In re Crow-Johnson ( 2024 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 127,055
In the Matter of JUNE R. CROW-JOHNSON,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held June 12, 2024. Opinion filed
August 2, 2024. Disbarment.
Matthew J. Vogelsberg, Chief Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Amanda
G. Voth, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Respondent did not appear for oral argument.
PER CURIAM: This is an attorney discipline proceeding against June R. Crow-
Johnson, who was admitted to practice law in Kansas in September 1990 and whose last
address as reported to attorney admissions was in Topeka.
The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against
Crow-Johnson alleging violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC)
and Supreme Court Rules. Crow-Johnson did not answer and failed to appear before the
Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys or this court. Nevertheless, a hearing panel of
the Board conducted an evidentiary hearing after which it issued a final hearing report
setting forth its factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommended discipline.
The hearing panel determined that Crow-Johnson violated:
1
• KRPC 1.3 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 328) (diligence),
• KRPC 1.4(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 329) (communication),
• KRPC 1.15(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 369) (safekeeping property),
• KRPC 1.16 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 374) (declining or terminating
representation),
• KRPC 3.3 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 387) (candor),
• KRPC 3.4(c) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 391) (disobeying an obligation of
the tribunal),
• KRPC 8.1(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 427) (disciplinary matters),
• KRPC 8.4(d) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (misconduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice),
• Supreme Court Rule 206(o) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 258) (attorney
registration), and
• Supreme Court Rule 210 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 260) (duty to assist).
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made findings of fact and conclusions
of law and recommended Crow-Johnson be disbarred, as follows:
"Findings of Fact
....
"DA13,872
"12. In 2003, J.C. obtained a Living Trust Agreement that created a charitable
share and a family share of the trust and also a separate charitable remainder trust
(collectively, 'the Trust' or 'J.C.'s Trust'). Relatives of J.C. were listed as beneficiaries of
the family share of the Trust, including J.C.'s brother, R.C.
2
"13. J.C. was a client of the law firm Coffman, DeFries, and No[]thern, P.A.
For a period of time prior to mid-2019, Joshua A. Decker, an attorney with the Coffman
firm, served as the Trustee of the Trust. Mr. Decker left the Coffman firm in mid-2019.
"14. Effective June 21, 2019, J.C. executed a Removal and Replacement of
Trustee that removed Mr. Decker as Trustee and appointed the respondent as trustee of
the Trust. The respondent accepted this appointment. At that time, the respondent was an
associate lawyer employed by the Coffman firm.
"15. J.C. passed away on November 18, 2020. At this time, R.C. was over 90
years old and lived in California. Soon after J.C.'s passing, the respondent called R.C. to
let him know a few things, including that the respondent had J.C.'s ashes in her
possession. This was the only time that R.C. heard from the respondent.
"16. Sometime before the end of 2020, the respondent left the Coffman firm
and became employed at BOK Financial.
"17 Attorney S. Lucky DeFries, who was a partner of the former Coffman
firm, testified that in January 2021, the Coffman firm merged with the Morris Laing law
firm. He said that when the respondent left the Coffman firm, the respondent told the firm
she planned to continue to serve as trustee of the J.C. Trust while employed at BOK
Financial. The respondent also stated that she planned to continue preparing tax returns
for the Topeka Bar Association, which is at issue in the DA13,964 matter and discussed
further below. The Coffman firm ceased involvement in these matters after the
respondent left, other than to assist others in locating documents and trying to contact the
respondent.
"18. After that initial phone call, R.C. tried to reach the respondent by phone
and by email numerous times. R.C. did not have a copy of the Trust and was receiving
phone calls from an insurance company about a policy for J.C. R.C. needed information
from the respondent and was concerned that the respondent was not properly handling
J.C.'s affairs. R.C. left messages for the respondent, but never received a response.
3
"19. Eventually, in January 2022, R.C. hired Topeka lawyer Tom R. Barnes,
II, to assist him in obtaining information from the respondent. Mr. Barnes contacted the
respondent on January 18, 2022, and provided the respondent proof that he represented
R.C., as requested by the respondent, on January 21, 2022. M[r]. Barnes tried to reach the
respondent numerous times after that by phone and email but did not receive a response
or any of the documents he had requested.
"20. Mr. Barnes did as much investigation as he could into the Trust matter,
including contacting the respondent's former firm, the Coffman firm, in early February
2020. Mr. Coffman sent Mr. Barnes copies of documents the firm had for J.C., including
a copy of the Living Trust Agreement and the Removal and Replacement of Trustee
appointing the respondent as trustee effective June 21, 2019. This was the first time that
R.C. learned that he had been listed as 'trust advisor' in J.C.'s Trust. R.C. also learned he
was listed as a beneficiary.
"21. Because he received no response from the respondent despite numerous
attempts to contact her, Mr. Barnes wrote a demand letter to the respondent asking for an
inventory, accounting of all receipts and disbursements, and tax returns for the Trust. The
letter also asked for copies of J.C.'s death certificate and the cremated remains of J.C. Mr.
Barnes testified that R.C. was very frustrated with the respondent's lack of
communication and wanted to resolve the matter quickly due to R.C.'s advanced age.
"22. When the respondent did not respond to Mr. Barnes' demand letter, Mr.
Barnes filed an action in Shawnee County District Court on March 7, 2022. The
respondent was served with a copy of the petition on March 16, 2022.
"23. A hearing was scheduled in the matter. The respondent failed to file an
answer and failed to appear. On June 9, 2022, the court entered a partial default judgment
against the respondent and ordered the respondent to provide a complete inventory and
accounting of the property in the Trust within 14 days. The court noted that failure to
comply with the order would be deemed an action in contempt of the court's order.
"24. The respondent failed to comply with the court's June 9, 2022, order. On
July 7, 2022, Mr. Barnes filed an Accusation in Contempt against the respondent on
4
R.C.'s behalf. Further, Mr. Barnes filed a motion for ex parte relief asking for
appointment of a new trustee and other protections, which the court ultimately granted.
"25. Ms. Barnes testified that . . . after he filed the Accusation in Contempt,
he personally went to the clerk's office to obtain a certified copy of the citation the court
issued. The citation ordered the respondent to bring with her all records, files, and
account documents the respondent had in her possession for the Trust to the contempt
hearing.
"26. The respondent's employer, BOK Financial, was located on the way back
to Mr. Barnes' office, so he stopped by BOK Financial and asked for the respondent. The
respondent came to the lobby from her office and asked Mr. Barnes to walk with her back
to her office to talk about the matter. Mr. Barnes personally served the respondent with
the certified copy of the citation and told her that the matter was serious and that she
needed to comply with orders of the court.
"27. On August 2, 2022, the respondent appeared at the hearing on the
citation in contempt. The respondent informed the court and R.C. that she had scattered
J.C.'s remains as J.C. had directed. Mr. Barnes testified during the formal hearing that
R.C. did not take exception to the respondent having done this. Further, the respondent
apologized for not doing a good job as a fiduciary, citing health issues of her parents, her
husband, and herself making it difficult for her to keep up with all of her responsibilities.
"28. The respondent also told the court that she had some personal items
belonging to J.C. and a box of records for the Trust that she was still trying to locate.
Further, the respondent said she had filed tax returns for the Trust for the years 2020 and
2021, and that those returns were among the records she was trying to locate.
"29. The respondent agreed that she violated the court's order. The court
expressed concern that the respondent still did not produce all of the information for the
Trust she was ordered to provide. The court ordered that the respondent produce the
remaining records within two weeks of the August 2, 2022, hearing. The hearing was
continued to September 8, 2022.
5
"30. On September 8, 2022, the parties again appeared for the continued
hearing on the citation in contempt. Mr. Barnes advised the court that the respondent
delivered to him an empty leather suitcase bearing J.C.'s initials and a banker's box that
did not contain any of the requested documents, including the spreadsheets the
respondent told the court at the prior hearing she had prepared to track J.C.'s assets.
Further, copies of the Trust's 2020 and 2021 tax returns were not present with the
documents provided.
"31. The court placed the respondent under oath during the September 8,
2022, hearing. While testifying, the respondent admitted that she did not provide a copy
of the trust to R.C. and did not respond to multiple requests for information from R.C.
Further, in response to Mr. Barnes' question [about] whether she had prepared 2020 and
2021 income tax returns for the Trust, the respondent stated, 'Yes. Uh, but unfortunately I
have not been able to locate those.' Again, later when asked, 'You personally prepared
them?' the respondent stated, 'Yes, I did.'
"32. Further, the respondent testified that although the court had previously
ordered her to produce copies of the income tax returns, she had not been able to locate
them and had not contacted the IRS or the State of Kansas to try to obtain copies. The
respondent also testified that she did not produce an accounting and inventory of the trust
assets and did not produce the spreadsheets as she was ordered to do.
"33. The respondent testified during that hearing that her mother was
diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, her parents moved in with her so that she and her
husband could act as their caregivers, and in March 2022, her mother passed away. The
respondent said that her father was not doing well as a result. Further, the respondent
testified that her husband was recently diagnosed with a mental health condition. She said
these circumstances made administering the Trust more than she was capable of dealing
with.
"34. The respondent said that her house was in disarray from her parents
moving in with her and then subsequently moving into an assisted living facility. The
respondent believed she had more records for the Trust at her home but had not been able
6
to locate them. The court ordered the respondent to turn over the records the respondent
said were saved on her computer within one week.
"35. During the hearing, the respondent agreed that she should be responsible
for paying R.C.'s attorney fees in the case. The court ordered the respondent to pay R.C.'s
attorney fees and expenses for bringing the action, totaling $9,981.54, as a sanction for
past violation of the court's prior three orders. The court further informed the respondent
that if the tax returns and computer records were not produced within a week as presently
ordered, the court would order the respondent to spend one weekend in jail.
"36. During a September 20, 2022, hearing, the respondent said she was
unable to locate all of the records, including 2020 and 2021 income tax returns for the
Trust, in order to purge the contempt finding. R.C. acknowledged that he received a
check from the respondent paying the $9,981.54 attorney fee.
"37. At the formal hearing, the disciplinary administrator's office agreed
during closing argument that the respondent paid this sanction in full.
"38. In its journal entry, the district court concluded:
'The Court expresses its disbelief that the Defendant as a former member
of the bar, failed to segregate and preserve the files and documents of the
trusts from other files and documents in her home; its aggravation with
the Plaintiff being forced to go to the measures he has to obtain
information regarding his late brother's Trusts; and its extreme
disappointment with the Defendant's contemptuous behavior in response
to the Court's directives leading up to a Citation in Contempt being
issued, prosecuted and sanctions being imposed. The foregoing being
noted, the Court recognizes that requiring the Defendant to serve time in
jail is not likely to change the circumstances.'
The court ordered the respondent to continue to turn over any records for the Trust in her
possession. However, the case eventually terminated.
7
"39. Jason Walker, and later Mike Davies, with The Trust Company were
appointed as the new trustees of the Trust. The Trust Company ultimately hired an
accounting firm to assist with recreating an accounting for the Trust estate. The
accounting firm obtained information from the IRS showing that income tax returns were
not filed for the Trust in 2020 or 2021.
"40. Mr. Davies testified that on October 16, 2023, The Trust Company
received notice from the IRS about income taxes owed for the Trust. For the tax year
ending December 31, 2021, the IRS stated that the Trust owed $21,982.00 in unpaid
income taxes, plus interest in the amount of $2,592.26, a failure to file penalty of
$4,945.95, and a failure to pay penalty of $2,088.29.
"41. Mr. Davies testified that if the Trust had been administered properly, the
$9,626.50 in interest and penalties would not have been owed and the income tax owed
may have been lower. Mr. Davies explained that proper administration of a trust typically
involves efforts to shift some of the tax burden away from the Trust and to the
beneficiaries, because a trust typically pays taxes at a much higher rate than most
individuals do.
"42. Mr. Davies expects further penalties from the IRS for the tax year ending
December 31, 2022, because those tax returns were also not filed on time. The Trust
Company has asked the IRS for a waiver of the penalties because the fiduciary in charge
of the account during those times—the respondent—is no longer the trustee of record.
Mr. Davies testified that it is unlikely the IRS will grant the Trust a waiver on that basis.
"43. Mr. Davies testified that The Trust Company received notice from the
State of Kansas on October 10, 2023, that the Trust has a balance due for the tax year
ending December 31, 2021, of $982.22.
"44. Further unnecessary expenses the Trust incurred during the time the
respondent was trustee were an AT&T bill and United Healthcare premiums that both
continued to be charged after J.C.'s death, according to Mr. Davies. United Healthcare
agreed to reimburse the Trust for the premiums paid after J.C.'s death, but AT&T did not
waive the total overpaid amount of over $2,300.00. Moreover, the accounting firm hired
8
by The Trust Company to research and account for the Trust during the time the
respondent was trustee charged more for these additional services; approximately
$4,500.00. Mr. Davies testified that it had not yet been determined, but it was possible
The Trust Company would need to charge an additional approximately $500.00 for the
reconstructing and research it did to determine the assets of the Trust in order to establish
a new basis for tax purposes.
"45. Mr. Davies testified that Mr. Barnes' legal fees were another expense
incurred by the trust as a result of the respondent's failure to perform her duties as trustee,
but as noted above, the respondent paid that amount.
"46. Mr. Davies also testified that he saw no evidence that the respondent had
taken any funds from the Trust estate.
"DA13,872
"47. The respondent, through her employment at the Coffman firm, had
prepared the tax returns for the Topeka Bar Association ('TBA') for several years before
the 2020 tax year. When Amanda Kohlman began as executive director of the TBA in
March 2020, attorney S. Lucky DeFries with the Coffman firm told Ms. Kohlman about
how his firm prepared the TBA tax returns and that the firm would file a standard filing
extension and discuss what documents were needed from the TBA in August.
"48. Ms. Kohlman testified she met with the respondent in August 2020 and
the respondent told Ms. Kohlman what documents she needed to complete the tax return.
Ms. Kohlman provided physical copies of everything to the respondent during that
meeting, except for two documents that Ms. Kohlman emailed later. The respondent also
asked Ms. Kohlman to provide a check for the filing fee so that the respondent could mail
it to the IRS with the tax return. Ms. Kohlman provided this check to the respondent.
"49. At the time, Ms. Kohlman knew that the Coffman firm was disbanding
and that certain members planned to merge with the Morris Laing firm. The respondent
assured Ms. Kohlman during a phone call that she was still going to prepare TBA's tax
return for the 2020 tax year.
9
"50. Later, the respondent told Ms. Kohlman that the respondent had filed the
TBA's tax return by mail. Ms. Kohlman relied on the respondent's statement, in part,
because the respondent had prepared and filed the TBA's tax returns for years.
"51. The TBA later received a notice from the IRS that the TBA's tax filing
for the 2020 year was delinquent. In a letter from the IRS dated October 11, 2021, the
IRS informed the TBA that the IRS was charging a penalty of $220.00 for filing late.
"52. The TBA sent multiple communications to the respondent to try to find
out what happened with the tax filing and get information and documents from the
respondent.
"53. Ms. Kohlman last heard from the respondent that the respondent would
continue to look into the issue and then never heard from the respondent after that. The
respondent never returned the documents provided to her by the TBA, despite multiple
requests from the TBA to have the documents returned so that the organization could file
its 2020 return.
"54. Janet Ward, an attorney with the Morris Laing firm, was hired by the
TBA in 2022 to assist with the tax filing issue and to prepare its tax returns after the
respondent stopped communicating with the TBA. Ms. Ward testified that she also tried
to contact the respondent numerous times for information. Ms. Ward heard from the
respondent that the respondent's mother had moved in with her and then later that her
mother had passed away and that the respondent would try to find the TBA records.
However, Ms. Ward never heard back from the respondent after this and was not able to
get any information from the respondent to complete the TBA returns. Ultimately, Ms.
Ward was not able to assist the TBA to complete the returns.
"55. Tana Griffith took over as the executive director of the TBA after Ms.
Kohlman left in February 2022. Ms. Griffith learned that TBA had an agreement with the
Coffman firm for completing TBA's tax returns and that for the past several years the
respondent had taken over completing and filing the returns for TBA. Prior TBA meeting
minutes showed the respondent agreed to prepare the TBA tax returns. Ms. Griffith also
10
found documents from the respondent showing she had prepared prior tax returns for the
TBA.
"56. Ms. Griffith also learned that the TBA tax returns for the 2020 fiscal year
had not been filed. The following years' tax return filing problems dominoed because the
2020 tax return had not been filed. Ms. Griffith tried to reach the respondent at all places
of contact information she had for the respondent. The respondent did not respond.
"57. The TBA received notices from the IRS showing a penalty of $220.00 on
October 11, 2021, for filing late, a penalty of $5,769.65 on January 2, 2023, for filing
late, and a penalty of $3,000.00 on February 6, 2023, for filing late.
"58. Ultimately, the IRS granted a waiver of the TBA's late tax filing
penalties in October 2023.
"Disciplinary Investigation and Notice to Respondent
"59. Attorney Jon Blongewicz testified that he was assigned by the
disciplinary administrator's office to investigate R.C.'s complaint against the respondent.
Mr. Blongewicz tried to contact the respondent by email on August 26, 2022, by certified
mail and regular mail on August 29, 2022, and by phone, leaving a voicemail, on October
7, 2022. The respondent never contacted Mr. Blongewicz in response to these
communications.
"60. William T. Schilling, special investigator with the disciplinary
administrator's office, testified that he tried to reach the respondent by calling her home
and work phone numbers the respondent provided to attorney registration. Further, Mr.
Schilling sent an email to the respondent's email address and letters to the respondent's
home and office addresses she provided to attorney registration. Mr. Schilling received
no response from the respondent.
"61. When Mr. Schilling called the respondent's work phone number at BOK
Financial, the first time he selected the extension for the respondent. When he did not
reach the respondent at that extension, Mr. Schilling called again and selected an
11
extension for another employee. The person who answered told Mr. Schilling that the
respondent had unexpectedly resigned and that the person had heard the respondent
moved to Lincoln, Nebraska with her husband.
"62. Witness Jon Paul Washburn, treasurer for the TBA, also testified that he
tried to contact the respondent by stopping by BOK Financial to speak with her in late
2022. Mr. Washburn was told that the respondent had left BOK Financial approximately
two months prior, saying she retired and moved to Nebraska.
"63. Mr. Schilling looked up the respondent's home address that the
respondent had listed with attorney registration, which was in Tecumseh, Kansas, on the
Internet. Mr. Schilling saw the residence in Tecumseh, Kansas was listed for sale on
realtor websites in January 2023.
"64. Mr. Schilling then tried to find another address for the respondent. Mr.
Schilling found a street address and a PO Box address listed for the respondent in
Lincoln, Nebraska.
"65. Mr. Schilling sent letters to the respondent asking her to contact him
about this disciplinary matter to the respondent's registered Topeka area address, the
street address in Lincoln, and the PO Box address in Lincoln. The Topeka letter was
returned as undeliverable. Mr. Schilling never heard from the respondent in response to
any of the mailings.
"66. Mr. Schilling also tried to search for the best phone number to reach the
respondent. Mr. Schilling left a voicemail for the respondent at a new number found for
the respondent asking her to return his call but did not receive a call back.
"67. Katie McAfee, assistant disciplinary administrator, made similar
attempts to reach the respondent with no success.
"68. Mitzi Dodds, administrative secretary for the disciplinary administrator's
office, testified that she prepared mailings to the respondent notifying the respondent of
various actions and hearing dates that have occurred in this disciplinary matter. When
12
Ms. Dodds sent a communication to the respondent, she regularly reviewed the
Disciplinary Administrator's Database, which she testified is updated daily with the most
up-to-date Kansas attorney information from attorney registration at the Office of Judicial
Administration.
"69. Ms. Dodds testified that she reviewed the database the morning of the
formal hearing and the respondent's information had not changed from the information
shown in disciplinary administrator's exhibit 1.
"70. Ms. Dodds testified that numerous filings and notices in this matter were
mailed to the home and office addresses listed with attorney registration for the
respondent and also to the addresses in Lincoln, Nebraska that Mr. Schilling had found
for the respondent. Ms. Dodds noted that two of those Nebraska mailings as shown in
Exhibits 16 and 17 were signed for by the respondent's husband. Further, a third mailing,
which was a copy of the Notice of Deposition of R.C. in this matter, was signed for by
the respondent at the same Nebraska street address.
"71. Ms. Dodds testified that a copy of the formal complaint and notice of
hearing stating that the formal hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2023, were sent to
the respondent at her email address and mailed to the BOK Financial office address the
respondent provided to attorney registration at the time they were filed on August 22,
2023. Further, Ms. Dodds mailed copies of the formal complaint and notice of hearing to
the PO Box address and the street address in Lincoln, Nebraska found for the respondent
when these documents were filed.
"72. Later, in October 2023, Mr. Schilling found that the respondent had a
vehicle registered at a different street address in Lincoln, Nebraska and records showed
her husband resided at that new Lincoln, Nebraska street address as well.
"73. The disciplinary administrator's office received no response from the
respondent to any of the communications sent to her.
13
"Conclusions of Law
"Service
"74. The respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the formal complaint. It
is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a respondent fails to appear only if proper
service was obtained. Kansas Supreme Court Rule 215 governs service of process in
disciplinary proceedings. Rule 215 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 267). Rule 215 requires the
disciplinary administrator to serve the respondent with a copy of the formal complaint
and notice of hearing no later than 45 days before the hearing on the formal complaint.
Rule 215(a)(2). Service on the respondent must be made by either personal service,
certified mail to the respondent's most recent registration address with the Office of
Judicial Administration, or on the respondent's counsel by personal service, first-class
mail, or email. Rule 215(a)(3).
"75. In this case, the disciplinary administrator complied with Rule 215 by
sending a copy of the formal complaint and the notice of hearing and prehearing
conference by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's registered office
address at BOK Financial in Topeka, Kansas, which the respondent provided as part of
her attorney registration to the Office of Judicial Administration. This certified mailing
was sent on August 22, 2023, which was more than 45 days prior to the formal hearing.
This mailing was sufficient to establish service as required under Rule 215.
"76. Additionally, the disciplinary administrator's office made numerous other
attempts to contact the respondent via phone, email, and regular and certified mail at new
addresses found for the respondent in Lincoln, Nebraska as described in the Findings of
Fact section above.
"77. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent was afforded notice of
this disciplinary proceeding.
"78. The hearing panel notes that the disciplinary administrator's office
declined to move forward on its allegation that the respondent violated KRPC 1.1
14
because Ms. Voth stated the respondent's conduct fit more closely with a violation of
other rules asserted. The hearing panel agrees and does not conclude that the respondent
violated KRPC 1.1.
"79. Based upon the findings of fact, the hearing panel concludes as a matter
of law that the respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15
(safekeeping property), 1.16 (withdrawing from or terminating representation), 3.3
(candor toward the tribunal), 3.4 (disobey an obligation of the tribunal), 8.1(b)
(disciplinary matters), 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),
Supreme Court Rule 206(o) (attorney registration), and Supreme Court Rule 210 (duty to
assist), as detailed below.
"KRPC 1.3
"80. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3.
"81. The respondent failed to diligently and promptly represent J.C. by failing
to perform her fiduciary duties as trustee as she agreed to do as J.C.'s lawyer. The
respondent's representation of J.C. while she worked for the Coffman firm included her
performance of the duties as trustee of J.C.'s Trust. When the respondent left the Coffman
firm to work for BOK Financial, she told the firm that she would continue to serve as the
trustee of J.C.'s Trust.
"82. However, the evidence clearly shows that the respondent abandoned her
duties as trustee. The respondent failed to handle, track, or account for assets held under
the Trust, failed to cancel bills being improperly charged to the Trust estate after J.C.'s
death, such as the United Healthcare premiums and AT&T billings, and failed to keep
R.C. and other beneficiaries of the Trust properly informed after J.C.'s death. Most
concerning, the respondent failed to provide documentation and property of the Trust to
R.C. or the subsequent trustee, despite being ordered by the Shawnee County District
Court to do so.
15
"83. While testifying under oath on September 8, 2022, the respondent
admitted that she did not provide a copy of the trust to R.C. and did not respond to
multiple requests for information from R.C.
"84. The respondent's lack of diligence with regard to J.C.'s Trust required
R.C. to file a lawsuit against her in order to obtain information about the Trust. The
respondent was ultimately held in contempt for her failure to provide Trust documents
and other property in her possession. Further, the respondent's conduct caused the Trust
to have to pay increased taxes, tax penalties, and other additional costs to research and
recreate documentation that the respondent should have completed.
"85. The respondent failed to diligently and promptly represent the TBA by
failing to prepare and file the TBA's tax returns for the fiscal year ending in 2020.
Despite having been provided all documents the respondent requested from TBA
executive director, Amanda Kohlman, the respondent never filed the return and did not
inform the TBA that she had not filed the return. In fact, the respondent told the TBA she
did file the return, which was false.
"86. The respondent's lack of diligence in representing the TBA resulted in
the TBA having to spend hours researching the issue, locating documentation, and
resolving the tax filing issue. The TBA was charged $8,989.65 in IRA late filing
penalties, which were later fortunately waived by the IRS.
"87. Because the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing J.C. and the TBA, the hearing panel concludes that the
respondent violated KRPC 1.3 in both DA13,872 and DA13,964.
"KRPC 1.4
"88. KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information.'
16
"89. In this case, the respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a) when she failed to
respond to requests from the TBA for information regarding the status of the TBA's 2020
tax return, which the respondent had agreed to prepare and file with the IRS. The TBA
made multiple attempts through Ms. Kohlman, Ms. Griffith, Mr. Washburn, Ms. Ward,
and others to reach the respondent to learn the status of its tax return filing and obtain
documents that the TBA had provided to the respondent. The respondent's failure to
communicate with the TBA caused unnecessary and significant problems for the
organization, including IRS late filing tax penalties.
"90. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.4(a) in DA13,964.
"KRPC 1.15
"91. Lawyers must properly safeguard their clients' property. KRPC 1.15(a)
specifically provides, in part, that:
'(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in
a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from
the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account
maintained in the state of Kansas. Other property shall be identified as
such and appropriately safeguarded.'
"92. In this case, the respondent failed to properly safeguard J.C.'s Trust estate
property. The respondent acknowledged before the Shawnee County District Court that
she did not properly safeguard J.C.'s property and that his property and documentation for
the Trust became commingled with her personal property at her residence. When R.C.
and the subsequent trustee needed access to the property and records, the respondent was
unable to produce them, despite being ordered by the court and held in contempt for her
failure to do so. Eventually, some of the Trust property was turned over to the new
trustee, but it was not done promptly.
"93. Accordingly, the Trust property was not appropriately safeguarded or
held separate from the respondent's own property. The hearing panel concludes that the
17
respondent failed to properly safeguard J.C.'s Trust estate property, in violation of KRPC
1.15(a) in DA13,872.
"KRPC 1.15(b)
"94. Lawyers must deal properly with the property of their clients.
Specifically, KRPC 1.15(b) provides:
'(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third
person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by
agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or
third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is
entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.'
"95. The respondent violated KRPC 1.15(b) when she failed to promptly
deliver to the TBA the documents the TBA had provided the respondent to prepare its
2020 tax return. Despite numerous requests through individuals associated with the TBA
for the respondent to return the documents, the respondent did not do so.
"96. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.15(b) in DA13,964.
"KRPC 1.16(d)
"97. KRPC 1.16 requires lawyers to take certain steps to protect clients after
the representation has been terminated. Specifically, KRPC 1.16(d) provides the
requirement in this regard:
'Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the
extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other
counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled
18
and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The
lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.'
"98. The respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d) in both DA13,872 and DA13,964
when she failed to notify either J.C. or the TBA that she would be unable to perform the
duties she had originally agreed to do and failed to surrender property and documents to
which the subsequent trustee and beneficiaries of the Trust and the TBA were entitled.
"99. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated
KRPC 1.16(d) in DA13,872 and DA13,964.
"KRPC 3.3
"100. 'A lawyer shall not knowingly:
'(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail
to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; [or]
....
'(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a
lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the
lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer
comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take
reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary,
disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer
evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a
criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is
false.'
19
"KRPC 3.3(a)
"101. In the DA13,872 case, the respondent made a false statement of fact to
the Shawnee Count[y] District Court, Judge Mary Christopher, when the respondent told
the court on August 2, 2022, that she had filed tax returns for J.C.'s Trust for the years
2020 and 2021, and that she had copies of the returns she had prepared and filed that she
was unable to locate.
"102. Further, on September 8, 2022, the respondent offered evidence she
knew to be false and made a statement to the tribunal that she knew was false when the
respondent testified under oath that she had personally prepared the 2020 and 2021 tax
returns for the Trust.
"103. The subsequent trustee assigned to the Trust, The Trust Company,
learned later that 2020 and 2021 tax returns for the Trust were never filed with the IRS as
the respondent had represented to the court. In fact, the IRS assessed late filing penalties
and interest against the Trust for the failure to file the 2020 and 2021 tax returns.
"104. The hearing panel concludes that by making a false statement to the
court, including testifying falsely, the respondent knowingly made false statements of
fact to the court in violation of KRPC 3.3(a).
"KRPC 3.4(c)
"105. Lawyers must comply with court orders. Specifically, KRPC 3.4(c)
provides: '[a] lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.'
"106. In this case, in the DA 13,872 matter, Judge Christopher entered three
separate orders between June and October, 2022, ordering the respondent to produce
documents and property belonging to the Trust in the respondent's possession. The
respondent ultimately produced a few items very late, but did not produce all of the
items, stating she was unable to locate them in her home.
20
"107. The respondent agreed that she violated the court's order.
"108. The court held the respondent in contempt for her failure to comply with
the court's orders and ordered the respondent to pay R.C. $9,981.54, as a sanction for the
respondent's violation of the court's first three orders.
"109. Judge Christopher even contemplated placing the respondent in jail for
two days in order to obtain the respondent's compliance with the court's orders. However,
later, Judge Christopher ultimately determined that sending the respondent to jail would
not result in the respondent's compliance with the court's orders.
"110. The hearing panel concludes that the respondent's failure to comply with
Judge Christopher's orders violated KRPC 3.4(c).
"KRPC 8.1(b) and Rule 210(b)
"111. Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b)
provides that 'a lawyer in connection with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: . . .
knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] . . . disciplinary
authority . . . .'
"112. Further, Supreme Court Rule 210(b) provides that, '[a]n attorney must
timely respond to a request from the disciplinary administrator for information during an
investigation and prosecution of an initial complaint or a report, a docketed complaint,
and a formal complaint.'
"113. Volunteer attorney investigator Jon Blongewicz, special investigator
W. Timothy Schilling, and assistant disciplinary administrator Katie McAfee collectively
made numerous attempts to reach the respondent and made numerous requests for
information from the respondent in the DA13,872 and DA13,964 matters. The respondent
was requested to provide a written response to the initial complaints in both matters and
failed to do so in either case.
21
"114. While some of the mailings to the respondent during the investigation
were returned as undeliverable, some sent to the Lincoln, Nebraska address[es] were not,
indicating that the respondent received them and knew she needed to respond. In fact,
later mailings in the disciplinary case were signed for by the respondent and her husband,
showing that they indeed received mail at that address.
"115. Because the respondent knowingly failed to provide a written response to
the initial complaints filed in DA13,872 and DA13,964, the hearing panel concludes that
the respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Supreme Court Rule 210(b).
"KRPC 8.4(d)
"116. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d).
"117. The respondent engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the
administration of justice when she obtained documents she said she needed from the
TBA to prepare and file the TBA's 2020 tax return, did not prepare and file the 2020
return, and later lied to Ms. Kohlman by stating she had filed the tax return when she had
not.
"118. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the IRS imposed late filing
penalties on the TBA that would not have been imposed but for the respondent's failure to
prepare and file the returns as she had agreed to do.
"119. Further, individuals employed by and associated with the TBA had to put
a significant amount of work into trying to obtain its original records from the
respondent, after the respondent did not return the organization's original financial
records to the TBA, and other efforts to try to resolve the 2020 tax filing issue. The
respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"120. As such, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent violated KRPC
8.4(d).
22
"Rule 206(o)
"121. 'No later than 30 days after a change occurs, an attorney must use the
attorney registration portal to update any of the required information in subsection (n).'
Rule 206(o). The required information in subsection (n) includes an attorney's residential
address, business address, email address, business telephone number, and personal
telephone number.
"122. ``The disciplinary administrator's office learned through its investigation,
as Mr. Schilling testified, that the respondent's home address was listed for sale on realtor
websites in January 2023. Further, Mr. Schilling located new residential addresses for the
respondent in Lincoln, Nebraska, and mailings from the disciplinary administrator's
office sent to the respondent at the Lincoln address were signed for by the respondent and
her husband.
"123. However, Ms. Dodds testified that as of the morning of the formal
hearing, she had checked the attorney registration database information and the
respondent's residential address had not been changed with attorney registration from the
Topeka area address of the house that was listed for sale in January 2023.
"124. Further, Mr. Schilling learned through his investigation that the
respondent had unexpectedly resigned from her employment at BOK Financial and
moved to Nebraska with her husband. Mr. Washburn, treasurer for the TBA, also testified
that he tried to contact the respondent by stopping by BOK Financial to speak with her in
late 2022. Mr. Washburn was told that the respondent had left BOK Financial
approximately two months prior, saying she retired and moved to Nebraska.
"125. Ms. Dodds testified that as of the morning of the formal hearing, she had
checked the attorney registration database information and the respondent was still listed
as employed at BOK Financial.
"126. The evidence showed that phone calls to the respondent's registered
residential and business phone numbers were unanswered and unreturned. Also, mailings
23
sent to the respondent's registered residential and business address were returned to the
disciplinary administrator's office as undeliverable and went without response.
"127. The respondent's failure to update her contact information with attorney
registration caused significant wasted time and resources during the investigation of the
complaints in DA13,872 and DA13,964
"128. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes the respondent violated
Supreme Court Rule 206(o).
"American Bar Association
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
"129. In making this recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors
to be considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating
factors.
"130. Duty Violated. The respondent violated her duty to her clients, to the
legal system, and to the legal profession.
"131. Mental State. The respondent knowingly and intentionally violated her
duties.
"132. Injury. As a result of the respondent's misconduct, the respondent caused
injury to her clients in the form of unnecessary stress, wasted time and resources,
deprivation of property and documents to which the clients were entitled, and
unnecessary tax penalties and additional financial costs. The respondent caused injury to
the legal profession by failing to follow court orders, ultimately being held in contempt,
and by making false statements to the tribunal, which interfered with the administration
of justice. Finally, the respondent violated her duty to the legal profession to cooperate in
the disciplinary investigations, which unnecessarily wasted time and resources.
24
"Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
"133. Aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its
recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following
aggravating factors present:
"134. Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The respondent lied under oath, to the
Shawnee County District Court, and lied to the TBA about her preparation and filing of
tax returns. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent's misconduct
was motivated by dishonesty. The hearing panel did not find a selfish motive.
"135. A Pattern of Misconduct. The respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct in both DA13,872 and DA13,964 by consistently and continuously failing to
provide documents and information to the subsequent trustee and beneficiaries of the
Trust and to the TBA, making false statements to the court and to individuals who asked
about the status of the tax returns the respondent claimed to have prepared and filed, and
failing to respond[] to reasonable requests for information. This pattern was consistent
throughout and between both cases at all stages.
"136. Multiple Offenses. The respondent committed multiple rule violations.
The respondent violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping
property), 1.16 (withdrawing from or terminating representation), 3.3 (candor toward the
tribunal), 3.4 (disobey an obligation of the tribunal), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters), 8.4(d)
(misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), Supreme Court Rule 206(o)
(attorney registration), and Supreme Court Rule 210 (duty to assist) between two separate
docketed matters. Accordingly, the hearing panel concludes that the respondent
committed multiple offenses.
"137. Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally
Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The respondent
failed to provide written responses to the complaints in both cases after she was
repeatedly instructed to do so. Further, the respondent failed to provide updated contact
information to attorney registration for the disciplinary administrator's office to reach her
25
about this case. The respondent's repeated failure to provide written responses to the
complaint amounts to bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
failing to comply with rules and orders of the disciplinary process.
"138. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme
Court admitted the respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas on September 20,
1990. At the time of the misconduct, the respondent had been practicing law for more
than 30 years.
"139. Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its
recommendation for discipline, the hearing panel, in this case, found the following
mitigating circumstances present:
"140. Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The respondent has not
previously been disciplined. This is a mitigating factor.
"141. Personal or Emotional Problems if Such Misfortunes Have Contributed
to Violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. There was some evidence that
the respondent may have been dealing with personal problems. The transcript of hearings
before the Shawnee County District Court show the respondent told the court she was
serving as a caretaker for her parents who had moved into her home, her mother was ill
and later passed, and the respondent and/or her husband may have also been dealing with
health issues. However, without the respondent's appearance at the formal hearing to
assert that these issues indeed occurred and contributed to her misconduct, the hearing
panel cannot conclude that there is sufficient evidence this is a mitigating factor.
"142. Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The respondent was
sanctioned by the Shawnee County District Court and ordered to pay R.C. $9,981.54 in
attorney fees and costs for bringing the action to obtain Trust records from the
respondent. Therefore, the hearing panel concludes the respondent has experienced other
sanctions for her misconduct. The disciplinary administrator's office agreed that the
respondent paid this sanction in full.
26
"143. In addition to the above-cited factors, the hearing panel has thoroughly examined and
considered the following Standards:
'4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
'(a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client; or
'(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client
and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a
client; or
'(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to
client matters and causes serious or potentially serious
injury to a client.'
'6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the
intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a
false document, or improperly withholds material information,
and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or
causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on
the legal proceeding.'
'6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit
for the lawyer or another and causes serious injury or potentially
serious injury to a party or causes serious or potentially serious
interference with a legal proceeding.'
'7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or
another and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a
client, the public, or the legal system.'
27
'7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the
public, or the legal system.'
"Recommendation of the Parties
"144. The disciplinary administrator recommended that the respondent be
disbarred.
"145. The respondent was not present to present a recommendation.
"Recommendation of the Hearing Panel
"146. Accordingly, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
Standards listed above, the hearing panel unanimously recommends that the respondent
be disbarred.
"147. Costs are assessed against the respondent in an amount to be certified by
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator."
DISCUSSION
In an attorney discipline proceeding, we consider the evidence, the disciplinary
panel's findings, and the parties' arguments and determine whether KRPC violations exist
and, if they do, the appropriate discipline. Attorney misconduct must be established by
clear and convincing evidence. In re Spiegel, 315 Kan. 143, 147, 504 P.3d 1057 (2022);
see Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 279). Evidence is clear and
convincing if it "causes the factfinder to believe that 'the truth of the facts asserted is
highly probable.'" 315 Kan. at 147.
28
Here, we find that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing panel's
findings and conclusions about Crow-Johnson's misconduct. In addition to the evidence
presented at the hearing, we consider Crow-Johnson's admission to the panel's findings
and conclusions. That admission results by operation of Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1)
(2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 285), which provides that "if the respondent fails to timely file an
exception, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final hearing report will be
deemed admitted by the respondent."
Based on these admissions and our review of the evidence in the record, we find
that Crow-Johnson violated:
• KRPC 1.3 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 328) (diligence),
• KRPC 1.4(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 329) (communication),
• KRPC 1.15(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 369) (safekeeping property),
• KRPC 1.16 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 374) (declining from or terminating
representation),
• KRPC 3.3 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 387) (candor),
• KRPC 3.4(c) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 391) (disobeying an obligation of
the tribunal),
• KRPC 8.1(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 427) (disciplinary matters),
• KRPC 8.4(d) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 430) (misconduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice),
• Supreme Court Rule 206(o) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 258) (attorney
registration), and
• Supreme Court Rule 210 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 260) (duty to assist).
The only remaining issue is determining the appropriate discipline for Crow-
Johnson's violations. At the panel hearing, the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator
29
recommended disbarment, and the hearing panel unanimously agreed respondent should
be disbarred. The hearing panel's recommendations are advisory only and do not prevent
us from imposing greater or lesser sanctions. Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(D) (2024
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 279); In re Long, 315 Kan. 842, 853, 511 P.3d 952 (2022). At oral
argument, the Chief Deputy Disciplinary Administrator again recommended disbarment.
Here, our consideration of the appropriate discipline begins with the panel's and
the Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation of disbarment. But we also take into
consideration Crow-Johnson's failure to appear at oral argument despite the requirement
in Supreme Court Rule 228(i) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 286) that both the Disciplinary
Administrator and the respondent attend the hearing. The Clerk of the Kansas Appellate
Courts filed an affidavit establishing that Crow-Johnson had notice of the hearing, so we
consider this violation along with the others found by the hearing panel.
Considering Crow-Johnson's violation of Rule 228(i) and the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and the American Bar Association Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, we conclude the severe sanction of disbarment is warranted.
DISCIPLINE
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that June R. Crow-Johnson is hereby disbarred from
the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(1) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 278).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Judicial Administration strike the name
of June R. Crow-Johnson from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Crow-Johnson comply with Supreme Court Rule
231 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 289).
30
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed under
Supreme Court Rule 229 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 287) to Crow-Johnson and that this
opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.
31