In re Mintz
This text of 564 P.3d 785 (In re Mintz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 110,111
In the Matter of ROBERT A. MINTZ, Petitioner.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On February 7, 2014, the court indefinitely suspended Robert A. Mintz' Kansas law license under Supreme Court Rule 225(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 278) (formerly Rule 203). The court further ordered that Mintz undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 232(e) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 291) (formerly Rule 219), before the court would consider any petition for reinstatement. See In re Mintz, 298 Kan. 897, 317 P.3d 756 (2014).
On May 22, 2023, Mintz filed a petition for reinstatement under Rule 232(b). Upon finding sufficient time had passed for reconsideration of the suspension, the court remanded the matter for further investigation by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator and a reinstatement hearing.
On September 17, 2024, a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing on Mintz' petition for reinstatement. The court subsequently received the hearing panel's Reinstatement Final Hearing Report. In that report, the hearing panel concludes that Mintz presented clear and convincing evidence to show the factors set out in Rule 232(e)(4) weigh in favor of reinstatement. Accordingly, the panel recommends the court grant Mintz' petition and reinstate his law license.
The court accepts and adopts the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel, grants Mintz' petition for reinstatement, and reinstates Mintz' Kansas law license. The court orders Mintz to satisfy all administrative requirements for reinstatement, including the payment of all attorney registration fees to the Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) and the completion of all continuing legal education requirements. See Supreme Court Rule 812 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 603) (outlining CLE requirements following reinstatement). The court directs that once OJA receives proof of Mintz' completion of these conditions, OJA must add Mintz' name to the roster of attorneys actively engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.
Finally, the court orders the publication of this order in the official Kansas Reports and the assessment of all costs herein to Mintz.
Dated this 4th day of March 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
564 P.3d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mintz-kan-2025.