In re Stockwell, 295 P.3d 572

Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Scott C. Stockwell, admitted to Kansas bar in 1984, on July 19, 2012.
A hearing was held Sept. 18, 2012 before a Kansas Board for Discipline panel; panel found violations of KRPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.5(c)(2), and 3.5(c)(3).
The findings relate to estate matters of decedent Mr. B, where Stockwell represented Mrs. B and allegedly misrepresented facts to the court regarding the will and intestacy.
Stockwell allegedly failed to disclose the 2000 last will to others, communicated with a judge ex parte, and filed pleadings without providing copies to opposing counsel.
The panel recommended a one-year suspension; the Kansas Supreme Court imposed the suspension and ordered costs and potential reinstatement procedures, noting probation was inappropriate due to dishonesty and signaling a reinstatement hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stockwell violated 3.3(a)(1)	Stockwell knowingly made false statements to the tribunal.	Stockwell contends no violation or disputed the particulars.	Yes; violated 3.3(a)(1).
Whether Stockwell violated 3.5(c)(2) and (3)	Stockwell filed pleadings without providing copies to opposing counsel and met ex parte with the judge.	Stockwell denied wrongdoing or misstatement of procedures.	Yes; violated 3.5(c)(2) and (3).
Appropriate discipline	Recommend a suspension; probation considered.	Stockwell urged three years of supervised probation.	One-year suspension imposed; probation rejected; reinstatement hearing ordered.
Need for reinstatement proceedings			Reinstatement hearing ordered under Rule 219 to assess possible conditions.

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (clear and convincing standard; disciplinary evidence evaluated)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing standard; standards for sanctions)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (definitions of clear and convincing evidence and sanctions)