In re Barker, 351 P.3d 1256

James T. Barker II, admitted in Kansas in 1995, was suspended by the Kansas Supreme Court on September 18, 2013, for failure to timely pay the annual registration fee (late payment assessed).
While suspended (Sept. 18–Oct. 31, 2013), Barker appeared and represented a criminal defendant at a preliminary hearing on October 1, 2013, and sent a letter to the prosecutor requesting a plea offer.
Barker did not timely notify the court, opposing counsel, or his client of the suspension, nor did he file motions to withdraw as required by Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(a).
Barker used letterhead showing a physical office at a UPS Store address (605 U.S. Highway 40, Suite 164), which the panel found materially misleading.
Barker failed to timely respond to disciplinary inquiries and initial complaint communications, and he did not update his address with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts (mail was returned as undeliverable).
The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint; Barker did not answer or appear at the disciplinary hearing before the panel or the Supreme Court (though he did sign for certified notice of the Supreme Court hearing). The panel recommended indefinite suspension; the Supreme Court adopted the panel’s findings and imposed indefinite suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Barker practice law while suspended (unauthorized practice)?	Barker knowingly practiced during suspension by representing a client at a preliminary hearing and communicating with prosecutor.	No substantive defense presented; Barker admitted practicing in his response to investigator.	Violation of KRPC 5.5(a) proved.
Was Barker’s letterhead/firm designation false or misleading?	Letterhead implied a physical law office at a UPS Store address, which is materially misleading.	No meaningful rebuttal; address was a rented mailbox.	Violation of KRPC 7.1 and 7.5(a) proved.
Did Barker fail to cooperate/respond to disciplinary inquiries?	Barker ignored repeated demands and delayed providing a written response to the complaint.	No timely response; late written response admitted the misconduct.	Violation of KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) proved.
Did Barker fail to update address and notify clients/courts of suspension?	Mail was returned as undeliverable; Barker did not notify client, opposing counsel, or court as required after suspension.	No defense shown.	Violations of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208(c) and R. 218(a) proved.

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (discussing burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (defining clear and convincing standard in discipline matters)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (quoting standard for clear and convincing evidence)
In re Batt, 296 Kan. 395 (failure to appear as aggravating factor; potential for harsher sanction)