Title: In re Barker video
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 112967
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 2015

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 112,967 
 
In the Matter of JAMES T. BARKER, II, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 12, 2015. Indefinite suspension. 
 
Deborah L. Hughes, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
Respondent did not appear. 
 
Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, James T. Barker, II, of Blue Springs, 
Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1995. 
 
 
On July 24, 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 did not file an answer. A hearing was held on the 
complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on October 28, 
2014, where the respondent did not appear. The hearing panel determined that respondent 
violated KRPC 5.5(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 650) (unauthorized practice of law); 7.1 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 662) (communications concerning a lawyer's services); 7.5(a) 
(2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 669) (firm names and letterhead); 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 670) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary 
authority); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
2 
 
342) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 
208(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 356) (failure to notify Clerk of the Appellate Courts of 
change of address); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
414) (notification of clients upon suspension). 
 
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 July 31, 2013, the respondent forwarded the annual registration form 
and associated fee to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts. However, because the fee was 
received after July 31, 2013, the respondent was assessed a late fee. The Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts notified the respondent that if he did not pay the late fee, his license to 
practice law would be suspended. 
 
"9. 
On August 9, 2013, the respondent entered his appearance on behalf of 
R.K. in an off-grid felony criminal case in Johnson County District Court, case number 
13CR1658, before Judge Kevin Moriarty. Thereafter, Judge Moriarty scheduled the 
preliminary hearing for October 1, 2013. 
 
"10. 
The respondent failed to pay the late fee and, as a result, on September 
18, 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order suspending the respondent's license 
to practice law. The respondent did not file a motion to withdraw nor did he notify the 
court, counsel, and his client that his license to practice law had been suspended, as 
required by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218. 
 
"11. 
On October 1, 2013, the respondent appeared with R.K. for the 
preliminary hearing before Judge Moriarty. The respondent represented R.K. during the 
preliminary hearing. Additionally, that day, the respondent wrote a letter to the 
prosecutor requesting a plea offer. 
 
3 
 
"12. 
On October 21, 2013, the respondent forwarded the late fee to the Clerk 
of the Appellate Courts and requested that his license to practice law be reinstated. On 
October 31, 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court entered an order reinstating the 
respondent's license to practice law. 
 
"13. 
In December, 2013, Judge Moriarty learned that the respondent's license 
to practice law had been suspended from September 18, 2013, through October 31, 2013. 
Judge Moriarty held a telephone conference with the respondent and the prosecutor. 
Judge Moriarty gave the respondent the opportunity to investigate the matter and provide 
a response by December 20, 2013. The respondent failed to provide Judge Moriarty with 
a response by December 20, 2013. 
 
"14. 
On December 23, 2013, the respondent wrote to Judge Moriarty, 
responded in part to the issue, and informed the judge that he was continuing to 
investigate the matter. 
 
"15. 
On December 24, 201[3], the prosecutor filed a complaint with the 
disciplinary administrator's office. On January 9, 2014, the disciplinary administrator 
wrote to the respondent and directed the respondent to provide a written response to the 
complaint within 20 days. The respondent failed to provide a written response to the 
complaint as directed. 
 
"16. 
On March 6, 2014, and April 21, 2014, William Delaney, special 
investigator with the disciplinary administrator, wrote to the respondent and directed him 
to provide a written response to the complaint. Finally, on April 28, 2014, the respondent 
sent Mr. Delaney a written response to the complaint. 
 
"17. 
In his response, the respondent admitted that he practiced law while his 
license was suspended from September 18, 2013, to October 31, 201[3]. The respondent's 
response was written on his letterhead. According to his letterhead, 'The Law Office of 
James T. Barker' is located at '605 U.S. Highway 40, Suite 164, Blue Springs, MO 
64014.' However, the respondent does not have a law office at that address. Rather, that 
address is a UPS Store. The respondent has rented a mailbox at the UPS Store. 
 
4 
 
"18. 
On July 24, 2014, the disciplinary administrator filed the formal 
complaint and notice of hearing. On that date, a copy of the formal complaint and notice 
of hearing was mailed to the respondent at his last registration address, certified delivery, 
postage prepaid. The package containing the formal complaint and notice of hearing was 
returned to the disciplinary administrator and marked, 'RETURN TO SENDER 
UNABLE TO FORWARD.' 
 
 
"Conclusions of Law 
 
"19. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 7.1, KRPC 7.5(a), KRPC 8.1(b), 
KRPC 8.4(d), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 
218(a), as detailed below. 
 
"20. 
The respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the formal complaint. It 
is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a respondent fails to appear only if proper 
service was obtained. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary 
proceedings. That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows: 
 
'(a) 
Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in 
any disciplinary proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary 
Administrator, either by personal service or by certified mail to the 
address shown on the attorney=s most recent registration, or at his or her 
last known office address. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
'(c) 
Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be 
deemed complete upon mailing whether or not the same is actually 
received.' 
 
In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by 
sending a copy of the formal complaint and the notice of hearing, via certified United 
States mail, postage prepaid, to the address shown on the respondent=s most recent 
5 
 
registration. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent was afforded the notice that 
the Kansas Supreme Court Rules require. 
 
 
"KRPC 5.5(a) 
 
"21. 
KRPC 5.5(a) prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. After the Kansas 
Supreme Court suspended the respondent's license to practice law, the respondent 
continued to practice law. Specifically, the respondent represented R.K. at the 
preliminary hearing held on October 1, 2013. Additionally, that same day, the respondent 
wrote a letter to the prosecutor requesting a plea agreement in R.K.'s case. As such, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a). 
 
 
"KRPC 7.1 and KRPC 7.5(a) 
 
"22. 
KRPC 7.1 provides: 
 
'A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication 
about the lawyer or the lawyer=s services. A communication is false or 
misleading if it: 
 
(a) 
contains a material misrepresentation of 
fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the 
statement considered as a whole not materially 
misleading.' 
 
And, KRPC 7.5(a) provides: 
 
'A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other 
professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A trade name may be 
used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with 
a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services 
organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1.' 
 
6 
 
The respondent violated KRPC 7.1 and KRPC 7.5(a) when he used letterhead which 
made it appear as though he had a physical office located at 605 U.S. Highway 40, Suite 
164, Blue Springs, MO 64014, when, in fact, that address is a UPS Store. The 
respondent's letterhead is materially false. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the 
respondent violated KRPC 7.1 and KRPC 7.5(a). 
 
 
"KRPC 8.4(d) 
 
"23. 
'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 practiced law at a 
time when his license to do so was suspended. The respondent's conduct required the 
court and opposing counsel to examine whether the preliminary hearing in an off grid 
felony case had to be heard for a second time. As such, the hearing panel concludes that 
the respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d). 
 
 
"KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) 
 
"24. 
Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) and 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) provide the requirements in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection 
with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand 
for information from [a] . . . disciplinary authority, . . . .' KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this state to aid 
the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and the Disciplinary 
Administrator in investigations concerning complaints of misconduct, 
and to communicate to the Disciplinary Administrator any information 
he or she may have affecting such matters.' 
 
Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). The respondent knew that he was required to timely forward a 
written response to the initial complaint—he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in 
writing by the disciplinary administrator and the special investigator. Because the 
respondent knowingly failed to provide a timely written response to the initial complaint 
7 
 
filed by the prosecutor, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC 
8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b). 
 
 
"Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c) 
 
"25. 
All attorneys are required to provide a current address to the Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c) provides: 
 
'On or before June 1 of each year the Clerk of the Appellate 
Courts shall mail to each individual attorney then registered in this state, 
at his or her last known address, a statement of the amount of the 
registration fee to be paid on or before July 1. Failure of any attorney to 
receive a statement from the Clerk shall not excuse the attorney from 
paying the required fee. Every registrant shall within thirty days after any 
change of address notify the Clerk of such change.' 
 
The hearing panel concludes that the respondent failed to notify the Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts of his current address, because mail sent to that address was returned 
with a note that the post office was unable to forward the mail. Therefore, the hearing 
panel concludes that the respondent failed to update his address with the Clerk of the 
Appellate Courts and, in doing so, violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c). 
 
 
"Kan. Sup Ct. R. 218(a) 
 
"26. 
Upon suspension or disbarment, attorneys must take certain action. Kan. 
Sup. Ct. R. 218(a) provides the requirements in this regard: 
 
'Attorney's Duty. When the Supreme Court issues an order or 
opinion suspending or disbarring an attorney or striking the attorney's 
name from the roll of attorneys, the attorney must, within 14 days of the 
order or opinion: 
 
(1) 
notify each client, in writing, that the attorney is 
suspended, disbarred, or is no longer authorized 
8 
 
to practice law and the client should obtain new 
counsel; 
 
(2) 
notify all opposing counsel, in writing, that the 
attorney is suspended, disbarred, or is no longer 
authorized to practice law; 
 
(3) 
notify all courts where the attorney is counsel of 
record and the chief judge of the district in 
which the attorney resides, in writing, that the 
attorney is suspended, disbarred, or is no longer 
authorized to practice law;  
 
(4) 
file a motion to withdraw in each case in which 
the attorney is counsel of record; and  
 
(5) 
notify each jurisdiction, in writing, where the 
attorney is or has been authorized to practice law 
that the attorney is suspended, disbarred, or is no 
longer authorized to practice law.' 
 
Thus, upon suspension, the respondent was required to notify his clients, opposing 
counsel, and the courts of the suspension of his license to practice law. The respondent 
never notified R.K., the prosecutor, or the court of his suspension. Accordingly, the 
hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(a). 
 
 
"American Bar Association 
 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
 
"27. 
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 
9 
 
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
factors. 
 
"28. 
Duty Violated.  The respondent violated his duty to his client and the 
legal system to comply with court rules and properly attend to the registration 
requirements of the practice of law. 
 
"29. 
Mental State.  The respondent knowingly violated his duties. 
 
"30. 
Injury.  As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused 
potentially serious injury to the legal system. 
 
 
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
 
"31. 
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: 
 
"32. 
Multiple Offenses.  The respondent committed multiple rule violations. 
The respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 7.1, KRPC 7.5(a), KRPC 8.1(b), KRPC 
8.4(d), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(a). 
Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent committed multiple 
offenses. 
 
"33. 
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law.  The Kansas Supreme 
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1995. At the time 
of the misconduct, the respondent has been practicing law for more than 18 years. 
 
"34. 
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 no circumstances 
present. 
 
10 
 
"35. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'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 
 
"36. 
The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
 
"37. 
Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the 
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent 
be indefinitely suspended. 
 
"38. 
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. 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]). 
 
11 
 
The respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he 
did not file an answer; he filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing report. 
With no exceptions before us, the panel's findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme 
Court Rule 212(c), (d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 383). Furthermore, the evidence before the 
hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct in violation of KRPC 5.5(a) (2014 Kan. 
Ct. R. Annot. 650) (unauthorized practice of law); 7.1 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 662) 
(communications concerning a lawyer's services); 7.5(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 669) 
(firm names and letterhead); 8.1(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 670) (failure to respond to 
lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority); 8.4(d) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. 
Annot. 680) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 342) (failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 208(c) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 
356) (failure to notify Clerk of the Appellate Courts of change of address); and Kansas 
Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414) (notification of clients upon 
suspension) by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of 
law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions. 
 
The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's 
violations. At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent did not appear, the 
office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the respondent be indefinitely 
suspended. The hearing panel also recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended. It is important to note that respondent was served with notice of the hearing 
before this court by the clerk's office by certified mail which respondent signed showing 
his receipt and acceptance of same. When a respondent fails to appear before this court 
when facing recommendations of indefinite suspension, a sanction greater than that 
recommended by the Disciplinary Administrator or panel, even up to disbarment, may be 
warranted. Certainly, the lack of an appearance at a hearing before this court qualifies as 
an additional aggravator of these circumstances under consideration. See In re Batt, 296 
Kan. 395, 294 P.3d 241 (2013). We also note that had the respondent been candid with 
12 
 
the district court in December 2013 and followed through with the opportunity to clarify 
his licensing status at that time, this matter would not likely be before us at all today. 
However, given the circumstances of this case as it now stands coupled with the 
Disciplinary Administrator's continued recommendation of indefinite suspension despite 
respondent's absence, we hold indefinite suspension to be appropriate in this case. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that James T. Barker, II be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in 
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(2) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 306). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414), and in the event the respondent would seek 
reinstatement, he shall comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 219 (2014 
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 415). 
 
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.