## Facts

- Irwin S. Trester was admitted to the Kansas bar in 1968 but did not practice in Kansas.
- He returned to California, failed the California bar exam multiple times, and maintained a California office advertised as “Law Offices of Irwin Trester.”
- For decades, he performed legal work from California, including federal immigration and labor matters, and also work beyond purely federal forums.
- Trester asserted he believed a license in any state permitted him to practice federal law while operating in California.
- A California company retained him for labor and employment matters; he did not disclose that he was not licensed to practice law in California.
- The client later sued Trester and his office in California for malpractice and fraud based on alleged misrepresentation of licensure.
- California prosecutors charged Trester with multiple felonies including grand theft and unauthorized practice of law (along with a weapons charge); he later entered a plea.
- Kansas disciplinary proceedings followed; a hearing panel found violations and unanimously recommended indefinite suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether Trester’s long-term California-based practice and holding out as an attorney there constituted unauthorized practice and misconduct under KRPC 5.5(a) and KRPC 8.4(b)–(c).
2. Whether the criminal conduct and related misrepresentations supported discipline under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 202.
3. What sanction was appropriate given the nature, duration, and seriousness of the misconduct.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court accepted the hearing panel’s findings and conclusions.
- The court held Trester violated KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 8.4(b), KRPC 8.4(c), and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 202.
- The court imposed indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Kansas.
- The suspension was made retroactive to October 26, 2005 (the date of Trester’s temporary suspension).
- Trester was ordered to comply with applicable notice/reinstatement requirements and to pay disciplinary proceeding costs.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer licensed in one state may not establish and operate a general law practice in another state without admission there, even if some work occurs in federal forums.
- Holding oneself out to clients or the public as authorized to practice in a jurisdiction where one is not admitted constitutes unauthorized practice in violation of KRPC 5.5(a).
- Failure to disclose lack of licensure, combined with representations implying authorized status, can constitute dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under KRPC 8.4(c).
- Criminal acts or conduct associated with criminal proceedings that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness support discipline under KRPC 8.4(b) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 202.
- In determining sanction, the court may weigh the duration of misconduct, breadth of client/public misrepresentation, and the seriousness of related criminal conduct; indefinite suspension may be warranted to protect the public and the legal profession.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Trester for decades of unauthorized California-based legal practice and misrepresentation of licensure, finding violations of KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 8.4(b)–(c), and Rule 202, with the suspension retroactive to his prior temporary suspension date.


In re Trester, 285 Kan. 404, 172 P.3d 31 (Kan. 2007)