Title: In re Florez.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 110241
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 2014

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 110,241 
 
In the Matter of PANTALEON FLOREZ, JR., 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed January 24, 2014. Six-month suspension, which 
is stayed during a probationary period of 5 years, subject to the terms and conditions specified. 
 
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 Pantaleon 
Florez, Jr., respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam:  This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Disciplinary 
Administrator's office against the respondent, Pantaleon Florez, Jr., of Topeka, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1981. 
 
 
On August 31, 2012, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent answered on September 24, 2012. The disciplinary 
administrator and respondent entered into a written stipulation on February 25, 2013. A 
panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on February 27, 
2013, where respondent appeared in person and through counsel. The hearing panel 
determined that respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 655) 
(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). 
2 
 
 
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. 
On February 25, 2013, the respondent, his counsel, and Mr. Hazlett 
entered into a written stipulation. In the stipulation, the respondent admitted to facts as 
detailed below. Additionally, the respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.4(d) and 
KRPC 8.4(g). The stipulation provided as follows: 
 
'COMES NOW the Disciplinary Administrator's Office, through Stanton 
A. Hazlett, and the respondent, through John Ambrosio, and enter into 
the following stipulation in Case DA11,388. Both the Disciplinary 
Administrator's Office and the respondent understand that this stipulation 
is not binding on the panel hearing this case or on the Kansas Supreme 
Court. The Disciplinary Administrator and the respondent stipulate as 
follows: 
 
'1. 
Pantaleon Florez, Jr. is an attorney at law, Kansas Attorney 
Registration No. 10889. . . .   
'2. 
On September 9, 2008, the complainant, [L.L.], filed a paternity 
action in Sedgwick County District Court in which it was alleged that the 
respondent, Pantaleon Florez, Jr., was the father of A.L. The complainant 
sought a determination of visitation and custody and temporary orders. 
 
'3. 
The respondent filed an Answer on September 26, 2008, in 
which he stated that he was without sufficient information to admit or 
deny that he was the father of A.L. He represented himself at this time. 
 
'4. 
On December 2, 2008, the court ordered that the respondent pay 
temporary child support in the amount of $500.00 a month from the date 
of the child's birth, August 26, 2008. Also, on December 2, 2008, the 
3 
 
court ordered the respondent to provide income information and 
complete a domestic relations affidavit. On December 4, 2008, the 
respondent was served with interrogatories and a request for production 
of documents. The respondent had 30 days, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-233 
and 234, until January 4, 2009, to answer the interrogatories. By this time 
it had been determined that the respondent was the father of A.L. 
 
'5. 
On January 26, 2009, the complainant filed a motion to compel 
respondent to provide income information, including the respondent's 
2007, and 2008, income tax returns and bank statements. The 
complainant requested that the respondent file his domestic relations 
affidavit. On January 28, 2009, an amended motion to compel was filed. 
In that motion, complainant's counsel alleged that respondent had not 
provided income information previously requested. The respondent did 
file a domestic relations affidavit on March 27, 2009. 
 
'6. 
On February 24, 2009, the respondent was ordered by the court 
to provide complainant's counsel with copies of the respondent's 2006, 
2007 and 2008 tax returns by April 15, 2009. The respondent was to 
provide his 2004 and 2005 tax returns within ten days of February 24 and 
to respond to interrogatories within 30 days. Also on February 24, 2009, 
the complainant filed an Affidavit In Contempt alleging that the 
respondent had failed to provide the documents previously ordered by 
the court to be produced. 
 
'7. 
On June 1, 2009, the complainant filed a motion seeking various 
temporary orders. In that motion, the complainant noted that the 
domestic relations affidavit filed by the respondent was incomplete, the 
2006, 2007 and 2008 tax returns had not been produced as ordered by the 
court and that other financial information had not been provided as 
promised by the respondent. 
 
'8. 
On September 17, 2009, a hearing was held after which Judge 
Patrick Walters ordered that the respondent pay child support in the 
4 
 
amount of $918.00 a month from the date of A.L.'s birth. The Judge 
imputed $80,000.00 in yearly income to the respondent. The respondent 
had not provided tax returns for the years 2007, and 2008, as ordered by 
the court because he had not filed returns for those years. In addition, the 
complainant was awarded judgment for medical bills in the amount of 
$1,021.18, reimbursement of lab costs for DNA tests in the amount of 
$420.00 and attorney's fees assessed against the respondent in the 
amount of $15,408.93 to be paid to the attorney for the complainant. The 
court's orders were journalized on February 22, 2010. At the September 
17, 2009, hearing the respondent acknowledged that he had not provided 
tax returns for the years 2007 and 2008 to opposing counsel as ordered 
by the court. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Walters admonished 
the respondent for his failure to provide his tax returns to counsel in spite 
of court orders to do so on several occasions. Judge Walters cited the 
respondent's failure to comply with the judge's orders regarding 
providing income information to opposing counsel as the basis for 
imputing income of $80,000.00 to the respondent. 
 
'9. 
 On June 24, 2010, the respondent filed an appeal of the court's 
ruling regarding imputed income and the attorney's fees awarded against 
the respondent. On July 15, 2011, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed 
the trial court's ruling on all issues. 
 
'10. 
 On July 30, 2010, the complainant filed a motion requesting that 
the respondent be held in contempt. The motion set out allegations that 
the respondent had again failed to file to pay [ sic ] child support, 
medical expenses and DNA costs. 
 
'11. 
On August 10, 2010, a hearing was held at which the respondent 
was ordered by Judge Robb Rumsey to provide financial information 
regarding his law practice within ten days to the complainant's counsel. 
The respondent was also ordered to provide his accounts receivables and 
billing statements from his law practice to opposing counsel within 30 
days. On October 26, 2010, the complainant filed a Motion For 
5 
 
Attorney's Fees, Costs And Sanctions. In that motion it was alleged that 
the respondent had not complied with the orders of the court made 
August 10, 2010. On January 19, 2011, an Order was signed by Judge 
Rumsey in which the respondent was again ordered to provide the 
complainant documents requested by the complainant on August 10, 
2010. In the order, the respondent was ordered to pay an additional 
$750.00 in attorney's fees incurred by the complainant. 
 
'12. 
On February 4, 2011, the motion for contempt filed by the 
complainant on July 30, 2010, was heard by the court. At that hearing, 
the respondent stipulated that the allegations contained in the 
complainant's Motion And Affidavit In Contempt were truthful and that 
he owed a child support arrearage through August of 2010. He also 
agreed to a judgment for past due medical expenses and for DNA costs. 
Further, the respondent stipulated that he had funds available to pay his 
court-ordered obligations as set forth in the Affidavit Of Contempt and 
did not pay the same. The respondent admitted that the majority of funds 
paid on his various obligations were collected as a result of significant 
efforts by the complainant's attorney, including the garnishment of funds. 
The court granted judgment against the respondent in the amount of 
$5,536.21 for a child support arrearage due and owing as of February 24, 
2011. A judgment in the amount of $10,000.00 was granted against the 
respondent in favor of the complainant to pay her attorney's fees incurred 
in connection with the case and collection attempts related to the same. 
The respondent was also ordered to pay his court-appointed attorney's 
fees in the amount of $2,025.00. On February 4, 2011, the court also 
heard evidence on the request of the respondent to reduce his child 
support. On the issue of the respondent's request to modify his child 
support, the court dismissed that motion and granted a judgment against 
the respondent in the amount of $4,993.00 for attorney's fees incurred by 
the complainant's attorney in connection with defending that matter. 
 
'13. 
The respondent stipulates that his failure to provide documents 
to the complainant's counsel as ordered by the court and his failure to pay 
6 
 
court ordered financial obligations, including his child support, in a 
timely fashion is prejudicial to the administration of justice and violated 
KRPC 8.4(d). Further, the respondent agrees that his conduct adversely 
reflects on his fitness to practice law and violates KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
'14. 
The respondent and the Disciplinary Administrator recommend 
to the panel hearing this case and to the Kansas Supreme Court that 
published censure is the appropriate discipline for the respondent's 
conduct as set out in this stipulation. Both the respondent and the 
Disciplinary Administrator understand that the recommendation is not 
binding on either the panel or the Kansas Supreme Court. 
 
'15. 
The respondent and counsel for the Disciplinary Administrator's 
Office have discussed aggravating and mitigating factors with respect to 
the recommendation. Evidence of those factors will be presented at the 
hearing. 
 
'16. 
The respondent agrees to report to the Disciplinary 
Administrator's Office any finding made by the court in his paternity 
action in Sedgwick County that he has failed to comply with a court 
order or that sanctions have been assessed against him. A finding by a 
judge in the respondent's paternity action that he has violated a court 
order or that sanctions have been assessed will result in the Disciplinary 
Administrator's Office requesting an order to show cause before the 
Kansas Supreme Court with a recommendation that the respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in Kansas.' 
 
 
"9. 
On March 26, 2013, the hearing panel [Footnote: Mr. Ridenour presided 
over the hearing in person. Mr. Milbourn also appeared in person at the hearing. With the 
agreement of the parties, Mr. Badgerow appeared by telephone.] conducted the hearing 
on the formal complaint. The respondent appeared in person, with counsel, John J. 
Ambrosio. The disciplinary administrator appeared through Mr. Hazlett. 
 
7 
 
 
"10. 
During the hearing, the hearing panel admitted Exhibits 1 through 9, 
offered by the disciplinary administrator. The respondent did not offer any exhibits. 
 
 
"11. 
The hearing panel accepts the stipulation of the parties and hereby 
incorporates the factual statements included above as the findings of fact. 
 
 
"12. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d) and KRPC 8.4(g), as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
 
"13. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that 
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). The respondent engaged in 
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he failed to provide 
documents to counsel as ordered by the court. Additionally, the respondent engaged in 
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he failed to pay court-
ordered financial obligations, including child support, in a timely fashion. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"14. 
'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). The 
respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law when 
he failed to comply with court orders to provide documents and timely meet financial 
obligations, including child support. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent 
violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
 
"15. 
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 
8 
 
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. 
 
 
"16. 
Duty Violated.  The respondent violated his duty to the public to 
maintain his personal integrity. Additionally, the respondent violated his duty to the legal 
system to comply with court orders. 
 
 
"17. 
Mental State.  The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
 
"18. 
Injury.  As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
actual injury to the administration of justice. 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
 
"19. 
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: 
 
 
"20. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses.  The respondent has been informally 
admonished on four previous occasions. First, in 1995, the respondent was informally 
admonished for failing to timely file an appeal from an adverse ruling in a Kansas Civil 
Service Board case. Additionally, in that case, the respondent also failed to adequately 
communicate with his client. 
 
 
"21. 
In 2000, the respondent was informally admonished for failing to 
promptly respond to an order to show cause in a client's bankruptcy case. 
 
 
"22. 
In 2002, the respondent failed to appear at a hearing in a limited action 
case. As a result of the respondent's failure to appear, the court entered judgment against 
the respondent's client and dismissed the respondent's client's counterclaim. 
 
9 
 
 
"23. 
In 2010, the respondent was informally admonished when he failed file a 
case within the statute of limitations and failed to adequately communicate with his 
client. 
 
 
"24. 
A Pattern of Misconduct.  The respondent has engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by repeatedly failing to comply with court orders. As such, the hearing panel 
concludes that the respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. 
 
 
"25. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1981. At the time 
of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for approximately 28 years. 
 
 
"26. 
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: 
 
 
"27. 
The Present and Past Attitude of the Attorney as Shown by the Attorney's 
Cooperation During the Hearing and the Attorney's Full and Free Acknowledgment of 
the Transgressions. The respondent entered into a stipulation with the disciplinary 
administrator. The respondent admitted to many factual allegations and two rule 
violations. 
 
 
"28. 
Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions.  The court required the 
respondent to pay more than $30,000 in attorney fees in the paternity action. 
 
 
"29. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses.  The misconduct involved in the previous 
disciplinary complaint is remote in character to the misconduct involved in this case. The 
misconduct involved in the most recent informal admonition is not remote in time to the 
misconduct in this case.   
 
 
"30. 
Any Statement by the Complainant Expressing Satisfaction with 
Restitution and Requesting No Discipline. L.L. sent the disciplinary administrator a letter 
which provided: 
10 
 
 
'Please note that it is neither my intent or my desire to cause [the 
respondent] any harm with regard to his professional life. I do believe he 
should be required to pay me the money he owes me and to comply with 
all court orders in our case.' 
 
 
"31. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standard: 
 
'6.22 
Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a 
court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a 
client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a 
legal proceeding.'  
 
"Recommendation 
 
 
"32. 
In the stipulation, the parties jointly recommended that the respondent be 
censured for his misconduct. Further, the parties recommended that the censure be 
published in the Kansas Reports. Finally, the parties recommended that should the 
respondent engage in further misconduct, the respondent be suspended from the practice 
of law. 
 
 
"33. 
The ABA Standards indicate that suspension is appropriate in a case like 
this. However, based upon the stipulation of the parties and mitigating circumstances, the 
hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be censured and the censure 
be published in the Kansas Reports. Further, if the respondent fails to comply with a 
court order or if sanctions are assessed against him in the paternity action, the hearing 
panel recommends that the respondent be suspended for a period of six months. 
 
 
"34. 
Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
11 
 
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, the discipline to 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) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356). 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. The Disciplinary Administrator's office and respondent entered into a written 
stipulation upon which the panel's final hearing report was based in part. Respondent 
filed no exceptions to that final hearing report. As such, the panel's findings of fact are 
deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 375). 
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged misconduct violated KRPC 8.4(d) (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. 
 
The only remaining issue for this court is the appropriate discipline for 
respondent's violations. At the hearing before this court, the office of the Disciplinary 
Administrator and respondent jointly requested that respondent be censured for his 
misconduct; that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports; and, should the 
respondent engage in further misconduct, the respondent should be suspended from the 
practice of law. 
12 
 
The hearing panel recommended censure published in the Kansas Reports, and it  
further recommended this court order that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for a period of 6 months if he again engages in misconduct by failing to comply with 
a court order or if sanctions are assessed against him in the paternity action. 
 
The hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us 
from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 375); see In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). A majority of 
this court accepts the hearing panel's recommendations with the modifications set out 
below. Three members of this court would impose an immediate 6-month suspension 
from the practice of law. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Pantaleon Florez, Jr., be suspended from the 
practice of law in the state of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) 
and (5) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 300), for a 6-month period but that imposition of this 
discipline shall be stayed and respondent placed on probation for a 5-year period from the 
date this opinion is filed. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Pantaleon Florez, Jr., engages in further 
misconduct during his probationary period by failing to comply with a court order or if 
sanctions are assessed against him in the paternity action, a show cause order shall issue 
and this court will take whatever disciplinary action appears just and proper without 
further formal proceedings. 
 
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.   
 
13 
 
 
NUSS, C.J., and LUCKERT, J., not participating. 
 
ATCHESON and POWELL, JJ., assigned.1 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE: Judge G. Gordon Atcheson and Judge Anthony J. Powell, of 
the Kansas Court of Appeals, were appointed to hear case No. 110,241 vice Chief Justice 
Nuss and Justice Luckert respectively pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme 
Court by K.S.A. 20-3002(c).