518 P.3d 1203
Kan.2022Background
- Jordan represented clients seeking disclosure of a document called the “Powers e‑mail” via FOIA and related proceedings; administrative and federal judges reviewed the email in camera and found privilege protections.
- Jordan repeatedly filed pro se and client‑related motions accusing federal judges (Judge Smith, Chief Judge Phillips, Judge Contreras and Eighth Circuit panel judges) and government lawyers of lying, criminal conspiracy, and concealing evidence—despite never having produced or shown he had seen an unredacted Powers e‑mail.
- Federal judges sanctioned Jordan under FRCP 11, ordered him to stop filing certain motions, and ultimately the Eighth Circuit disbarred him from practice in that court.
- The Kansas Board hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence Jordan violated KRPC 3.1, 3.4(c), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d) & (g), applied Kan. S. Ct. Rule 220(b) (certified judgments as prima facie evidence), and recommended disbarment.
- Jordan argued his filings were protected by the First Amendment and that his allegations had not been proved false; the Kansas Supreme Court rejected those defenses, affirmed the findings, and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Administrator) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment prevents discipline for Jordan’s court filings | Attorney speech may be regulated; ethics rules serve substantial state interests and are constitutional as applied | Filings are protected speech/petitioning; libel standards (falsity, actual malice) should apply | Rejected. Court held attorney in‑court and related filings have limited First Amendment protection; libel standards do not bar attorney discipline here |
| Whether Jordan violated KRPC 3.1, 3.4(c), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d)/(g) | Jordan made frivolous factual accusations, disobeyed court orders, and impugned judges with reckless disregard for truth | Jordan contends his claims were reasonable and not proved false; invokes constitutional defenses | Upheld. Clear and convincing evidence supports violations of 3.1, 3.4(c), 8.2(a), 8.4(d) & (g) |
| Whether Rule 220(b) may be used to treat certified prior rulings as prima facie evidence in discipline | Rule 220(b) is valid, similar to issue preclusion, and permits reliance on certified judicial rulings unless rebutted | Rule 220(b) violates due process, separation of powers, and conflicts with evidentiary rules | Upheld. Court held Rule 220(b) properly applied and does not offend separation of powers or due process in this context |
| Appropriate sanction | Disbarment is warranted given intentional misconduct, pattern, sanctions already imposed, and aggravating factors | No discipline should be imposed; constitutional objections | Disbarment ordered. Court found aggravation and little mitigation; disbarment is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (supreme‑court standards on criticism of public officials cited but held not controlling in bar discipline)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1991) (attorney speech in courtroom and related contexts may be subject to regulation)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n of Ill., 496 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (First Amendment limits on bar regulation where applicable)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (defamation standards discussed; court explains libel rules are not dispositive in discipline)
- In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619 (Kan. 2005) (discipline for baseless, inflammatory accusations against judges and others)
- In re Pyle, 283 Kan. 807 (Kan. 2007) (balancing attorney free speech and professional obligations)
- In re Arnold, 274 Kan. 761 (Kan. 2002) (discipline for intemperate, disrespectful communications to a judge)
- Venters v. Sellers, 293 Kan. 87 (Kan. 2011) (discussion of collateral estoppel and preclusion principles relied on in analyzing Rule 220(b))
- In re Huffman, 315 Kan. 641 (Kan. 2022) (standard for proof in disciplinary proceedings; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- In re Hodge, 307 Kan. 170 (Kan. 2018) (discipline factors and fitness to practice considerations)