In re Rumsey, 301 Kan. 438

James E. Rumsey, an attorney admitted in 1972, was charged by the Disciplinary Administrator after conduct at a July 8, 2013 felony trial in Douglas County and related submissions in the ensuing investigation.
At trial Rumsey called a prosecutor a “dirty bitch” after the court barred introduction of a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony; he apologized in court and self-reported the incident.
Rumsey submitted an affidavit from his client [R.C.] to the Disciplinary Administrator that was notarized by his secretary though the client had not sworn and signed before the notary; Rumsey admitted the affidavit was not properly notarized.
The hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence of violations of KRPC 3.5(d) (undignified conduct), 8.1(a) (false statement in disciplinary matter), 8.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prejudicial conduct). Rumsey stipulated to several violations.
Panel considered aggravating factors (six prior disciplinary matters, multiple offenses, experience) and mitigating factors (remorse, medical condition, cooperation) and recommended published censure.
The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel’s findings but imposed a different sanction: a 3-year suspension stayed and replaced by 3 years probation with required probation plan (mental health therapy, practice supervision, self-reporting), directing Rumsey to submit a plan within 14 days.

Issue	Disciplinary Administrator's Argument	Rumsey's Argument	Held
Whether Rumsey’s courtroom comment violated KRPC 3.5(d) (undignified/degrading conduct)	Comment was unprofessional, degrading to tribunal and counsel; warrants misconduct finding	Framed as a momentary breach caused by pain/anxiety; apologized and self-reported	Violated KRPC 3.5(d); misconduct established
Whether Rumsey’s affidavit submission violated KRPC 8.1(a) (false statement in disciplinary matter)	Affidavit falsely implied proper notarization and oath; knowingly submitted	Asserted negligence and lack of intent to deceive; claimed ignorance about notarization impropriety	Violated KRPC 8.1(a); stipulation accepted
Whether affidavit constituted misconduct under KRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation)	The notarized affidavit misrepresented that it was sworn before a notary; reflects dishonesty	Denied intent to deceive; characterized action as negligent; emphasized cooperation	Violated KRPC 8.4(c); stipulation accepted
Whether courtroom conduct was prejudicial to administration of justice (KRPC 8.4(d))	Comment upset prosecutors, victim, and could warrant contempt; prejudiced justice	Explained medical distress and frustration; apologized and expressed remorse	Violated KRPC 8.4(d); misconduct established

In re Chavez, 292 Kan. 45 (2011) (discipline for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice supports sanctioning)
In re Rathbun, 285 Kan. 137 (2007) (misconduct including discourteous courtroom behavior relevant to discipline)
In re Rumsey, 276 Kan. 65 (2003) (Court’s prior suspension and commentary on respondent’s repeated violations)
In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (clear-and-convincing standard and review in disciplinary proceedings)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (court’s role in tailoring discipline to case facts)
In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897 (2014) (court is not bound by panel recommendations)
In re Busch, 287 Kan. 80 (2008) (consideration of unique facts over prior cases when imposing discipline)