. Clothier appear before him since the treatment, do you 
believe that probation would be an appropriate arrangement that 
he could work under and still practice and it would work 
appropriate in his case? 
 
23 
 
 
 
'A. 
[By Judge Dan Wiley] Yes. 
 
'Q. 
[By Mr. Ambrosio] . . .  Do you think that [the respondent] can 
operate with a practice supervisor like Mr. Bates? 
 
'A. 
[By Judge David J. King] Absolutely. 
 
'Q. 
Why? 
 
'A. 
I have no questions. Because [the respondent] is a different 
person. I think he's found some degree of peace, I think he's 
found some degree of insight in his own life. And I make that 
assumption because just the way he appears and the insight, the 
introspective qualities that I think that he has. I do know that 
Ron Bates would go to the last inch to help [the respondent]. I 
know that Tom Dawson I believe would go to the last inch to 
help [the respondent]. And I think that [the respondent] most 
importantly is in a position in his life now where it appears to me 
he will go to the last inch to help himself and that's the most 
important.' 
 
 
"79. 
Because of the respondent's significant rehabilitation, the hearing panel 
unanimously recommends that the Kansas Supreme Court grant the respondent's request 
for probation, under the terms set forth below: 
 
1. 
Duration of Probation. The respondent will remain on probation 
for 3 years from the date of the Supreme Court's opinion. 
 
2. 
Supervision.  G. Ronald Bates will supervise the respondent's 
practice. As the respondent's practice supervisor, Mr. Bates will be 
afforded all immunities granted by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 223. 
 
24 
 
 
 
a. 
The respondent will allow the practice 
supervisor access to his client files, calendar, 
and trust account records. 
 
b. 
The respondent will comply with any requests 
made by the practice supervisor. 
 
c. 
The respondent will meet with the practice 
supervisor every week. During the regular 
meetings, the respondent and the practice 
supervisor will (1) discuss open cases, including 
cases which present any difficulties, (2) review 
the respondent's calendar for the upcoming two 
weeks for deadlines, court appearances, etc., and 
(3) review the respondent's trust account 
records. 
 
d. 
If, after 18 months, the practice supervisor 
concludes that meeting every week is not 
necessary, the practice supervisor may meet with 
the respondent on less frequent basis for the 
remaining probation period. 
 
e. 
The practice supervisor will provide written 
monthly reports to the disciplinary 
administrator. The monthly reports will detail 
the respondent's compliance with each of the 
terms and conditions of probation. 
 
f. 
If the practice supervisor discovers that the 
respondent violated the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct or any term or condition of 
probation, the practice supervisor will 
25 
 
 
 
immediately report the violation to the 
disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
3. 
Law Office Organization. The respondent will establish 
and utilize a diary and docketing system which includes a mechanism by 
which approaching court deadlines and statutes of limitations are noted. 
The respondent will review each of his cases at least every 2 weeks to 
determine what action needs to be taken. The respondent will update his 
calendar on a daily basis. 
 
 
4. 
Audits. The practice supervisor will conduct audits of the 
respondent's files every 6 months, beginning November 1, 2014, and 
continuing throughout the time the respondent remains on probation. The 
practice supervisor will make a report of each audit. In conducting the 
audits, the practice supervisor will review each of the respondent's open 
case files. In the report of the audit, the practice supervisor will 
determine if deadlines were met, if the respondent maintained adequate 
communication, and if there were any irregularities in the cases. 
Additionally, the practice supervisor will note any matters which amount 
to a violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct or the Rules 
Relating to the Discipline of Attorneys. In the audit report, the practice 
supervisor will also provide the respondent with a list of changes to 
incorporate in his practice to improve the respondent's practice. The 
practice supervisor will provide a copy of the audit report to the 
respondent and the disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
5. 
Court Deadlines. The respondent will meet all deadlines 
set by the courts or statutes. The respondent will appear in court for all 
hearings scheduled on cases in which he is counsel of record. 
 
 
6. 
Communication. The respondent will return all 
telephone calls from current clients within two business dates of receipt.  
26 
 
 
 
The respondent will respond to all written correspondence from current 
clients within one week. 
 
 
7. 
KALAP Monitoring.  Throughout the period of 
probation, the respondent will continue to be monitored through 
KALAP. The respondent will comply with all terms and conditions 
contained in the monitoring agreement. The respondent will keep his 
KALAP monitor informed of his treatment plan and the names of the 
treatment providers. Any deviation from the monitoring agreement shall 
be reported to the practice supervisor and the disciplinary administrator. 
The disciplinary administrator will exercise discretion in determining 
whether any deviation from the monitoring agreement amounts to a 
violation of the respondent's probation. 
 
 
8. 
Log.  The respondent shall maintain his log, referenced 
during the hearing on the formal complaint, current, throughout the 
period of probation. The respondent shall allow his KALAP monitor to 
review the log at any time during the period of probation. 
 
 
9. 
Treatment. The respondent will continue to comply with 
the treatment plan established by his treatment professionals by 
participating in counseling and by taking prescribed medications. The 
respondent will not discontinue his participation in counseling or 
discontinue taking his medication unless the treatment providers 
determine that counseling or medication is no longer warranted. A 
treatment provider will provide the practice supervisor, the disciplinary 
administrator, and the KALAP monitor with quarterly updates. The 
quarterly updates will include the respondent's compliance with the 
treatment plan, the respondent's progress in treatment, and the 
respondent's prognosis. 
 
 
10. 
Releases.  The respondent will execute releases 
necessary to allow his practice supervisor, KALAP monitor, KALAP 
27 
 
 
 
executive director, treatment professionals, and the disciplinary 
administrator, to freely discuss the respondent's status, progress, and 
cooperation with treatment and monitoring. 
 
 
11. 
Cooperation. The respondent will attend any scheduled 
meetings with the disciplinary administrator. The respondent will 
provide information as requested by the disciplinary administrator. 
 
 
12. 
Additional Violations. The respondent will comply with 
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Relating to the 
Discipline of Attorneys. If the respondent violates the Kansas Rules of 
Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to the Discipline of Attorneys, 
or any term or condition of probation, during the period of probation, the 
respondent will immediately report the violation to the disciplinary 
administrator. 
 
 
13. 
Termination of Probation. Under Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 
211(g)(8), the respondent will remain on probation, even after 3 years' 
time, until the Supreme Court releases the respondent from probation. 
 
 
"80. 
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) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 363). 
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the 
28 
 
 
 
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) 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 383). 
 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 1.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
456) (competence); 1.3 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 475) (diligence); 1.4(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 495) (communication with client); 3.5(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 626) 
(communication with a judge without delivering copy in writing to adverse counsel); 
3.5(d) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal); 8.2(a) 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 677) (statements about judges and legal officials); 8.4(d) (2014 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); 
and 8.4(g) (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. 
 
At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office of 
the Disciplinary Administrator modified its recommendation that the respondent be 
suspended for a period of 6 months and undergo a hearing pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 219 prior to consideration of reinstatement. Instead, the Disciplinary Administrator 
joined the respondent's and the hearing panel's request that the submitted plan of 
probation be adopted and that respondent be allowed to continue to practice law subject 
to the terms and conditions of his proposed plan of probation under the terms set forth in 
its final hearing report. 
29 
 
 
 
 
 
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 court 
bases each disciplinary sanction on the specific facts and circumstances of the violations 
and aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented in the case. Mintz, 298 Kan. at 
912. This court has taken the position that, while prior cases may have some bearing on 
the sanctions that the court elects to impose, those prior cases must give way to 
consideration of the unique circumstances that each individual case presents. In re Busch, 
287 Kan. 80, 86-87, 194 P.3d 12 (2008). This court concerns itself less with the sanctions 
that were appropriate in other cases and more with which discipline is appropriate under 
the facts of the case before us. In re Dennis, 286 Kan. at 738. 
 
 
In this case, the respondent developed a workable, substantial, and detailed plan of 
probation. The respondent put the proposed plan of probation into effect well in advance 
of the panel's hearing and has complied with its terms and conditions ever since. Further, 
the hearing panel concluded that the misconduct can be corrected by the proposed 
probation and that it is in the best interests of the legal profession and the citizens of 
Kansas to place the respondent on probation subject to the plan's strict terms and 
conditions. Finally, the Disciplinary Administrator, at oral argument before this court, 
recognized the extraordinary efforts made by the respondent in his recovery and fulfilling 
the requirements of probation by submitting a plan that provides for considerably more 
and stricter conditions than is required. 
 
 
We agree with the parties' and the hearing panel's recommendation, and we hold 
that respondent shall be placed on probation, per Paragraph 79 of the hearing panel's final 
report. We find that the probation plan should be imposed with the modification that if 
the probation is revoked and a suspension invoked due to respondent's failure to comply 
30 
 
 
 
with the terms and conditions of the probation plan, he must have a reinstatement hearing 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 415). 
 
 
A minority of the court would impose a greater sanction of suspension. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Louis M. Clothier be and is hereby disciplined by 
imposition of the proposed probation plan for a period of 3 years in accordance with 
Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(5) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306). 
 
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. 
 
BILES J., not participating. 
 
MICHAEL J. MALONE, Senior Judge, assigned.1 
 
                                                 
 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE:  Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 112,658 under 
the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616 to fill the vacancy on the court 
created by the appointment of Justice Nancy Moritz to the United States 10th Circuit Court of 
Appeals.