516 P.3d 125
Kan.2022Background
- Disciplinary Administrator filed an original discipline action against attorney Jason M. Janoski (admitted 2010); panel hearing held Sept. 22, 2021; respondent filed answer and proposed probation plan.
- Panel found extensive personal misconduct rooted in alcoholism and impulse issues: repeated harassing texts to former spouse, direct communications with a represented party, refusal to use court-ordered Our Family Wizard portal, public harassment at youth sporting events, and two municipal convictions for domestic battery.
- Panel found dishonesty (false statements to evaluator, in disciplinary responses, and minimizing physical battery), failure to report a reportable criminal charge (domestic battery), violation of court orders (child support arrearage and communication orders), and other KRPC violations.
- Panel recommended a two-year suspension (with six months to serve and three years probation thereafter); Disciplinary Administrator recommended one-year suspension with reinstatement hearing; respondent sought probation/suspended discipline.
- Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel's findings and conclusions, imposed a one-year suspension effective on opinion filing, and allowed petitioner to seek reinstatement after serving 12 months; costs assessed.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Administrator's Argument | Janoski's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Janoski violated multiple KRPC and Supreme Court Rule 219 | Panel evidence showed communications with a represented person, contempt of court orders, dishonesty, failure to report criminal charge, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Admitted some facts and submitted a probation plan; disputed some characterizations and minimized misconduct | Court adopted panel findings: violations of KRPC 3.1, 3.4, 4.2, 8.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and Rule 219 proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Failure to report reportable criminal charge (Rule 219; KRPC 8.3) | Janoski was charged with municipal domestic battery (May 3, 2021) and did not notify Disciplinary Administrator within required 14 days | Respondent did not timely report; offered post-hoc compliance and probation plan | Held Janoski violated Rule 219 and KRPC 8.3(a) for failing to report the charge |
| Dishonesty and misrepresentations (KRPC 8.4(c)) | False statements to evaluator, false/inaccurate disciplinary responses, and misleading accounts to police and the panel | Claimed batteries/injuries were inadvertent or mischaracterized; asserted mitigating substance-abuse context | Held respondent engaged in repeated dishonest conduct in violation of KRPC 8.4(c) |
| Appropriate discipline | Recommended one-year suspension (Disciplinary Administrator); panel recommended two-year suspension (six months served then probation); respondent sought probation/suspended discipline | Requested shorter suspension or immediate probation and treatment-focused supervision | Court imposed one-year suspension effective on opinion filing; reinstatement petition allowed after 12 months; costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Angst, 278 Kan. 500 (2004) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on lawyer’s fitness supports discipline)
- In re Stockwell, 296 Kan. 860 (2013) (probation disfavored where misconduct involves dishonesty)
- In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (disciplinary findings require clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition of clear and convincing standard)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (clear-and-convincing formulation referenced)
- In re Biscanin, 305 Kan. 1212 (2017) (court not bound by panel or administrator discipline recommendations)
- In re Jones, 252 Kan. 236 (1992) (discipline goals include punishment, protection, and rehabilitation)