In the Matter of Rosie M. Quinn, Respondent.
PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
R. Moylan, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the
cause, and Alexandar M. Walczak, Deputy Disciplinary
Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the
M. Quinn, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
an attorney discipline proceeding against Rosie M. Quinn, of
Kansas City, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to practice law
in the state of Kansas on May 15, 1981. Her license to
practice law was temporarily suspended on October 5, 2011,
due to felony convictions on tax-related charges in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
18, 2014, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a
formal complaint against respondent alleging violations of
the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). Respondent
initially failed to answer the formal complaint, but before a
scheduled panel hearing she successfully moved to have her
license transferred from temporary suspension to disability
inactive status. These proceedings were stayed indefinitely.
On April 11, 2017, respondent's license status changed
back to temporary suspension because she had not obtained an
ordered independent mental health evaluation. The
disciplinary proceedings resumed, and the respondent answered
the allegations of misconduct.
of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys held a
hearing on November 28, 2017. Respondent appeared pro se. The
hearing panel determined she violated KRPC 8.4(b) (2018 Kan.
S.Ct. R. 381) (committing a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer).
this court, the Disciplinary Administrator's office asked
for an indefinite period of suspension made retroactive such
that respondent would be eligible to apply for reinstatement
immediately upon the filing of the court's decision,
which also would trigger a required reinstatement hearing.
Respondent expressed a preference not to be required to
undergo a reinstatement hearing, so that she may immediately
resume practicing law. We quote the report's pertinent
"3. For years, the respondent engaged in the private
practice of law in
Kansas City, Kansas. The respondent was the sole proprietor
of her law office. The respondent employed others at her law
office. For an extended period of time, the respondent
withheld federal employment taxes from her employees'
paychecks, but did not pay over the withheld funds to the
Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter 'the IRS'). In
total, the respondent withheld but failed to forward more
than $238, 000 in federal taxes to the IRS.
"4. In 2002 and 2003, while the respondent filed
individual federal income tax returns, the respondent failed
to pay her individual federal income taxes.
"5. On June 17, 2009, a federal grand jury, convened in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas,
returned a nine count indictment against the respondent
including seven counts of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7202
(willful failure to pay employment taxes) and two counts of
violating 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (willful failure to pay
"6. After she was charged, the respondent paid the IRS
the previously withheld but unpaid federal employment taxes.
After the respondent paid the employment taxes, the grand
jury returned a second indictment which reflected that the
employment taxes were no longer owing. The criminal case
proceeded to trial. On March 15, 2011, a jury convicted the
respondent as charged.
"7. On June 21, 2011, the respondent self-reported the
convictions. On October 5, 2011, the Kansas Supreme Court
issued an order under Rule 203(c), temporarily suspending the
respondent's license to practice law, due to her felony
convictions. The respondent filed a motion to vacate the
order of temporary suspension. On October 12, 2011, the Court
denied the respondent's motion.
"8. On November 18, 2011, the federal court sentenced
the respondent to a controlling sentence of 36 months in
prison, 36 months post-release supervision, and restitution
in the amount of $70, 118.34, for the interest which
previously accumulated on the unpaid employment taxes, for
the individual federal income taxes, and for the interest on
the individual federal income taxes. On May 7, 2014, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed
the respondent's convictions and sentence. Following
prison, the respondent went to a half-way house. After being
released from the half-way house, the respondent returned
home on post-release supervision. On August 5, 2017, the
respondent was released from post-release supervision. While
the respondent has been released from post-release
supervision, she continues to owe and pay restitution.
"9. . . . On July 8, 2014, the hearing panel scheduled a
hearing on the formal complaint for November 18, 2014.
"10. On July 18, 2014, Alexander M. Walczak, deputy
disciplinary administrator, filed a formal complaint in the
instant disciplinary case, alleging that the respondent
violated [KRPC] 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). That same day,
Mr. Walczak filed a notice of hearing, confirming that a
hearing on the formal complaint was scheduled for November
18, 2014. The respondent failed to file a timely answer to
the formal complaint. On October 8, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a
supplement to the formal complaint, alleging that the
respondent violated Rule 211(b) by failing to file an answer
to the formal complaint.
"11. On October 28, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a motion
in limine, seeking an order prohibiting the
respondent from attempting to impeach her criminal
convictions by reopening or retrying the facts of her
convictions, presenting evidence on her motives, and arguing
a lack of fairness of procedural or evidentiary standards.
"12. On November 7, 2014, the respondent filed a motion
to transfer her license to disability inactive status. The
respondent attached a letter from her treating psychiatrist,
dated November 6, 2014, as well as an evaluation from her
treating psychiatrist, dated December 23, 2010. On November
10, 2014, the hearing panel filed a petition with the Court
under Rule 220(b) seeking to have the respondent's
license immediately transferred to disability inactive
status. That same day, the hearing panel indefinitely
continued the hearing on the formal complaint. On November
13, 2014, because of the sensitive nature of the contents of
the motion and attachments, Mr. Walczak filed a motion
seeking an order sealing the motion and attachments. Also, on
November 13, 2014, Mr. Walczak filed a motion seeking an
order for an independent mental health evaluation of the
respondent to determine whether the respondent's license
should remain transferred to disability inactive status.
"13. On November 20, 2014, the Court issued an order
transferring the respondent's license to disability
inactive status. The Court's order also directed the
respondent to undergo an independent mental health evaluation
within 90 days by one of two mental health professionals
listed in the order. Finally, the Court ordered ...