Title: In re Mathews   Published Censure   Disciplinary video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 120924
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: September 27, 2019

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 120,924 
 
In the Matter of JOSHUA T. MATHEWS, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed September 27, 2019. Published Censure. 
 
Matthew J. Vogelsberg, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Joshua T. Mathews, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
PER CURIAM:  This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Joshua T. 
Mathews, of Leawood, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the state of 
Kansas on April 25, 2008.  
 
On December 27, 2018, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal 
complaint against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). Respondent filed an untimely answer to the formal complaint on 
January 31, 2019. The parties entered into a written stipulation on February 19, 2019, two 
days prior to the scheduled hearing on the formal complaint.   
 
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a hearing on 
February 21, 2019. Respondent appeared pro se. The hearing panel determined 
respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(g) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (conduct 
2 
 
 
 
adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and Supreme Court Rule 211(b) 
(2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 257) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and a disciplinary recommendation. Respondent took no exceptions to the hearing 
panel's report but reserved the right to argue about the appropriate discipline. 
 
Before this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office endorses the panel's 
findings and recommends respondent receive a censure and that the censure be published 
in the Kansas Reports. Respondent recommends he be informally admonished for his 
rules violations. We quote the report's pertinent parts below.  
 
"Findings of Fact 
 
. . . . 
 
"8. 
Attorneys registered as active are required to earn a minimum of 12 
continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours during each compliance period, ending 
June 30 each year, including two hours of ethics credit. Kan. S. Ct. R. 803(a). One hour 
of CLE credit is awarded for every '50 minutes actually spent in attendance at 
instructional activities, exclusive of introductory remarks, meals, breaks, or other 
noneducational activities.' Kan. S. Ct. R. 804(g)(1). Active attorneys are limited to 
earning eight hours of CLE credit in one day. Kan. S. Ct. R. 806(b). 
 
 
"9. 
The respondent failed to satisfy the CLE requirements for the compliance 
period ending June 30, 2017. 
 
 
"10. 
On September 8, 2017, the respondent attended an in-person video replay 
CLE program in Blue Springs, Missouri, sponsored by the Missouri Bar Association. The 
respondent attended 400 minutes of instruction, spanning 8:40 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The 
respondent did not attend the ethics program offered that day. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
"11. 
On September 8, 2017, while attending the in-person video replay CLE 
program, the respondent also viewed online on-demand CLE programs offered by 
Lawline. The respondent completed five online on-demand CLE programs offered by 
Lawline at 12:35 p.m., 2:10 p.m., 4:06 p.m., 5:23 p.m., and 10:53 p.m. For the Missouri 
bar, the respondent certified that he 'listened/viewed the program in a setting suitable to 
the course and a suitable writing surface was available.' Just below the respondent's 
signatures, the five certificates included statements that a 'materially false statement shall 
be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.' 
 
 
"12. 
The respondent forwarded information to the Kansas CLE Commission 
claiming that he attended 400 minutes of CLE for eight hours of CLE credit, including 
zero hours of ethics credit, for attending the in-person video replay CLE program. The 
respondent also forwarded information to the Kansas CLE Commission claiming 360 
minutes of CLE credit, including 120 minutes of ethics credit for viewing the online on-
demand CLE programs offered by Lawline. The Kansas CLE Commission received the 
information from the respondent on September 11, 2017. 
 
 
"13. 
On September 15, 2017, the respondent completed the certificate of 
attendance regarding the September 8, 2017, in-person video replay CLE program, 
claiming eight hours of Kansas CLE credit, including one hour of ethics credit. Just 
above the respondent's signature, the certificate of attendance states that '[c]laiming hours 
for segments not actually attended could be a violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Kansas Rules 
of Professional Conduct.' On September 18, 2017, the Kansas CLE Commission received 
the certificate. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent testified that his claim of the 
one hour of ethics credit was inadvertent and inaccurate. He acknowledged that he did 
not attend the ethics hour offered at the in-person video replay CLE program. 
 
 
"14. 
After learning that the respondent was claiming more than eight hours of 
CLE credit for one day, Shelley Sutton, Executive Director of the Kansas CLE 
Commission called the respondent. Ms. Sutton asked the respondent whether he viewed 
the online courses while in attendance at the in-person video replay CLE program. The 
respondent falsely denied doing so. The respondent claimed that during the in-person 
4 
 
 
 
video replay CLE program, the respondent merely logged into the Lawline website to 
print out the certificates of attendance. Ms. Sutton asked the respondent to contact 
Lawline and request the 'backlog' which would show the respondent's login and logoff 
times and polling verification. 
 
 
"15. 
About an hour later, the respondent called Ms. Sutton and admitted to her 
that he had watched the online programs while in attendance at the in-person video replay 
program. Ms. Sutton recommended that the respondent self-report his conduct to the 
disciplinary administrator's office. Ms. Sutton informed the respondent that he would not 
receive credit for any of the programming he attended on September 8, 2017. 
 
 
"16. 
On September 22, 2017, the respondent self-reported his conduct. In his 
letter, the respondent stated: 
 
'I received a call today from Shelley Sutton of the Kansas CLE 
Commission, asking me about the CLE hours I had turned in for the 
2016-2017 compliance period. I was late with my hours, and due to last 
minute cancellation of a CLE that I had signed up for, I was attempting 
to get everything wound up at the last minute before suspension letters 
went out. 
 
'On Friday, September 8, 2017 I attended a Missouri Video 
Replay CLE session, attending eight hours of programming. During the 
session, I also viewed online CLE programs available from Lawline. I 
really didn't consider that it might be an ethics violation at the time, or 
violate the rules regarding Continuing Legal Education. That said, it 
should have occurred to me, or I should have researched it more before 
doing so. It also makes sense that the Rules would prohibit this behavior, 
as I'm sure I'm overconfident in my abilities to multitask, and probably 
didn't get the full benefit of either program.' 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
"17. 
The disciplinary administrator's office investigated the respondent's 
conduct. Thereafter, on December 27, 2018, Mr. Vogelsberg filed a formal complaint. 
The respondent filed an untimely answer to the formal complaint on January 31, 2019. 
 
 
"18. 
In the respondent's answer to the formal complaint and during his 
testimony at the disciplinary hearing, the respondent asserted that he does not recall the 
details of the telephone calls which occurred on September 18, 2017, between respondent 
and Ms. Sutton, as he was home sick with the flu that day. The respondent did not deny 
the assertions made by Ms. Sutton, rather he stated that he cannot recall the 
conversations. 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
"19. 
Based upon the respondent's stipulations and the findings of fact, the 
hearing panel concludes as a matter of law that the respondent violated KRPC 8.4 
(professional misconduct) and Kan. S. Ct. R. 211 (duty to file answer), as detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 8.4(c) 
 
 
"20. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The respondent 
engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he falsely denied to Ms. Sutton 
completing the online on-demand CLE program while attending the in-person video 
replay CLE program on September 8, 2017. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent engaged in dishonest conduct and violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
"KRPC 8.4(g) 
 
 
"21. 
'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 timely comply with the annual CLE requirements, when he failed to become 
familiar with the rules relating to continuing legal education, when he failed to recognize 
6 
 
 
 
it is not proper to complete online on-demand CLE programs while attending an in-
person video replay CLE program, and when he inaccurately stated on the CLE affidavit 
that he completed one hour of ethics credit. The hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
"Kan. S. Ct. R. 211(b) 
 
 
"22. 
The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file answers to 
formal complaints within 20 days of the filing of the formal complaint. 
 
'The respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary 
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the complaint 
unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary Administrator or the 
hearing panel.' Kan. S. Ct. R. 211(b). 
 
The formal complaint in this case was filed on December 27, 2018. The respondent failed 
to file his answer within 20 days of that date. The respondent filed an answer on January 
31, 2019. While the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated Kan. S. Ct. R. 
211(b), the respondent's violation in this regard did not prejudice the administration of 
justice or otherwise interfere with the proceeding in this case. 
 
"American Bar Association 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
"23. 
In making a 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. 
 
 
"24. 
Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to the public and the 
legal profession to maintain his personal integrity. 
 
7 
 
 
 
 
"25. 
Mental State. The respondent negligently and knowingly violated his 
duty. 
 
 
"26. 
Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
potential injury to the legal profession. 
 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
 
"27. 
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: 
 
a. 
Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously 
disciplined on two occasions. On August 26, 2016, the disciplinary administrator 
informally admonished the respondent for violating KRPC 1.1. On September 
13, 2018, the disciplinary administrator informally admonished the respondent 
for violating KRPC 1.4. 
 
b. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent falsely denied to Ms. Sutton 
completing the online on-demand CLE program while attending the in-person 
video replay CLE program. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent's 
misconduct included dishonest conduct. 
 
 
"28. 
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: 
 
8 
 
 
 
a. 
Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences 
of Misconduct. Despite his inability to recall the conversations he had on 
September 18, 2017, with Ms. Sutton, the evidence is clear that the respondent 
attempted to correct his false statement within one hour of making the false 
statement. 
 
b. 
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 with the disciplinary process. 
Additionally, the respondent admitted many of the facts alleged in the formal 
complaint. 
 
c. 
Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community Including 
Any Letters from Clients, Friends and Lawyers in Support of the Character and 
General Reputation of the Attorney. The respondent is an active and productive 
member of the bar of Johnson County, Kansas. The respondent also enjoys the 
respect of his peers and generally possesses a good character and reputation as 
evidenced by several letters received by the hearing panel. 
 
d. 
Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The informal admonitions imposed by the 
disciplinary administrator are remote in character (but not in time) to the 
misconduct in this case. 
 
 
"29. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'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. 
 
'6.13 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent 
either in determining whether statements or documents are false 
9 
 
 
 
or in taking remedial action when material information is being 
withheld, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the 
legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse 
effect on the legal proceeding. 
 
'7.3 
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 
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 
 
"30. 
Mr. Vogelsberg recommended that the respondent receive a censure and 
that the censure be published in the Kansas reports. The respondent requested that he be 
informally admonished for his violations of the rules. 
 
 
"31. 
Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards 
listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent be 
censured. The hearing panel further recommends that the censure be published in the 
Kansas Reports. 
 
 
"32. 
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 panel's findings, 
and the parties' arguments and determines whether KRPC violations 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 also 
Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 257) (a misconduct finding must be 
10 
 
 
 
established by clear and convincing evidence). "Clear and convincing evidence is 
'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly 
probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009) (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 untimely answer. He was also given adequate notice of the hearing before the panel 
and the hearing before this court. Respondent filed no exceptions to the final hearing 
report. As such, the panel's factual findings are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 
212(c), (d) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 261).  
 
The evidence before the hearing panel establishes by clear and convincing 
evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 8.4(c) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 387) (conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(g) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 
387) (conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and Supreme 
Court Rule 211(b) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 257) (failure to file timely answer in disciplinary 
proceeding). We adopt the panel's findings and conclusions.    
 
The only remaining issue is determining the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. The hearing panel unanimously recommended respondent receive a censure 
and that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports.  
 
The hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent us 
from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 212(f) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. 
R. 261); In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96, 212-13, 311 P.3d 321 (2013). The respondent's request 
for informal admonition is rejected in light of the nature of his misconduct and prior 
disciplinary offenses in 2016 and 2018. 
 
11 
 
 
 
After careful consideration, the court holds respondent should be censured and that 
the censure be published in the Kansas Reports. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua T. Mathews be and he is hereby 
disciplined by published censure in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(3) (2019 
Kan. S. Ct. R. 240). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports. 
 
BEIER, J., not participating.  
STEPHEN D. HILL, J., assigned.1 
PATRICK D. MCANANY, Senior Judge, assigned.2 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE:  Judge Hill, of the Kansas Court of Appeals, was appointed to 
hear case No. 120,924 vice Justice Beier under the authority vested in the Supreme Court 
by K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 20-3002(c).  
 
2REPORTER'S NOTE:  Under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-
2616, Senior Judge McAnany was appointed to hear case No. 120,924 to fill the vacancy 
on the court by the retirement of Justice Johnson.