In re Rosel

Supreme Court of Kansas

In re Rosel

290 P.3d 611, 296 Kan. 97, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 527

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 19, 2012

DocketBar Docket No. 14325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 P.3d 611 (In re Rosel) 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.

Bluebook

In re Rosel, 290 P.3d 611, 296 Kan. 97, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 527 (kan 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a letter signed on December 17,2012, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Steven D. Rosel, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371) as amended December 1, 2012.

At the time tire respondent surrendered his license, a complaint had been docketed by the Disciplinary Administrator’s office in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 211 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334). The complaint alleged that respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (competence); 1.5 (2011 Kan Ct. R. Annot. 470) (fees); 1.7 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (conflict of interest: current clients); 1.8 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 494) (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules); 1.9 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 502) (conflict of interest: duties to former client); 1.16 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (declining or terminating representation); and 8.4(a), (d) and (e) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Steven D. Rosel be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Steven D. Rosel from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the [98]*98respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379) as amended December 1, 2012.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2012.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a letter signed on December 17,2012, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Steven D. Rosel, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371) as amended December 1, 2012.

At the time tire respondent surrendered his license, a complaint had been docketed by the Disciplinary Administrator’s office in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 211 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334). The complaint alleged that respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 416) (competence); 1.5 (2011 Kan Ct. R. Annot. 470) (fees); 1.7 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 484) (conflict of interest: current clients); 1.8 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 494) (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules); 1.9 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 502) (conflict of interest: duties to former client); 1.16 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (declining or terminating representation); and 8.4(a), (d) and (e) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Steven D. Rosel be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Steven D. Rosel from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the [98]*98respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379) as amended December 1, 2012.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2012.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 P.3d 611, 296 Kan. 97, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosel-kan-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack