Opinion ID: 2524618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: DISPOSITION In his brief, respondent states:

Text: The Respondent has requested in his Statement in Mitigation a period of supervision in lieu of suspension. Respondent would contend that the statements made in his Statement in Mitigation detailed the nature of his practice with specificity sufficient to allow the fashioning of a sanction of supervision which would satisfy the conclusion of the Hearing Panel that would allow the Respondent to continue in practice and eliminate or greatly minimize the potential of injury to a client including specifically supervision in the area of personal injury claims, further education in office management and procedures as well as proof of liability coverage. In In re Long, 266 Kan. 664, 972 P.2d 773 (1999), we stated: We suggest to the members of the bar of this state who have the misfortune to appear before the Disciplinary Board and to the attorneys who represent those individuals that they read with care the Internal Operating Rules of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, and in particular I.O. Rule E.8 (1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 272).... We suggest to counsel that it is imperative that the plan be put into place at the earliest possible moment and submitted to the hearing panel for its consideration and `fine tuning' before the panel concludes the hearing. Counsel should not wait until oral argument before the panel or the Supreme Court to come forth with a plan and medical evidence. 266 Kan. at 667. Here, respondent requested that the panel consider probation. However, he did not adhere to any of the requirements of I.O. Rule E.8 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 292). He presented a general statement as to subjects that might be included in a probation plan in a communication to the panel after the hearing had concluded. There never was a plan. Probation is not an option in this case. Neither the Disciplinary Administrator's office nor this court is under any duty to fashion a plan of probation. If a respondent seeks consideration of probation, he or she has the duty to develop a detailed, suitable plan and put it in place at the earliest possible time. We accept the panel's recommended discipline herein and suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of 1 year commencing upon the filing of this opinion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent, W. Fredrick Zimmerman, be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas for a period of 1 year commencing on the date of this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provision of Supreme Court Rule 218 (2000 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 266). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a condition of reinstatement be proof of current malpractice insurance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports and that respondent pay the costs of these proceedings.