ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
Per Curiam:
This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Corey M. Swischer, of Nevada, Missouri. Swischer was admitted to practice law in Kansas on September 26, 2003. His Kansas license currently is administratively suspended. Swischer also is a licensed attorney in Missouri, admitted in 2002.
On January 22, 2021, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint against Swischer alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). This complaint stemmed from his failure to report to the Disciplinary Administrator's office an indefinite suspension of his license to practice law imposed by the Missouri Supreme Court on September 17, 2019. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision was based on the Missouri disciplinary hearing panel's finding that Swischer violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent violated MRPC 4-1.1 (competence), MRPC 4-1.3 (diligence), MRPC 4-1.4(a) (communication), MRPC 4-3.2 (expediting litigation), and MRPC 4-3.3 (candor towards the tribunal). These violations were connected to a partition cause of action that occurred in 2015. Respondent's license to practice law previously had been indefinitely suspended in 2012 for prior violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. The Missouri Supreme Court, however, stayed the indefinite suspension and placed Swischer on two years of probation, which he completed in 2014. The rules violated in relation to the 2012 discipline were MRPC 4-1.3, MRPC 4-1.4(a)(1), MRPC 4-1.5(c), MRPC 4-1.15(i), MRPC 4-3.2, MRPC 4-5.3(b), MRPC 4-8.1(c), and MRPC 4-8.4(d).
In this case, Swischer did not file a timely answer to the formal complaint or participate in the investigation part of the process. On April 16, 2021, however, the parties entered into a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 273) (summary submission is "[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent," which includes "a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or conclusions of law will be taken"). In conjunction with the summary submission agreement, Swischer filed an answer to the formal complaint.
In the summary submission agreement, the Disciplinary Administrator and Swischer stipulate and agree that Swischer violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rules:
Before us, the parties jointly recommend that Swischer's license to practice law be suspended for one year. The parties also recommend that Swischer be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 232 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287) before his license to practice law can be reinstated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission below.
"1. Findings of Fact . Petitioner and Respondent stipulate and agree that Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in the Formal Complaint filed on January 22, 2021, as follows:
....
i. On July 26, 2014, Respondent was hired by [G.L.] to represent [G.L.] in two Missouri matters: (1) a partition action brought against [G.L.] by his siblings, and (2) probate of [G.L.]'s mother's estate.
ii. In the probate matter, on September 30, 2014, [G.L.] was appointed as personal representative of his mother's estate. The required Annual Settlement of the estate was not filed with the probate court until May 13, 2016. Objections were filed by the siblings and the matter was set for hearing on July 7, 2016.
iii. [G.L.] and Respondent appeared for the hearing on July 7, 2016, and the parties announced that a settlement of the objections was reached. The probate court ordered that a stipulation be filed. The siblings' attorney emailed the stipulations to Respondent on June 8, 2016, but Respondent never forwarded them to [G.L.] for review and approval.
iv. On July 21, 2016, the probate court created a docket entry that stated no stipulations had been filed with the clerk of the court as of that date, ordered that the siblings' objections and motion to remove [G.L.] as personal representative were sustained, that [G.L.] be immediately removed as the personal representative, that [G.L.] reimburse the estate $719.58 taken by him as expenses, and that [G.L.] and Respondent may not receive any fees from the estate for acting as personal representative and attorney for personal representative. The probate court specifically noted regarding Respondent:
‘Despite attorney Swischer's many representations to the Court of his and his client's intentions and ability to immediately file required documents and take other actions, they have consistently failed to do so. The Court deems these failures to be an affront to the Court's patience and acquiescence in believing those representations.’
Respondent did not notify [G.L.] of the July 21, 2016 order or that the siblings' attorney filed the unsigned Stipulations with the court that same day.
v. The siblings' attorney filed a Motion for Contempt on October 27, 2016, and a show cause hearing was scheduled for November 29, 2016. Respondent did not notify [G.L.] of the motion or show cause hearing.
vi. On November 29, 2016, Respondent appeared and paid the $719.58 reimbursement ordered to be paid by [G.L.] without informing [G.L.].
vii. On December 14, 2016, a hearing was held on the Motion for Contempt. The Court found, in part:
‘[Court] expresses frustration at delays, excuses and what is considered intentional misrepresentations by counsel Swischer. [Court] enters judgment in amount of $500.00 against [attorney] Swischer as sanctions; payable to [attorney for siblings], for what would have never been necessary [court] appearances, inconvenience and expense of this motion for contempt.’
Further, the court found that while the $719.58 reimbursement to the estate was made, it was not made by [G.L.] himself as ordered. The court found [G.L.] in contempt of court and ordered that punishment and further sanctions would be ordered against [G.L.] upon his next appearance in court.
viii. Respondent testified that he believed he had notified [G.L.] of the Motion for Contempt via telephone, but admitted that the [ ] did not provide copies of documents, letters, or phone logs to support his claims when requested by the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. He also admitted to failing to file a Motion to Reimburse the Personal Representative for expenses, or a Motion to Set Aside the Contempt Judgment.
ix. Respondent did not notify [G.L.] of the December 14, 2016 hearing or court judgment, including the court finding [G.L.] in contempt.
x. The Missouri Disciplinary Panel found that Respondent violated Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4(a) (communication), 4-3.2 (expediting litigation), and 4-3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) in connection with the probate matter.
xi. In the partition action, Respondent requested an April 28, 2015 hearing on distribution of sale proceeds be rescheduled for June 29, 2015. [G.L.] did not appear at this hearing, and judgment was entered against [G.L.] for attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $6,639.50. [G.L.] testified he was not notified of the June 29, 2015 hearing. Had he known about it, he would have attended.
xii. On August 10, 2015, Respondent filed an appeal on [G.L.]'s behalf. The Legal File was prepared and emailed to Respondent on August 13, 2015. Although [G.L.] wanted to proceed with the appeal, Respondent took no further action on the appeal and it was dismissed on December 18, 2015. [G.L.] lost his ability to appeal the partition action as a result. Respondent accepted responsibility and acknowledged his fault in failing to prosecute the appeal.
xiii. The Missouri Disciplinary Panel found that Respondent violated Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4(a) (communication), and 4-3.2 (expediting litigation) in connection with the partition action.
"g. The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) counterparts to the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct found violated by Respondent are:
i. KRPC 1.1 (competence), which is identical to Missouri Rule 4-1.1 ;
ii. KRPC 1.3 (diligence), which is identical to Missouri Rule 4-1.3 ;
iii. KRPC 1.4(a) (communication), which is equivalent to Missouri Rule 4-1.4(a)(1) and (2) ; iv. KRPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), which is identical to Missouri Rule 4-3.2 ; and
v. KRPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), which is identical to Missouri Rule 4-3.3.
"h. Kansas Supreme Court Rule (‘Kan. Sup. Ct. R.’) 221(c) (effective January 1, 2021, formerly Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202 ) provides in material part:
‘When the licensing authority of another jurisdiction disciplines an attorney for a violation of the rules governing the legal profession in that
...
