## Facts

- Kathy A. Stover was formerly licensed in Kansas and Missouri, but her Kansas license was suspended for failure to pay an inactive registration fee; she was not licensed in Wisconsin, where she lived.
- Stover held herself out as a professional musician’s “manager and attorney” on business cards and web pages.
- The musician and his wife sought Stover’s help regarding a dispute with a contractor relating to roof repairs on their Kansas home.
- Stover acted as the couple’s attorney by taking photographs, drafting a demand letter, and making calls to an insurer, despite her Kansas suspension and lack of Wisconsin admission.
- Stover developed a personal fixation on the musician that created a conflict with her professional obligations.
- The misconduct found included entering the clients’ home without permission, intercepting emails and monitoring communications, and maintaining unauthorized websites in the musician’s name while refusing to shut them down when directed.
- The clients sued Stover in Wisconsin state court; they obtained judgment and orders requiring her to stop the website conduct and comply with other directives.
- The Wisconsin court found Stover committed perjury and held her in contempt for refusing to obey court orders; she was incarcerated for contempt, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Kansas disciplinary authorities filed a formal complaint alleging multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct; Stover filed no answer and did not appear, offer evidence, or present mitigation.
- A hearing panel found rule violations and recommended disbarment.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Kansas Supreme Court disciplinary rules based on Stover’s conduct.
2. Whether disbarment was the appropriate sanction given the nature, scope, and harm of the misconduct and Stover’s nonparticipation in the disciplinary process.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the hearing panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The court found the charged misconduct proved by substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
- The court held Stover violated KRPC 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 5.5, and 8.4, and also concluded the facts supported violations of KRPC 3.4 and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b).
- The court ordered Stover disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and directed that her name be stricken from the roll of Kansas attorneys.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline requires proof of misconduct by substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence; a hearing panel’s report is given the weight of trial-level factfinding when supported by the record.
- Practicing while suspended and acting as a lawyer in a jurisdiction where the attorney is not admitted violates KRPC 5.5 and may also constitute dishonesty and misrepresentation under KRPC 8.4.
- Personal interests that materially limit professional judgment create a conflict of interest under KRPC 1.7; improper personal involvement and related conduct toward a client can violate KRPC 1.8.
- Incompetent representation, including attempting legal work without authority to practice and disregarding professional obligations, violates KRPC 1.1.
- Disobedience of court orders, false testimony, contemptuous conduct, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice violate KRPC 8.4 and may support related violations such as KRPC 3.4.
- Failure to respond to disciplinary complaints or participate in proceedings violates Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) and is an aggravating factor in determining sanction.

## Conclusion

The court disbarred Stover after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that she practiced without authorization, misrepresented her status, engaged in client-related harassment and conflicts of interest, disobeyed court orders and provided false testimony, and refused to cooperate with Kansas disciplinary authorities, causing substantial harm and demonstrating unfitness to practice.


In re Stover, 278 Kan. 835, 104 P.3d 394 (Kan. 2005)