In re Hall –, 304 Kan. 999

Kenton M. Hall, admitted in Kansas (1988) and Missouri (1989), allowed his Kansas registration to lapse and was administratively suspended in 1996 for failure to pay fees; he never completed reinstatement steps in 2003 or 2009.
In 2012 and 2013 Hall submitted verified applications for pro hac vice admission in two Kansas criminal cases but failed to disclose his Kansas admission and suspension; both district courts granted pro hac vice admission.
Hall represented clients in those Kansas cases after pro hac vice admissions; one later withdrew and was refunded the fee after a local counsel complaint triggered disciplinary scrutiny.
The Disciplinary Administrator charged Hall with multiple ethics violations including KRPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), KRPC 5.5(a), Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 208 and 218(c)(1); the hearing panel found violations of 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and Rule 208 but dismissed the 5.5/Rule 218 charge and characterized Hall’s mental state as negligent, recommending published censure.
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the panel record (facts undisputed), reversed the dismissal of Rule 218(c)(1) and KRPC 5.5(a) violations, held Hall acted knowingly rather than negligently, and imposed a 60-day suspension, costs, and compliance with Rule 218.

Issue	Disciplinary Administrator's Argument	Hall's Argument	Held
Whether Hall engaged in unauthorized practice in violation of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 218(c)(1) and KRPC 5.5(a)	Hall practiced while suspended; pro hac vice orders were invalid and cannot authorize practice	Pro hac vice admissions (court orders) authorized his practice despite disclosure failures	Court: Hall violated Rule 218(c)(1) and KRPC 5.5(a); pro hac vice orders were void ab initio and did not authorize practice
Proper mental state for violations (negligent vs. knowing)	Hall acted knowingly — made false statements and was aware of suspension	Hall believed he was merely inactive (negligence)	Court: Hall acted knowingly; evidence showed actual knowledge of suspension and conscious omissions
Whether the panel erred in considering amendment to Rule 217 as a mitigating factor	The amendment post-dated Hall's suspension and is irrelevant; no evidence was presented to support mitigation	Panel may consider it; Hall lacked option to surrender license at the time but might have done so had rule existed	Court: Panel could consider Rule 217 as mitigating, but gave it little weight because it post-dated the misconduct and poorly mitigates candor/unauthorized-practice violations
Appropriate discipline for knowing misrepresentation and unauthorized practice	Recommend 60-day suspension	Recommend published censure	Court: Majority imposed 60-day suspension, costs, and required compliance with Rule 218 (minority would impose harsher sanction)

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (attorney misconduct must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Thompson, 301 Kan. 428 (administrative suspension can constitute suspension for Rule 218 purposes)
In re Swisher, 285 Kan. 1084 (suspended attorney remains subject to rules and may not practice)
In re Kline, 298 Kan. 96 (KRPC 3.3[a][1] requires actual knowledge for false statements to a tribunal)
In re Hawkins, 304 Kan. 97 (use of ABA Standards and mental-state framework in discipline analysis)