Court Opinion

ID: 9929393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:07:30.88385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:05.582619
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                             CCR No. 1364

                                 In the Matter of DANA BURKDOLL,
                                            Respondent.

                           ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

        Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held September 15, 2023. Opinion filed
February 2, 2024. Twelve months' probation.

        Todd N. Thompson, appointed disciplinary counsel for the State Board of Examiners of Court
Reporters, argued the cause and was on the brief for the petitioner.

        James B. Biggs, of Cavanaugh, Biggs & Lemon, P.A., of Topeka, argued the cause and was on
the brief for the respondent.

        PER CURIAM: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the State Board
of Examiners of Court Reporters (Board) against respondent, Dana Burkdoll, a court
reporter.

        On July 11, 2022, a Notice of Hearing was filed alleging that respondent engaged
in conduct in three different cases which violated the provisions of Supreme Court Rule
367 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 464), Rules Adopted by the State Board of Examiners of
Court Reporters, Board Rules Nos. 9.F.2, professional incompetency; 9.F.3, knowingly
making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations as a court reporter;
and 9.F.6, fraud in representations relating to skill or ability as a court reporter. (2023
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 468-69). Respondent was served with the Notice of Hearing on July 11,
2022.

                                                     1
      The parties filed a stipulation of facts for each of the three cases on August 1,
2022, which the Board ultimately adopted and incorporated into its findings:

                                     "STIPULATION OF FACTS
                           "(Attorney General's Office [CCR 1364-07-2021])

      "The parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:

              "1.    Between 5-10-21 and 5-26-21, Respondent was the reporter for nine
      depositions in Peppiatt v. State of Kansas in the U.S. District Court for the District of
      Kansas, Case No. 20-CV-1257.

              "2.    On 6-21-21, defendant's counsel contacted Respondent to check on the
      status of the transcripts.

              "3.    Respondent represented she would 'get all of them to you this week,' and
      that 'the first set' was already 'completed.'

              "4.    Having not received the transcripts by 6-29-21, defense counsel Shon D.
      Qualseth sent an email that received no response.

              "5.    On 7-6-21, Respondent was contacted by plaintiff's counsel regarding the
      promised transcripts. Respondent represented that the parties 'should expect them today.'

              "6.    On several other occasions, Respondent received requests from counsel
      involved in the case for the transcripts of the depositions.

              "7.    Respondent made various excuses for why the transcripts were not
      completed, and repeatedly promised delivery of the transcripts.

                                                      2
         "8.   On 7-12-21, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Summary Judgment.

         "9.   ....

         "10. The Court granted the parties' Motion and extended the deadline to file
dispositive motions to 9-7-21.

         "11. On 7-26-21, Respondent emailed parties' counsel and stated that she was
'assisting David in production to get the finals out to you in the next two day [sic], so you
all can meet your deadlines.'

         "12. The dispositive motion deadline was 8-1-21.

         "13. On 8-10-21, defendant's counsel contacted Respondent by email to check
on the status of the deposition transcripts.

         "14. Respondent advised with the following: 'The transcripts are being process
[sic], I have attached two of the drafts I am proofing first. During my absence, the new
proofers were checking these over, and will send finals asap.'

         "15. Respondent sent another response by email that stated in part: 'On
Personal Note, I had a COVID death 3 weeks ago, in my immediate family. So again the
delay is on me as the reporter, but rectifying immediately.'

         "16. On 8-17-21, the Kansas Department of Administration sent an email to
Respondent inquiring about the status of the transcripts. Respondent has no record of the
email.

         "17. Respondent advised to the Department of Administration: 'Received . . . we
at Midwest Reports is [sic] back on track . . .'

                                               3
         "18. On 8-19-21, defendant's counsel had a deposition with Respondent in an
unrelated case. Respondent stated that the two drafts she had attached to her 8-10-21
email were in such bad shape that she would send out revised transcripts for the
witnesses' review.

         "19. (This item intentionally left blank.)

         "20. On 8-23-21, defendant's counsel reviewed the final transcript from the
interrupted deposition taken on 8-19-21 in the aforementioned unrelated case. It was
largely error-free.

         "21. On 8-23-21, Respondent again responded to the Department of
Administration's request: 'All Hutchinson Correctional will go out to Shon and his office
today, and he will have all seven before end of week to meet his court deadlines.'

         "22. On 9-1-21, the parties received drafts of two of the Peppiatt deposition
transcripts.

         "23. On 9-3-21, a Status Conference was held with Judge Lungstrum in the
Peppiatt case. Respondent indicates she had no information or knowledge regarding this.

         "24. A joint oral Motion to Stay the case was granted.

         "25. All deadlines and the trial were stayed.

         "26. The parties were ordered to provide a status report in 60 days if they had
not received the deposition transcripts. Respondent indicates she had no information or
knowledge regarding this.

         "27. On 9-8-21, counsel received an email from Respondent: '[W]e are
completing the last few deposition this week in Pepp[ia]tt case, and we will continue to
email them over. . . . But by Sunday of this week should all be completed, with the help
and assistance I have in the office now.'

                                              4
         "28. On 10-5-21, the parties received a draft of a third deposition transcript.

         "29. In response, plaintiff's counsel wrote to Respondent: 'The Final Transcript
you attached is not complete. It ends on page 8, essentially when the depo was just
starting.'

         "30. Plaintiff's counsel also listed the transcripts of the witnesses the parties
were waiting on.

         "31. Respondent advised: 'We made the wrong PDF. Will resend.'

         "32. On 10-5-21, the parties received the first complete transcript.

         "33. The witness had no changes to the transcript.

         "34. On 10-6-21, the parties received two more complete transcripts.

         "35. The witnesses made minor changes to the transcripts.

         "36. On 10-18-21, Respondent emailed counsel: 'The balance of finals will be
done in the next few days here in office, as I subbed them out to an outside proofers and
they came back needing to have more work done to them . . . [M]y priority are these
Peppiatt files for the next few days.'

         "37. On 10-29-21, Defendants' counsel asked for a status update from
Respondent on the remaining transcripts.

         "38. Respondent advised: 'The update will be to everyone on the email by
Monday [11/1/21]. They are almost done and will update you then.'

         "39. On 11-2-21, Respondent emailed counsel at 8:21 a.m.: 'Will have the
update to you by noon today.'

                                               5
          "40. At 12:16 p.m., Respondent emailed counsel: 'Please report to Judge
Lundstrum [sic] on Friday, November 5th, the balance of the Peppiatt Transcripts will
be delivered to all Parties.' Respondent then listed only five of the six outstanding
depositions.

          "41. Plaintiff's counsel emailed Respondent to ask about the status of defendant
Van Hoose's transcript. Respondent advised: 'His is done. Will resend from production
today.'

          "42. As of 11-2-21, the parties had not received transcripts for six of the
depositions.

          "43. On 11-2-21, the parties filed a Status Report. In the Report, the parties
jointly moved for an order to compel Respondent to produce final, completed transcripts
by 11-19-21. Respondent indicates she had no information or knowledge regarding this.

          "44. The Status Report was emailed to Respondent.

          "45. The Court extended the stay of all proceedings through 12-15-21, with
another Status Report due on the same day.

          "46. The Court retained under advisement the parties' Motion to Compel the
production of the remaining transcripts.

          "47. On 11-4-21, attorney Shon Qualseth of the Attorney General's office
submitted a complaint to the Board of Examiners of Court Reporters on behalf of several
attorneys in the Attorney General's office, including Bryan Ross, Art Chalmers, and
Natasha Carter (now general counsel at the Department of Corrections).

          "48. The Board notified Respondent of the complaint submitted against her.
Respondent indicates no information was sent to her.

                                               6
         "49. On 11-5-21, the parties received the fourth complete transcript. Respondent
sent an email to the parties: 'The finals of all Peppiatt Transcripts our MWR Production
will resend to everyone on email list . . . And send hardcopies of all Peppiatt finals to
both offices.'

         "50. On 11-22-21, the parties received seven draft and final transcripts of the
nine depositions taken.

         "51. On 11-22-21, Plaintiff's counsel emailed Respondent stating the parties had
not received a transcript of defendant Williams or of plaintiff's testimony.

         "52. Respondent advised: 'Will have production resend the correct documents to
all in email. It will be a little later today, but will be done.'

         "53. On 11-22-21, Respondent contacted Judge Lungstrum's courtroom deputy,
Sharon Scheurer, for permission to 'get the 3 draft files to the parties before 11/24/21.'
Judge Lungstrum granted permission.

         "54. 11-28-21, the parties received a 'final' version of one witness's transcript.
Other than misspelling one name, there were no errors.

         "55. On 11-29-21, the parties received a 'final' version of defendant Van Hoose's
transcript. There were no errors.

         "56. On 12-14-21, the parties filed a Second Status Report. Respondent
indicates she had no information or knowledge regarding this.

         "57. As of 12-14-21, the parties had not received the two remaining transcripts.

         "58. The Second Status Report was emailed to Respondent. Respondent
indicates she had no information or knowledge regarding this.

                                                 7
        "59. The parties again jointly moved for an Order to Compel Respondent to
produce final, completed transcripts this time by 12-31-21.

        "60. On 12-15-21, the Court extended the stay of all proceedings through 1-21-
22, with another Status Report due on the same day.

        "61. The Court retained under advisement the parties' Motion to Compel the
production of the remaining transcripts.

        "62. On 1-7-22, defendants' counsel again asked Respondent for a status update
on the remaining transcripts.

        "63. Respondent advised: 'Tommy and Erin's files will be to you this weekend
in electronic format. Hardcopies Monday 1/10/22.'

        "64. On 1-14-22, the parties received plaintiff's deposition transcript. There
were no errors.

        "65. On 1-21-22, the parties filed a Third Status Report. As of that date, the
parties had not received the one remaining transcript.

        "66. The Third Status Report was emailed to Respondent.

        "67. The parties again jointly moved for an Order to Compel Respondent to
produce final, completed transcripts this time by 2-4-22.

        "68. On 1-22-22, the parties received the one remaining transcript (defendant
Williams's deposition).

        "69. On 1-24-22, the parties received copies of exhibits used in defendant
Williams's deposition.

                                             8
        "70. On 1-25-22, the Court ordered the stay to continue to 2-25-22.

        "71. . . . .

        "72. The court further ordered that Respondent was admonished that if the final
completed transcripts were not delivered to counsel by 2-4-22, the Court will consider
moving forward at that time on the parties' request for a Motion to Compel.

        "73. On 2-21-22, defendant's counsel furnished the errata sheet for defendant
Williams's deposition. Other than errors regarding names, there were no other errors.

        "74. On 2-25-22, the parties filed a Fourth Status Report with the Court. The
parties stated that they had finally received all deposition transcripts and were ready for
the Court to establish deadlines to move the case forward. Respondent indicates she had
no information or knowledge regarding this.

        "75. The dispositive motion deadline that was originally scheduled to 8-2-21
was rescheduled to 4-8-22.

        "76. The jury trial previously scheduled for 1-18-22, was rescheduled for 9-19-
22. Respondent indicates she had no information or knowledge regarding this."

                              "STIPULATION OF FACTS
                        "(McCray Complaint [CCR 1364-08-2021])

        "The parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:

        "1.   On 6-29-21, Respondent was the reporter for the deposition of defendant
Alan Gast in Riley County District Court Case No. 2020-CV-000065, Reynolds v. Gast, et
al.
        "2.   On 8-5-21, at 3:22 p.m., Respondent received a request for the transcripts
from Cheryl Little, a paralegal at Norris Keplinger Hicks & Welder in Leawood, KS.

                                              9
        "3.   On 8-20-21, at 11:56 a.m., Respondent replied to the request: 'Cheryl;
Wanted to updated you and Mr. Norris and your office. We are finishing up Mr. Gates
final and will have to you this weekend. But wanted to send an update.'

        "4.   On 8-25-21, at 2:32 p.m., Respondent sent marked exhibits via electronic
mail to Ms. Little. Respondent included: 'Received your call today, and final transcript
just about done. Will keep you posted today and tomorrow.'

        "5.   On 9-10-21, at 2:20 p.m., Respondent received a second request for the
transcripts from Ms. Little.

        "6.   On 12-8-21, Courtney McCray, an attorney at the firm of Norris, Keplinger,
Hicks, & Welder, submitted a complaint to the Board of Examiners of Court Reporters.

        "7.   The Board notified Respondent of the complaint submitted against her.

        "8.   On 2-7-22, at 9:36 a.m., Respondent confirmed the transcripts were
received by attorney McCray.

        "9.   On 3-14-22, Respondent submitted a written answer to the complaint.

        "10. In the written answer, Respondent acknowledged the reasons for the delay:
'(1). Staffing shortage in 2021, and court reporter's family members passings from
COVID. [Four] immediate family members, within a six-month period. (2). There is no
excuse for the delay, and to delay client, and all parties. And all issues for reporter and
our reporting office have been remedied. (3). There were no charges to any client with
this case of Reynolds vs. Ebert Mayo, and sincerest apologies for the delay to all the
parties involved in case was made directly. (4). The COVID Pandemic has made me as a
reporter more aware of deadlines, and to have a backup plan in case the reporter,
(myself), and owner for a freelance firm has to have someone to take over their position
in extreme times as I have experienced.'"

                                             10
                                   "Stipulation of Facts
                        "(Gibbons Complaint [CCR 1364-01-2022])

         "The parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:

         "1.   On 11-12-21, Respondent was the reporter for two depositions in
Manhattan, KS in the case of Livingston Enterprises v. Farmers' Cooperative, CI 18-46,
Jefferson County, NE.

         "2.   The two depositions were of Dr. Bia and Dr. Jones.

         "3.   On 12-14-21, at 8:20 a.m., Respondent received the first written request for
the transcripts from Alyssa Osler, a paralegal at Woodke & Gibbons in Omaha, NE.

         "4.   On 12-14-21, at 8:45 a.m., Respondent replied to the first request: 'Alyssa;
Let me check with my proofer now to see if they are done, And we will get these out to
you asap.'

         "5.   On 12-16-21, at 9:36 a.m., Respondent received a second written request
for the transcripts from Ms. Osler. Respondent failed to reply to this request.

         "6.   On 12-20-21, at 1:39 p.m., Respondent received a third written request for
the transcripts from Ms. Osler.

         "7.   On 12-20-21, at 1:46 p.m., Respondent replied to the third written request:
'Hi Alyssa: the finals will be this week, as I am in the office finishing those for your
attorneys before the holiday. Apologies for the delay. But it will be in next two days this
week.'

         "8.   On 12-23-21, at 7:55 a.m., Respondent received a fourth written request for
the transcripts from Ms. Osler.

                                             11
        "9.    On 12-23-21, at 8:27 a.m., Respondent replied to the fourth written
request: 'Hi Alyssa: Thank you for checking in. I am presently working on those 2 files.
And will do everything I can to get them to you before 1:00. But if it is after, 1:00 do I
still email them to you direct.' Respondent, two minutes later, after receiving an answer to
her question, promised the transcripts by the end of that week, 'Yes you will have them to
week definite. As I am still in office rest week getting files out.'

        "10. On 12-26-21, at 5:10 p.m., Respondent received a fifth written request for
the transcripts from Ms. Osler. Respondent failed to reply to this request.

        "11. On 12-28-21, at 2:08 p.m., Respondent received a sixth written request for
the transcripts from Ms. Osler. Respondent failed to reply to this request.

        "12. On 12-29-21, at 4:53 p.m., Respondent received a seventh written request
for the transcripts from Michael Gibbons, an attorney at Woodke & Gibbons in Omaha,
NE.

        "13. On 12-29-21, at 4:55 p.m., Respondent replied to the seventh written
request: 'Mike: They will be done asap. And I am not leaving office until I have sent
them to you and Alyssa.'

        "14. On 12-30-21, at 6:59 a.m., Respondent received an eighth written request
for the transcripts from attorney Gibbons. Respondent failed to reply to this request.

        "15. On 12-30-21, at 9:04 a.m., Respondent received a ninth written request for
the transcripts from Ms. Osler.

        "16. On 12-30-21, at 9:38 a.m., Respondent replied to the ninth written request:
'Yes, Mike has updated me you need these two files asap for expert today after 1:00 p.m.'

        "17. On 12-30-21, at 3:37 p.m., Respondent received a tenth written request for
the transcripts from attorney Gibbons.

                                              12
         "18. On 12-30-21, at 3:38 p.m., Respondent replied to the tenth written request:
'Mike: Will have file to you soon, and no problems with files, And will have today.'

         "19. On 12-30-21, at 6:34 p.m., Respondent received an eleventh written request
for the transcripts from attorney Gibbons.

         "20. On 12-30-21, at 6:35 p.m., Respondent replied to the eleventh written
request: 'Mike: And you will have them by 8.'

         "21. On 12-31-21, after 3:00 p.m., Respondent produced only Dr. Jones's
transcript.

         "22. On 1-3-21, at 8:46 a.m., Respondent promised Dr. Bia's transcript by the
end of the day to Mary Harrington, an office manager at Woodke & Gibbons in Omaha,
NE.

         "23. On 1-4-21, at 6:55 a.m., Respondent received a twelfth written request for
Dr. Bia's transcript from Ms. Harrington.

         "24. On 1-4-22, at 7:31 a.m., Respondent replied to the twelfth written request:
'Mary: Haven't emailed it yet. And yes the file is in tact, And in office since 5 finishing.'

         "25. On 1-4-22, attorney Gibbons submitted a complaint to the Board of
Examiners of Court Reporters.

         "26. The Board notified Respondent of the complaint submitted by attorney
Gibbons.

         "27. On 3-14-22, Respondent submitted an answer to the complaint submitted
by attorney Gibbons.

                                             13
               "28. In the written answer, Respondent acknowledged the reasons for the delay:
       '(1). Staffing shortage in 2021, and court reporter's family members passings from
       COVID. [Four] immediate family members, within a six-month period. (2). There is no
      excuse for the delay, and to delay client, and all parties. And all issues for reporter and
      our reporting office have been remedied. (3). There were no [charges] to Mr. Gibbons
      with this case of Livingston Enterprises, In. Vs. Farmers Corporation, Case No. CI 18-
      46, and sincerest apologies for the delay to all the parties involved in case was made
      directly. (4). This delay was due to new staff responses to emails being new and
      inexperienced. (5). The COVID Pandemic has made me as a reporter more aware of
      deadlines, and to have a backup plan in case the reporter, (myself), and owner of a
      freelance firm has to have someone to take over their position in extreme times as I have
      experienced.'

               "29. Copies of the emails attached to the complaint by attorney Gibbons are true
      and accurate copies of the actual correspondence with Respondent."

       On August 1, 2022, the Board conducted a remote hearing by videoconference
regarding respondent's alleged violations. Respondent appeared live and by her counsel.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board took the matter under advisement.

       On April 10, 2023, the Board filed a Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Concerning Discipline. The Board's findings and recommendations adopted and
incorporated the parties' stipulations of facts. The Board found clear and convincing
evidence of violations of Board Rules Nos. 9.F.2. and 9.F.3 but held that there was not
clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated No. 9.F.6. The Board
recommended that we place respondent on probation for a period of 12 months, and that
during the probationary period, respondent must report information about each pending
proceeding to the Board during the first month of each quarter.

                                                   14
       Respondent does not contest the findings and conclusion of the Board. Indeed, she
stipulated to the facts and admits she violated Board Rule, Nos. 9.F.2. and 9.F.3. We
conclude that the findings of the Board establish the alleged misconduct by clear and
convincing evidence. We adopt the Board's findings and conclusions and accordingly
find respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by displaying professional incompetency
and by knowingly making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations as
a court reporter.

       The only remaining issue before us is the appropriate discipline for respondent's
violations. The Board may recommend the following discipline: (1) public reprimand;
(2) imposition of a period of probation with special conditions which may include
additional professional education or re-education; (3) suspension of the certificate; or
(4) revocation of the certificate. Rule 367, Board Rule, No. 9.E.4 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R.
at 467).

       When we impose discipline, we do so with the goal of protecting the public
interest and maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity, honor, and dignity of the
judicial system. In re Janoski, 316 Kan. 370, 389, 516 P.3d 125 (2022); In re Henderson,
306 Kan. 62, 71, 392 P.3d 56 (2017). In addition to these goals, we also endeavor to use
the disciplinary process to help salvage careers whenever possible. In re Janoski, 316
Kan. at 389.

       The Board, respondent, and disciplinary counsel all agree probation is appropriate
discipline in this case. In support of her requested discipline, respondent argues: (1) she
has acknowledged and accepted her fault, (2) she has since taken several measures and
employed certain protocols to ensure that such delays would not occur again, (3) she has
directly offered sincere apologies for the delay to all affected parties, (4) she never

                                              15
charged the parties for any of the work she had done in their cases, and (5) throughout the
period in question, respondent suffered the deaths of four immediate family members
within a six-month period, including that of her former husband.

       While disciplinary counsel agrees that probation is the appropriate discipline, it
urges the court to adjust the recommended probation to require respondent to report to a
third party each month, rather than to the Board each quarter. Disciplinary counsel further
suggests that this court admonish respondent for her misconduct.

       Having considered all matters raised, we find the Board's recommendation for
probation to be appropriate, and we decline disciplinary counsel's requested adjustments
to the Board's recommendation and its request for additional admonishment.

                              CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dana Burkdoll be and is hereby disciplined by 12
months' probation under the terms and conditions recommended by the Board, effective
from the date this opinion is filed, in accordance with Rule 367, No. 9.E.4. of the Rules
Adopted by the State Board of Examiners of Court Reporters.

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion be published in the official Kansas
Reports.

                                             16