In the Matter of Jason Richard McDaneld, Respondent.
PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the
cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator,
was with her on the formal complaint for the petitioner.
Respondent did not appear.
an uncontested original proceeding in discipline filed by the
office of the Disciplinary Administrator against respondent,
Jason Richard McDaneld, of Topeka, an attorney admitted to
the practice of law in Kansas in 2008.
7, 2016, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a
formal complaint against respondent alleging violations of
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC), and on July
12, 2016, the same office filed an amended formal complaint.
Respondent did not file an answer. A hearing was held on the
complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline
of Attorneys on September 7, 2016, where the respondent did
not appear. The hearing panel determined that respondent
violated KRPC 5.5(a) (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 361) (unauthorized
practice of law); 8.4(d) (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 379) (engaging
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);
8.1(b) (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 377) (failure to disclose a fact
necessary to correct a misapprehension known by respondent);
Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 246) (failure
to cooperate in disciplinary investigation); Rule 211(b)
(2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 251) (failure to file answer in
disciplinary proceeding); and Rule 218(a) (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R.
262) (notification of clients upon suspension).
conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its
recommendation to this court:
. . . .
"6. On September 24, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court
issued an order suspending the respondent's license to
practice law for failing to pay the continuing legal
education fee and for failing to comply with the continuing
legal education requirements. A copy of the order was sent to
the respondent and the respondent knew or should have known
of his suspension.
"7. After his license to practice law had been
suspended, the respondent continued to practice law. The
respondent appeared in court as attorney of record in at
least the following cases in Shawnee County District Court:
'a. State v. Kennedy, 2014-CR-934;
'b. State v. Kuykendall, 2014-CR-2339;
'c. State v. Dalrymple, 2014-TR-7584;
'd. State v. Kelly, 2014-CR-2192;
'e. State v. Slusser, 2014-TR-6649;
'f. State v. Lopez, 2014-CR-2349;
'g. State v. Murphy, 2014-TR-830;
'h. State v. Merryfield, 2014-CR-1794.'
"8. On April 27, 2015, Gray Horse Farms, LLC filed a
petition against the respondent and DL&K Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a Ichabod Laundra Bar in Shawnee County District
Court, case number 2015LM4891, seeking damages. On May 11,
2015, 8 months after being suspended, the respondent filed an
answer to the petition on behalf of himself and DL&K
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ichabod Laundra Bar. Additionally,
the respondent filed a motion to continue a hearing on behalf
of DL&K Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ichabod Laundra Bar.
DL&K Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ichabod Laundra Bar is
wholly owned by the respondent. The motion to continue
included the following: 'The reason for this request is
the Defendant is an attorney and has to be in Municipal Court
at the same time as the current setting.' Again, at the
time the respondent filed the motion, the respondent's
license to practice law remained suspended.
"9. On May 26, 2015, Kate Baird, deputy disciplinary
administrator sent a letter to the respondent, explaining
that the disciplinary administrator's office had received
a report that the respondent was practicing law even though
his license to do so was suspended. Ms. Baird directed the
respondent to provide an explanation within 15 days. The
respondent failed to respond to the letter.
"10. On November 2, 2015, Wesley F. Smith filed a
complaint against the respondent, alleging that the
respondent practiced law without a license.
"11. On November 3, 2015, Ms. Baird sent a second letter
to the respondent, explaining that the disciplinary
administrator's office had docketed the complaint for
investigation. Pat Scalia was appointed to investigate the
"12. On November 16, 2015, Ms. Scalia directed the
respondent to provide a written response by November 30,
2015. The respondent failed to provide a written response to
the complaint as directed by Ms. Scalia.
"13. On February 9, 2016, Terry L. Morgan, special
investigator for the disciplinary administrator sent an
electronic mail message to the respondent, requesting that
the respondent contact Stanton A. Hazlett. That same day, the
respondent responded as follows:
'I have chosen a different career path. I don't have
the time to accommadate [sic] Mr. Hazlett in any
way. If they want to simply suspend my license that is fine.
For the time being, I am done practicing. I would prefer not
to receive any further communications.'
"14. On July 7, 2016, Ms. Moylan filed the formal
complaint in this case. The disciplinary administrator's
office forwarded a copy of the formal complaint to the
respondent by certified mail and by regular mail. The copy of
the formal complaint sent by certified mail was returned to
the disciplinary administrator's office. The copy of the
formal complaint sent by regular mail was not returned.
"15. On July 12, 2016, Ms. Moylan filed an amended
formal complaint. The disciplinary administrator's office
forwarded a copy of the amended formal complaint to the
respondent by regular mail. The copy of the amended formal
complaint was not returned.
"Conclusions of Law
"16. It is appropriate to consider violations not
specifically included in the formal complaint under certain
circumstances. The law in this regard was thoroughly examined
in State v. Caenen, 235 Kan. 451, 681 P.2d 639
(1984), as follows:
'Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (232 Kan. clxvi), requires the
formal complaint in a disciplinary proceeding to be
sufficiently clear and specific to inform the ...