In the Matter of Roswold
This text of 275 P.3d 904 (In the Matter of Roswold) 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
On April 22, 2011, this court suspended the respondent, James M. Roswold, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 1 year. See In re Roswold, 292 Kan. 136, 249 P.3d 1199 (2011). Refore reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay tire costs of the disciplinary action, comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379), and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 380).
On March 23, 2012, the respondent filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.
The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and recommendations that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas.
It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent’s name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.
It Is Further Ordered this this order of reinstatement for James M. Roswold shall be published in the Kansas Reports and *449 the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent.
Dated this 10th day of May, 2012.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
275 P.3d 904, 294 Kan. 448, 2012 WL 1648829, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-roswold-kan-2012.