STATE OF KANSAS

701 Jackson St.

STANTON A. HAZLETT
Disciplinary Administrator
KIMBERLY L. KNOLL
KATE F. BAIRD
DEBORAH L. HUGHES
MICHAEL R. SERRA
Deputy Disciplinary Administrators

r Floor

Topeka, Kansas 66603-3729

Telephone: (785) 296-2486
Fax: (785) 296-6049

OFFICE OF
THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR

GAYLE B. LARKIN
Admissions Attorney

October21,2015
Thomas Walters
213 East Carlton
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
Re: Letter of October 13, 2015
Dear Mr. Walters:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of complaint dated October 13, 2015.
The complaint relates to the conduct of three attorneys in the Office of the
Attorney General. You allege that the government attorneys are engaging in
misconduct by defending the state in an action challenging the constitutionality of
legislation while simultaneously representing one of the plaintiff judges in an
unrelated civil matter. You also report your concern with the lack of response
from the AG's office regarding your complaint filed against a judicial officer.
As you may know, this office only has jurisdiction to consider whether the
conduct of an attorney, licensed in Kansas, violates the Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct. It would be our burden to prove a violation by clear and
convincing evidence. If a violation is established the lawyer's license may be
subject to sanction by the Kansas Supreme Court. Our assessment of conduct is
made in light of the rules.
Neither our office nor the office of the Attorney General has authority to consider
a complaint against a judicialofficer.
You have reported that the judicial
complaint made with the AG was also made with the Kansas Commission on
Judicial Qualifications. According to your letter, the matter has been docketed for
review with the Commission. Your concern with the lack of a response from the
Attorney General's Office regarding the complaint is insufficient to implicate the
rules of professional conduct.
I have also COn!idered the facts relating to the alleged conflict of interest.

Ordinarily, a lawyer's obligation to avoid conflicts is an obligation that he or she

owes to a client or former client. It does not appear that any of the affected
parties have raised a concern with a possible conflict. I have, though,
determined that the scope of the rules of professional conduct provides some
guidance in assessing the situation. Paragraph 18 of the Preamble to the Rules
of Professional Conduct contemplates the scope of the rules' application to
situations involving government lawyers.

Paragraph 18 provides:
Under various legal provisions, including constitutional, statutory and
common law, the responsibilities of government lawyers may include authority
concerning legal matters that ordinarily reposes in the client in private clientlawyer relationship. For example, a lawyer for a government agency may have
authority on behalf of the government to decide upon settlement or whether to
appeal from an adverse judgment. Such authority in various respects is
generally vested in the attorney general and the state's attorney in state
government, and their federal counterparts, and the same may be true of other
government law officers. Also, lawyers under the supervision of these officers
may be authorized to represent several government agencies in
intragovernmentallegal
controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer
could not represent multiple private clients. These Rules do not abrogate any
such authority. (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annat. 451)
I

I have concluded that the facts of this matter do not, at time, demonstrate a
violation of the rules. The complaint will be dismissed pursuant to the authority
granted in Supreme Court Rule 209.

t;;U:::iYJ
Kate F. Baird
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator
KFB:SG
cc: Derek Schmidt
Stephen Phillips
Dennis Depew