Court Opinion

ID: 9929391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:07:29.045276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:06.270094
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                              No. 126,012

                                   In the Matter of MARK A. ROY,
                                            Respondent.

                          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

        Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held September 15, 2023. Opinion filed
February 2, 2024. Twelve-month suspension, stayed pending successful completion of twelve-month
period of probation.

        Alice L. Walker, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Gayle B. Larkin,
Disciplinary Administrator, was with her on the brief for the petitioner.

        Christopher M. McHugh, of Joseph, Hollander & Craft, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued
the cause, and Diane L. Bellquist, of the same firm, of Topeka, was on the briefs for respondent, and
Mark. A. Roy, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

        PER CURIAM: This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Mark A. Roy, of
Kansas City, Missouri, who was admitted to practice law in Kansas in April 1991.

        On August 19, 2022, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct (KRPC). On August 29, 2022, Diane L. Bellquist entered her appearance on
behalf of Roy, and that same day filed a motion to continue the formal hearing. The panel
granted Roy's motion to continue formal hearing and rescheduled the hearing for
November 29, 2022. The respondent filed an answer to the formal complaint on
September 9, 2022. In his answer, Roy admitted many of the factual allegations in the

                                                     1
formal complaint. On September 19, 2022, the hearing panel held a prehearing
conference by Zoom. The Disciplinary Administrator's office appeared by video through
Alice Walker, and Roy appeared in person and through counsel by video. Roy filed a
proposed probation plan on November 15, 2022. On November 18, 2022, the parties
entered into written stipulations. A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys
held a hearing on November 29, 2022. The respondent appeared with counsel, Diane L.
Bellquist. At the end of the hearing, the panel determined that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 373) (safekeeping property). The panel also
acknowledged that Roy entered into stipulations with the Disciplinary Administrator's
office where he admitted the facts alleged in the formal complaint, and admitted he
violated KRPC 1.1 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 327) (competence), 1.15 (safekeeping
property), 1.3 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 331) (diligence), 1.5 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 333)
(fees), and 8.4(g) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 433) (misconduct). The panel set forth its
findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with its recommendation on disposition, in
a final hearing report, the relevant portions of which are set forth below.

                          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       The relevant portions of the summary submission agreement follow.

                                           "Findings of Fact
               ....

               "14.    The hearing panel finds the following facts, by clear and convincing
       evidence:

               "15.    The respondent met F.K. in 2016. At that time, in addition to being a
       licensed attorney, the respondent was a licensed real estate broker.

                                                    2
        "16.     F.K. had recently married and F.K.'s spouse owned a house that was
purchased prior to the marriage. F.K. asked the respondent to evaluate the house for a
possible sale.

        "17.     The respondent evaluated the house and discussed with F.K. and F.K.'s
wife what would need to be fixed in order to sell the house.

        "18.     F.K.'s spouse also had children from a prior relationship. After
discussing the house evaluation, F.K. asked the respondent if the respondent handled
adoptions in his law practice. F.K. wished to adopt his wife's children.

        "19.     The respondent's primary areas of practice up to that point had been
bankruptcy law and real estate law. The respondent had no prior experience with
adoption proceedings but wanted to help F.K. due to F.K.'s former social relationship
with the respondent's father. The respondent agreed to represent F.K. to complete the
adoptions.

        "20.     "F.K. paid the respondent a $2,000.00 flat fee and $200.00 for filing
expenses to handle the adoptions. The respondent and F.K. had no written fee agreement.

        "21.     F.K. understood that in return for his $2,200.00 payment the respondent
agreed to complete the adoptions.

        "22.     During his testimony, the respondent agreed that the $2,000.00 F.K. paid
was a flat fee paid to the respondent to complete the adoption by F.K. of his spouse's
children. While the flat fee agreement was not reduced to writing, the respondent
acknowledged that the fee would not have been earned until the adoption matters
concluded.

        "23.     The respondent testified that he believed he placed these funds from F.K.
into his attorney trust account but he could not recall whether he actually did so.

                                             3
        "24.     During the disciplinary investigation in this matter, the respondent was
unable to produce requested trust account records or documentation showing he
deposited F.K.'s fee into his trust account. The respondent was unable to identify what he
did with the fee after he received it.

        "25.     Disciplinary investigator Thomas Mitchelson asked the respondent
during a phone call on October 4, 2021, about the fee and also asked the respondent to
produce a copy of his trust account records. The respondent told Investigator Mitchelson
he was not sure he could produce his trust account records. Ultimately, the respondent did
not produce his trust account records.

        "26.     The respondent did not keep time logs or communication logs regarding
his work on F.K.'s adoption matter.

        "27.     On January 24, 2017, the respondent filed a petition for adoption in
Johnson County District Court listing all three children on the same petition. The petition
was rejected by the Court, which requires each adoptee to have their own case number
and separate petitions.

        "28.     After the initial petition was rejected, the respondent filed three separate
adoption petitions, one for each child, that same day.

        "29.     K.S.A. 59-2133(a) provides: 'Upon filing the petition, the court shall fix
the time and place for the hearing. The time fixed for the hearing may be any time not
more than 60 days from the date the petition is filed.'

        "30.     Tenth Judicial District Court Rules, Rule 1, KS. R. 10 Dist. Probate Rule
1 (Johnson County District Court local rules) states:

        'It shall be the duty of the filing attorney (or pro se petitioner) to obtain, at the
        time of the filing of the petition, a hearing date for the hearing of the petition
        filed, and to provide an "Order of Hearing" presented to the Court for execution

                                               4
           and filing, unless all appropriate documentation, including the entries of
           appearance, consents and waivers, are filed with the petition.'

           "31.    KS. R. 10 Dist. Probate Rule 1 further states: 'Commencement of any
action requires both the filing of the petition and the obtaining of an "Order for Hearing"
(or equivalent). Just filing the petition will not result in the matter being scheduled for
hearing and may result in substantial prejudice to the petitioning party.'

           "32.    The local rule further states that 'cases shall be scheduled for hearing by
contacting the Court's Administrative Assistant ("AA") to obtain calendar setting.'

           "33.    On January 24, 2017, the respondent emailed F.K. regarding the three
filed adoption petitions and stated, 'I assume the Court will set some type of hearing date
on the petitions.'

           "34.    On February 14, 2017, the respondent emailed F.K. and indicated that he
was 'expecting a hearing date at some point and will call the Court to figure out that part.'

           "35.    On March 8, 2017, the respondent emailed F.K. stating: 'I just checked
the Johnson County website and no Court date has been set on the 3 petitions. I will let
you know something the minute the Court lets me know something.'

           "36.    The respondent said that he spent some time learning rules relating to
adoptions, such as how to file the case, filing fees, and work to be done to accomplish the
adoptions. However, in his research, he did not find the local rule requiring scheduling a
hearing on each adoption petition within 60 days. The respondent acknowledged that he
made no efforts to connect with or learn from any attorneys experienced in this area of
the law.

           "37.    The respondent testified that after the adoption petitions were filed, F.K.
indicated that one of the children no longer consented to being adopted. The respondent
said this created uncertainty for him whether the adoptions were to move forward.

                                                5
        "38.     In his response to the initial complaint received by the disciplinary
administrator's office, the respondent stated that, '[t]his accounts for why I did not pursue
those actions further.' The respondent also stated, '[t]his partially accounts, but does not
excuse, delays and inactions on prosecution of this matter on my part.'

        "39.     After filing the adoption petitions, the respondent took no further action
in the adoption matters. The respondent sent an email to F.K. indicating that the
respondent assumed the district court would set the matters for hearing.

        "40.     The Johnson County District Court register of actions in the adoption
proceedings shows no reference to the filing of an order for hearing.

        "41.     On March 14, 2018, the Johnson County District Court dismissed the
three adoption petitions citing failure to set a hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2133(a).

        "42.     No communication occurred between the respondent and F.K. from
March 2017, until F.K. contacted the respondent requesting a refund in March 2021.

        "43.     In March 2021, F.K. hired new counsel, Rachel Reiber, to complete two
of the adoptions. The adoptions were completed in June 2021.

        "44.     When Ms. Reiber reviewed the information from the respondent's
representation of F.K., Ms. Reiber noted that the respondent's original petitions did not
have proof of service on the biological fathers as required by K.S.A. 59-2136(f).

        "45.     K.S.A. 59-2136(f) requires:

        'Notice of the proceeding shall be given to every person identified as the father or
        a possible father by personal service, certified mail return receipt requested or in
        any other manner the court may direct. Notice shall be given at least 10 calendar
        days before the hearing, unless waived by the person entitled to notice. Proof of
        notice or waiver of notice shall be filed with the court before the petition or
        request is heard.'

                                               6
        "46.    The respondent refunded $2,200.00 to F.K. in September 2022 via a
cashier's check. The respondent testified that the cashier's check was funded by money
from the respondent's own personal bank account.

        "47.    The respondent testified that while he intended to help F.K. by agreeing
to handle the adoption matters, the respondent should not have agreed to handle the
adoptions. In his response to the disciplinary administrator, the respondent admitted that
he should have referred F.K.'s matter to an adoption attorney.

                                   "Conclusions of Law

        "48.    Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5 (fees),
1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4(g) (misconduct), as detailed below.

                                        "KRPC 1.1

        "49.    Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC
1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.'

        "50.    The respondent was not competent to represent F.K. in the adoption
matters at issue here. Having no experience in that area of law, and having failed to
engage in proper research, training, or consultation, the respondent was unable to
competently handle the adoption matters.

        "51.    The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.1.

        "52.    Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.1.

                                             7
                                          "KRPC 1.3

        "53.       Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3.

        "54.       The respondent failed to diligently and promptly represent F.K. in the
adoption matters.

        "55.       The respondent failed to timely contact the Johnson County District
Court to set the adoption matters for hearing after the petitions were filed on January 24,
2017.

        "56.       After March 14, 2018, when the adoption petitions were dismissed for
failure to set a hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2133(a), the respondent took no further
action on the matters.

        "57.       The respondent failed to inform F.K. that the adoption petitions had been
dismissed.

        "58.       The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.3.

        "59.       Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing F.K., the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.3.

                                        "KRPC 1.5(b)

        "60.       KRPC 1.5(b) provides that, '[w]hen the lawyer has not regularly
represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client,
preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the
representation.'

                                               8
         "61.    "The respondent did not adequately communicate to F.K. the basis for
payment for the adoption matters. The respondent asked F.K. for $2,000.00 plus $200.00
for filing expenses, which F.K. paid. F.K. assumed that the $2,000.00 was a flat fee for
the respondent to complete the adoption matters. The evidence showed that the
respondent did not properly communicate the basis for the $2,000.00 fee to F.K.

         "62.    The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.5.

         "63.    Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.5(b).

                                       "KRPC 1.15(a)

         "64.    Lawyers must properly safeguard their clients' property. KRPC 1.15(a)
specifically provides that:

         '(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's
         possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own
         property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state of
         Kansas. Other property shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.
         Complete records of such account funds and other property shall be kept by the
         lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the
         representation.'

         "65.    Properly safeguarding the property of others necessarily requires lawyers
to deposit unearned fees into an attorney trust account. Such fees must remain in the
attorney trust account until they are earned by the lawyer or properly refunded to the
payor.

         "66.    In this case, the respondent failed to properly safeguard F.K.'s funds.

                                               9
        "67.    The respondent acknowledged that the cashier's check used to refund
F.K. the $2,200 payment in September 2022 was funded using the respondent's own
money from his personal bank account.

        "68.    The $2,000 F.K. paid was a flat fee paid to the respondent to complete
the adoption by F.K. of his spouse's children. While the flat fee agreement was not
reduced to writing, the respondent acknowledged that the fee would not have been earned
until the adoption matters concluded.

        "69.    The refund of F.K.'s flat fee with money from the respondent's personal
account and the fact that the respondent did not handle the adoption matters to
completion establish that the respondent did not properly safeguard F.K.'s funds in the
respondent's attorney trust account.

        "70.    The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15.

        "71.    Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent failed to
properly safeguard F.K.'s property, in violation of KRPC 1.15(a).

                                        "KRPC 1.15(b)

        "72.    Lawyers must deal properly with the property of their clients.
Specifically, KRPC 1.15(b) provides:

        '(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has
        an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as
        stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client,
        a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other
        property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by
        the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such
        property.'

                                             10
           "73.   F.K. sought a partial refund of the fees paid from the respondent in
March 2021. The respondent did not provide a refund to F.K. until September 2022.

           "74.   When F.K. requested the refund, the respondent had engaged in no work
in the adoption matter since early 2017. The adoption petitions were dismissed in March
2018. The respondent failed to provide F.K. a refund until more than four years after the
petitions were dismissed.

           "75.   The respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b) when he failed to promptly
deliver F.K.'s unearned fees to F.K.

           "76.   The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15.

           "77.   Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.15(b).

                                    "KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v)

           "78.   KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v) provides that '[t]he lawyer shall: . . . [p]roduce all
trust account records for examination by the Disciplinary Administrator upon request of
the Disciplinary Administrator.' Further, lawyers must preserve complete records of trust
account funds 'for a period of five years after termination of the representation.' KRPC
1.15(a).

           "79.   The respondent did not produce trust account records related to his
representation of F.K., which began sometime in late 2016 or early 2017, when
Disciplinary Investigator Tom Mitchelson requested them in October 2021.

           "80.   The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 1.15.

           "81.   The respondent failed to produce his attorney trust account records as
requested by the Disciplinary Administrator. Therefore, the hearing panel concludes that
the respondent violated KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v).

                                             11
                                        "KRPC 8.4(g)

           "82.   '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).

           "83.   The respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law when he agreed to represent F.K. in the adoption matters without prior
experience in this area of the law and without ensuring he became competent to represent
F.K., failed to set a hearing on the adoption petitions, failed to take any action or notify
F.K. when the adoption petitions were dismissed, charged an unreasonable fee, failed to
properly safeguard F.K.'s funds, failed to promptly deliver F.K.'s funds, and failed to
produce proper trust account records upon request of the disciplinary administrator.

           "84.   The respondent stipulated that he violated KRPC 8.4(g).

           "85.   Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 8.4(g).

                                 "American Bar Association
                         Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

           "86.   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
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating
factors.

           "87.   Duty Violated. The respondent violated his duty to his client and to the
legal profession.

                                              12
        "88.     Mental State. The respondent knowingly violated his duty to keep his
client's property safe. The respondent's remaining misconduct was committed, at least
initially, negligently. Some of this remaining misconduct was sustained to the point
where the respondent knew or should have known that he was committing the
misconduct.

        "89.     Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused
injury to F.K. by depriving F.K. of the $2,000.00 fee paid to the respondent by F.K. for
more than four years and by causing unreasonable delay in the adoption matters.

                            "Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

        "90.     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, considered the following
aggravating factors:

        "91.     Prior Disciplinary Offenses. The respondent has been previously
disciplined on one prior occasion. The respondent received a public censure in 1997 for
misconduct that involved forging his client's signature on and then filing a bankruptcy
petition against his client's wishes, resulting in findings that he violated (precursor to the
KRPC) Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (scope of
representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (client communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.16 (terminating
representation), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 8.4
(misconduct).

        "92.     Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas on April 26, 1991.
At the time of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for more than 26
years. The hearing panel concludes that at the time of his misconduct the respondent had
substantial experience in the practice of law.

                                              13
        "93.     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, considered the following
mitigating factors:

        "94.     Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent's misconduct
does not appear to have been motivated by dishonesty or selfishness.

        "95.     Timely Good Faith Effort to Make Restitution or to Rectify Consequences
of Misconduct. The respondent argued that the evidence supports consideration of this
mitigating factor. While the respondent did eventually provide F.K. with a $2,200.00
refund, this did not occur until September 2022, almost 18 months after F.K. requested a
refund in March 2021 and more than four years after the adoption petitions the
respondent filed on F.K.'s behalf were dismissed. Therefore, the hearing panel concludes
that this mitigating factor does not apply here.

        "96.     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 hearing panel acknowledges the testimony of investigator Tom
Mitchelson that the respondent did not produce trust account records to Mr. Mitchelson
when requested during the disciplinary investigation, which contributed to the hearing
panel's finding that the respondent violated KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v). However, the hearing
panel also acknowledges that the respondent entered into stipulations with the
disciplinary administrator's office where he admitted the facts alleged in the formal
complaint and admitted that he violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5
(fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4(g) (misconduct). The hearing panel concludes
that over the course of the disciplinary matter, the respondent engaged in conduct that
was both cooperative and noncooperative. However, the respondent's conduct overall was
more cooperative than noncooperative, so the hearing panel considered the respondent's
conduct to be mitigating.

        "97.     Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings. The respondent argued that delay in
the disciplinary proceedings is a mitigating factor in this case. However, the initial

                                             14
complaint in this matter was received by the disciplinary administrator's office July 20,
2021, an investigation was subsequently completed, and the formal hearing was held
November 29, 2022. This is not an inordinate amount of delay. The fact that the formal
hearing occurred approximately 4 to 5 years after the misconduct occurred can be
attributed in part to the fact that the respondent did not self-report his misconduct as he is
obligated to do under Supreme Court Rule 210 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 263) (Duty to
Assist; Duty to Respond; Duty to Report). The fact that the respondent's misconduct was
not discovered by the complainant—F.K.'s new counsel hired in 2021—or the
disciplinary administrator's office until 2021, when the respondent has a duty to self-
report misconduct under Supreme Court Rule 210, is not considered a mitigating factor
by the hearing panel under these circumstances.

        "98.     Remorse. The respondent stipulated that his conduct violated the rules of
professional conduct and has since taken action to change his practices to prevent similar
problems in the future. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent showed that he is
remorseful that he committed the misconduct.

        "99.     Remoteness of Prior Offenses. The misconduct which gave rise to the
respondent's 1997 published censure is remote in time from the misconduct in this case.

        "100.    In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly
examined and considered the following Standards:

        '4.12    Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should
        know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or
        potential injury to a client.

        '4.13    Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in dealing
        with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

        '4.42    Suspension is generally appropriate when:

                                             15
                (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes
                injury or potential injury to a client; or

                (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect [and] causes injury or
                potential injury to a client.

        '4.43   Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does
        not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and causes injury or
        potential injury to a client.

        '4.52   Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of
        practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury
        or potential injury to a client.

        '4.53   Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

                (a) demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or
                procedures and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or

                (b) is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent to handle
                a legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

                              "Recommendation of the Parties

        "101.   The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be
suspended for a period of 12 months with the requirement that the respondent undergo a
reinstatement hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 232 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 293).

        "102.   The respondent recommended that he receive a published censure, or,
alternatively, be suspended for an unspecified period of time that is stayed while the
respondent is placed on probation according to the terms of his proposed probation plan.

                                                16
                                       "Discussion

        "103.   When a respondent requests probation, the hearing panel is required to
consider Rule 227, which provides:

        '(d)    Restrictions on Recommendation of Probation. A hearing panel may not
        recommend that the respondent be placed on probation unless the following
        requirements are met:

                (1) the respondent complies with subsections (a) and (c) and the
                proposed probation plan satisfies the requirements in subsection (b);

                (2) the misconduct can be corrected by probation; and

                (3) placing the respondent on probation is in the best interests of the legal
                profession and the public.

        "104.   Rule 227(c) requires that the respondent 'establish that the respondent has
been complying with each condition in the probation plan for at least 14 days prior to the
hearing.'

        "105.   The hearing panel concludes based on the evidence that the respondent
has limited the scope of his law practice, as required by the proposed probation plan.

        "106.   Moreover, some of the requirements of the probation plan could not have
feasibly been met between the time the proposed plan was filed and the formal hearing
date, such as preparation of monthly and quarterly reports.

        "107.   However, a central part of the respondent's proposed probation plan is
supervision of his law practice by attorney David B. Anderson, Jr. The respondent's plan
proposed an initial in-person meeting between Mr. Anderson and the respondent to
review the respondent's cases and law office management and to 'assess processes with

                                             17
specific regard to diligence, client communication, payment of client fees, and handling
of trust funds.'

         "108.     The respondent testified that he first discussed this proposed probation
plan with Mr. Anderson approximately one week prior to the formal hearing. The
respondent met with Mr. Anderson for the first time regarding the plan the afternoon
before the hearing.

         "109.     The respondent had also not taken any continuing legal education
courses as proposed in his probation plan prior to the formal hearing.

         "110.     Further, the hearing panel is concerned that the respondent's proposed
probation plan does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 227(b) because it does not
address any structure or procedures the respondent plans to use to ensure he charges
reasonable fees, communicates those fees appropriately, and properly safekeeps client
property. It was unclear from the respondent's testimony whether he planned in the future
to communicate an hourly rate to prospective clients and whether he planned to hold flat
fees in his trust account until they are earned. The proposed probation plan does not
address this topic at all other than to state that fees and handling of trust funds will be
discussed with and reviewed by the proposed probation supervisor.

         "111.     The hearing panel unanimously agrees that placing the respondent on
probation, with adequate provisions, would be in the best interests of the public, the
respondent, and the legal profession. However, under Rule 227(d), the hearing panel 'may
not recommend that the respondent be placed on probation unless' the respondent
complies with Rule 227(a) and (c) and the plan satisfies the requirements of Rule 227(b).

         "112.     Because the respondent has not complied with Rule 227(c) and the
proposed plan does not meet the requirements of Rule 227(b), the hearing panel is not
able to recommend probation.

         "113.     In reaching the recommendation for discipline below, the hearing panel
considered the findings, conclusions, and discipline imposed in several cases involving

                                              18
      certain similar rule violations: In re Lowry, 316 Kan. 684, 520 P.3d 727 (2022) (ninety-
      day suspension stayed for imposition of three-year period of probation); In re Beye, 315
      Kan. 857, 511 P.3d 963 (2022) (published censure); In re Barker, 299 Kan. 158, 321 P.3d
      767 (2014) (six-month suspension); and In re McPherson, 287 Kan. 434, 196 P.3d 921
      (2008) (six-month suspension).

              "114.    While the Beye matter involved lack of diligence, failure to safekeep
      client funds in a trust account, and failure to refund the client's money in a timely
      manner, there are additional factors here that render published censure an inappropriate
      discipline. First, the Beye hearing panel concluded that Beye's conduct was done
      negligently, whereas here, some of the respondent's misconduct was done knowingly. In
      re Beye, 315 Kan. at 860. Further, the respondent agreed to take on a matter in an area of
      law that he was not competent to handle and failed to take any steps to become
      competent, an issue not implicated in the Beye case. Finally, the Beye matter did not
      involve a violation of KRPC 1.15(d)(2)(v) for failure to submit trust account records to
      the disciplinary administrator's office and the delay in refunding client funds here was
      several years longer than the delay in the Beye matter. In re Beye, 315 Kan. 857.

                                "Recommendation of the Hearing Panel

              "115.    Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards
      listed above, the hearing panel recommends that the respondent be suspended for a period
      of 180 days. The hearing panel does not recommend that the respondent be required to
      undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Rule 232.

              "116.    Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by
      the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator.

                                             DISCUSSION

      In a disciplinary proceeding, we consider the evidence and the parties' arguments
and determine whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline.

                                                   19
Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel,
315 Kan. 143, 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022); see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2023
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281). "'Clear and convincing evidence is "evidence that causes the
factfinder to believe that 'the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.'"'" 315 Kan. at
147 (quoting In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 [2009]).

        Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed
an answer. Prior to the hearing before the disciplinary panel, respondent entered into an
agreement stipulating to violations of KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.15 (safekeeping
property), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5 (fees), and 8.4(g) (misconduct). No exceptions were filed
in the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the hearing panel's final
report are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1), (2) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at
288).

        On September 15, 2023, we heard oral arguments in this matter. The deputy
disciplinary administrator provided an optimistic assessment of respondent's current
fitness to practice law. She reported that he has consistently provided the Disciplinary
Administrator's office with monthly updates detailing measures he and his practice
supervisor have implemented that reflect compliance with his updated probation plan. In
speaking to the probation plan itself, the deputy disciplinary administrator characterized
the plan as one that is workable, provides protection for both the public and the legal
profession, and is in the best interests of the respondent. Based on these observations, the
deputy disciplinary administrator now recommends a 12-month suspension, staying the
suspension, and placing the respondent on a 12-month probation plan subject to the
conditions as set forth in the modified probation plan.

        The respondent agrees with the adoption of the modified probation plan and
requests the duration of the suspension be 90 or 180 days.

                                              20
       We adopt the findings and conclusions in the deputy disciplinary administrator's
recommendation that was presented in oral arguments, which taken together with the
parties' stipulations establish by clear and convincing evidence that Roy's conduct
violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5 (fees),
and 8.4(g) (misconduct). The remaining issue is discipline.

       That said, after review of the stipulated facts, conclusions of law, and considering
the position of the parties presented at oral argument, we adopt the deputy disciplinary
administrator's recommendation of a 12-month suspension, stayed pending successful
completion of a 12-month probation period, the terms of which are in the respondent's
modified proposed probation plan, effective from the date this opinion is filed.

                              CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mark A. Roy is hereby suspended for a period of
12 months from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective from the date this
opinion is filed, with the 12-month suspension stayed pending successful completion of a
12-month probation period, effective the date of this opinion in accordance with Supreme
Court Rule 225(a)(2) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281) for violating KRPC 1.1, 1.15, 1.3, 1.5,
and 8.4(g).

       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.

                                            21