IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 104,200

In the Matter of CARLOS DUPREE ROMIOUS,

A/K/A D. CARLOS ROMIOUS,
Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 8, 2010. Disbarment.

Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Frank D. Diehl, deputy
disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for petitioner.

No appearance by respondent.

Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Carlos Dupree Romious, a/k/a D.
Carlos Romious, of Kansas City, Missouri, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in
Kansas in 1997.

On September 11, 2009, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal
complaint against the respondent, alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. A
hearing was held on the complaint before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of
Attorneys on November 18, 2009. The respondent failed to appear at this hearing;
however, he requested a continuance on the evening of November 17, 2009, by email to a
special investigator to the Disciplinary Administrator, saying he was out of the state and
could not afford to travel to Kansas. The hearing panel found that the respondent did not
submit a timely request for a continuance and that good cause did not exist for a
continuance.

1
 
 

The hearing panel determined that respondent violated KRPC 1.1 (2009 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 410) (competence); 1.5(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 460) (fees); 3.4(c) (2009
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 552) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); 3.5(d) (2009 Kan. Ct.
R. Annot. 558) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal);
4.4(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 572) (respect for rights of third persons); 8.4(b) (2009
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 602) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct
involving misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice); 8.4(g) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's
fitness to practice law); and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.
321) (failure to file answer in disciplinary proceeding). Upon conclusion of the hearing,
the panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with its
recommendation to this court:

"FINDINGS OF FACT

....

"2. On October 8, 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended the

Respondent's license to practice law for failing to comply with the annual administrative
requirements to maintain a law license. The Respondent's license remains suspended.

"Count I – DA10509
"Municipal Court of Shawnee, Kansas, Conduct

3. The Respondent represented Christopher D. Falkner in a traffic case

pending in the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal Court, case number T08197971.

"4. On April 16, 2008, after the docket had been concluded in the Municipal
Court of Shawnee, Kansas, the Respondent approached the Municipal Court Clerk's

2
 
 

window and demanded to see the prosecutor, Joshua Allen. The Respondent told the
clerk to tell the prosecutor to get his 'ass' in the courtroom.

"5. Mr. Allen met with the Respondent in the courtroom. After the meeting,
the Respondent returned to the Municipal Court Clerk's window. Despite the fact that the
clerks were already assisting the Respondent, the Respondent repeatedly rang the service
door bell.

"6. On April 21, 2008, the Respondent returned to the Municipal Court of
Shawnee, Kansas. The Respondent told the clerk that he wanted to 'fucking' file his
paperwork. The Respondent presented a pleading entitled, 'Defendant's Application for
Change of Judge' in Mr. Falkner's case. Tammy Manthei, clerk, told the Respondent that
the clerks were working on it.

"7. The Respondent called Ms. Manthei a 'fucking bitch.' The Respondent
pointed his finger at Ms. Manthei, hitting the glass. The Respondent told Ms. Manthei
that she better do what he told her to do. The Respondent proceeded to tell Ms. Manthei
that he is smarter than anyone in the clerk's office. The Respondent repeatedly pointed at
the clerks, calling them 'fucking bitches.' The Respondent told Ms. Manthei to get her
'ass' in there to get his signed motion. Ms. Manthei testified she had never experienced
conduct like the Respondent's in her eight years in the municipal court office. As a result
of the Respondent's conduct, someone from the clerk's office telephoned the police
department. The police did not arrive until the time when the Respondent was driving
away in his vehicle.

"8. The Defendant's Application for Change of Judge contained several

defects. First, the Respondent failed to include any reason for the Judge to recuse himself.
Second, despite the fact that the application was being made in behalf of Mr. Falkner, the
affidavit was titled 'Affidavit of Defendant Jonathan Johnson.' Finally, while the affidavit
indicates that it was subscribed and sworn to before a Notary Public, there is no signature
line nor a signature from a Notary Public.

"9. The judge summarily denied the Defendant's Application for Change of
Judge filed by the Respondent.

3
 
 

"10. As a result of the Respondent's conduct in the Municipal Court, on May

1, 2008, the Johnson County District Attorney's office charged the Respondent with
disorderly conduct. During the pendency of the case, the Respondent failed to appear in
court as ordered on three occasions. The Respondent failed to appear May 16, 2008, and
April 10, 2009. In October, 2009, Ms. Manthei and other witnesses appeared in court for
trial. The Respondent, however, failed to appear. The trial was continued to November
25, 2009. [Footnote: According to the Johnson County District Court website, on
November 25, 2009, an attorney appeared in behalf of the Respondent. The attorney
entered a plea of guilty in behalf of the Respondent. The court sentenced the Respondent
to serve four days in the county jail. The Respondent received credit for time served and
the case was closed.]

"Count II – DA10509
"Federal Court Conduct

"11. On May 6, 2008, the Respondent entered the north door of the United States
Courthouse at 500 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. At a station manned by court
security officers inside the doorway, the Respondent removed items from his pockets,
placed the items in a tray, and walked through the magnetometer. The alarm on the
magnetometer sounded.

"12. A court security officer told the Respondent to return to the entry side of
the magnetometer, remove his wristwatch, and walk through the magnetometer again.
The Respondent refused. The Respondent became very loud and began using profane
language to the court security officers.

"13. The court security officers repeatedly told the Respondent to return to the
entry side of the magnetometer or leave the building. The Respondent continued to
refuse[] to comply and began shouting profanities at the court security officers. Despite
the fact that the Respondent had not been cleared by the court security officers, the
Respondent started walking toward the elevators. The court security officers told the
Respondent to stop and to return to the entry side of the magnetometer. The Respondent

4
 
 

did not stop. The court security officers repeated in a louder voice that the Respondent
should stop and return to the security area. The Respondent stopped walking toward the
elevators but continued using profane language toward the court security officers.

"14. The court security officers called the United States Marshal's Office for
assistance. Several Deputy United States Marshals responded, including Deputy Marshal
Sean Franklin.

"15. Deputy Marshal Franklin told the Respondent to leave the courthouse.
The Respondent refused to do so. The Respondent told Deputy Marshal Franklin that he
would have to move him. Deputy Marshal Franklin put a hand on the Respondent and the
Respondent shoved Deputy Marshal Franklin. Deputy Marshal Franklin took the
Respondent to the floor. The struggle between Deputy Marshal Franklin and the
Respondent continued, knocking over the magnetometer and going through a set of
doors. Eventually, the Respondent was placed under arrest. Deputy Marshal Franklin
received minor injuries in the incident.

"16. On May 14, 2008, a grand jury of the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas indicted the Respondent in case number 08-20056CM in a three count
complaint with (1) failing to comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory, and
directory nature and with the lawful direction of Federal police officer, (2) exhibiting
disorderly conduct that created loud and unusual noise and a nuisance and unreasonably
obstructed the use of an entrance, foyer, and lobby of the United States Courthouse, and
(3) resisting, opposing, impeding, and interfering with Sean Franklin and Steve
Makarunis in the performance of their official duties. The first two charges were
misdemeanors and the third charge was a felony.

"17. On December 18, 2008, the Respondent entered into a plea agreement.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to count one of
the indictment. The Court sentenced the Respondent to 30 days and gave credit to the
Respondent for time served.

"Count III – DA10520

"Representation of Alta V. Vaughn, Sr.

5
 
 

"18. The Respondent represented Alta V. Vaughn, Sr. in the Circuit Court of
Green County, Missouri, case number 31106CF0085. During the period of
representation, the Respondent engaged in abusive and bizarre behavior.

"19. On April 24, 2008, the Respondent was in a Green County, Missouri,
courtroom. During a hearing on a motion to suppress in a case which the Respondent was
not involved, the Respondent loudly and rudely interrupted the proceeding. The
Respondent accused the court of having a pattern and history of scheduling the
Respondent's cases at the end of the docket.

"20. On June 16, 2008, June 17, 2008, and June 18, 2008, the court in Green
County, Missouri held a pre-hearing conference in the Vaughn case. Throughout the
hearing, the Respondent made loud and rude statements.

"21. On June 16, 2008, the Respondent asserted that the proceeding was a
'joke' and a 'travesty.' The Respondent accused the judge of 'apparent reckless, bias,
prejudice, and potentially racist activity and conduct.' The Respondent told the judge that
the 'proceeding was a joke' and that the judge was 'going to sit [his] ass up there.' The
Respondent accused the court of 'corrupting and stinking up the case' and 'corrupting the
system.' Finally, during the hearing on June 16, 2008, the Respondent repeatedly spoke
over the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and angry manner. The Respondent
refused to stop talking when so ordered by the judge.

"22. On June 17, 2008, the Respondent accused the court of 'being anything
but impartial, justiciable, and anything but incompetent.' The Respondent wadded up a
copy of a pleading filed by opposing counsel, threw it to the floor, and, using his shoe,
ground it into the floor. When the court ordered the Respondent to appear the following
morning at 8:00 a.m., the Respondent refused to appear. The Respondent told the court
'to not expect him to be here' and that he should not 'hold [his] breath.' Again, the
Respondent repeatedly spoke over the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and
angry manner. Again, the Respondent refused to stop talking when ordered to stop by the
court.

6
 
 

"23. The hearing resumed on June 18, 2009, and the Respondent did appear.
During that hearing, the Respondent asked the court whether he is a 'pedophile.' The
Respondent also stated to the court that 'you're going to sit up there with the audacity and
the smugness of your holiness.' Finally, and again, the Respondent repeatedly spoke over
the judge and opposing counsel in a loud, rude, and angry manner. The Respondent,
again, refused to stop talking over the judge and opposing counsel when ordered to do so
by the court.

"24. As a result of the Respondent's conduct on June 16, 2008, June 17, 2008,
and June 18, 2008, the court held the Respondent in contempt and sentenced the
Respondent to serve 120 days in jail. The Respondent served the entire sentence. (There
was no direct testimony on this incident at the hearing. However, Disciplinary
Administrator's Exhibit 9, Judgment of Contempt and Disciplinary Administrator's
Exhibit 14, letter from the Respondent to Nancy Wilson, dated April 6, 2009, wherein the
Respondent admits engaging in complained of conduct, provide the factual basis for this
count.)

"Count IV – DA10529
"Representation of [J.J.]

"25. The Respondent was a captain in the Kansas Army National Guard. As a
result, from time to time, the Respondent would be appointed to represent soldiers with
regard to military offenses.

"26. In the fall of 2007, [J.J.] was charged in a two count complaint in the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, case number . . . . The charges were driving
under the influence of alcohol and possession of drugs, both misdemeanors. [J.J.] was a
soldier with the Kansas Army National Guard.

"27. [J.J.], with help from his mother and step-father, hired J. Steven
Neighbors to represent him in the criminal case. [J.J.]'s mother paid Mr. Neighbors
$1,500.00 for the representation in the criminal case. Mr. Neighbors is a very experienced
criminal law attorney.

7
 
 

"28. With regard to military action that could have been taken against [J.J.],
as a result of the criminal charges, [J.J.] requested that a Judge Advocate General be
appointed to defend him. As a result, the Respondent was appointed to represent [J.J.]
with regard to any military action taken against him. The Respondent was not appointed
to represent [J.J.] in the pending criminal case in the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas.

"29. At some point, [J.J.]'s mother talked with the Respondent about having a
meeting with the family, Mr. Neighbors, and the Respondent to make sure that everyone
understood what was happening with regard to [J.J.]'s future.

"30. Mr. Neighbors negotiated a plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea

agreement, the Respondent was to enter a plea of guilty to the driving under the influence
of alcohol charge and in return, the prosecutor would dismiss the possession of drugs
charge. The plea agreement was satisfactory to [J.J.], his mother, his step-father, and his
father.

"31. The Respondent was to enter his plea of guilty to the driving under the
influence of alcohol charge on April 11, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.

"32. An hour before the hearing, [J.J.] and his parents were to meet with the
Respondent about [J.J.]'s future. [J.J.] and his parents were present, but the Respondent
was not. Instead, the Respondent sent his wife to tell [J.J.] and his parents that he was on
his way.

"33. When the Respondent arrived for the meeting, it was just minutes before
the plea hearing was to occur. The Respondent informed Mr. Neighbors, [J.J.], and [J.J.]'s
parents that he was going to take over the criminal case.

"34. In fact, unbeknownst to [J.J.] and his parents, the Respondent filed an
entry of appearance in the criminal case at 11:30 a.m. that morning. Neither [J.J.] nor his
parents had retained the Respondent, nor had they discharged Mr. Neighbors.

8
 
 

"35. The Respondent promised [J.J.] and his parents that he would obtain a
dismissal of the pending charges. [J.J.] was uncertain as to how he should proceed. He
was prepared to enter a plea of guilty to the driving under the influence of alcohol charge
negotiated by Mr. Neighbors. However, the guarantee of having the charges dismissed
was compelling. As a result, under a great deal of stress and anxiety caused by the
Respondent, [J.J.] agreed to have the Respondent represent him.

"36. Orally, the Respondent and [J.J.] agreed to a flat fee of $3,500.00. [J.J.]'s
mother paid the Respondent the $3,500.00 for the representation.

"37. At the hearing, Mr. Neighbors was allowed to withdraw and the
Respondent was recognized as [J.J.]'s attorney. At the Respondent's request, the case was
continued to May 1, 2008.

"38. On April 21, 2008, the Respondent filed 'Defendant's Affidavit in

Support of Defendant's Application for Change of Judge.' The document purports to have
been signed by [J.J.]. However, [J.J.] did not sign the affidavit.

"39. The Respondent, in his representation of [J.J.] with regard to the

potential military action, was abusive and arrogant in his dealings with [J.J.]'s chain of
command.

"40. One night, the Respondent made arrangements to meet [J.J.] at a

McDonald's Restaurant in Independence, Missouri, at 11:30 p.m. The Respondent got
into [J.J.]'s car and handed him papers to review and sign. One of the documents that the
Respondent handed to him was a written fee agreement. The written fee agreement
indicated that the Respondent's hourly rate is $3,500.00. The Respondent sought payment
of $13,250.00 as a 'liquidated fee.' The Respondent directed [J.J.] to drive him to the
Respondent's wife's place of employment in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, to pick up
his car.

"41. [J.J.] was uncomfortable with the very unusual late night meeting with
the Respondent. According to [J.J.] the meeting 'seemed like a drug deal.'

9
 
 

"42. Regarding the $13,250 liquidated fee, [J.J.] told the Respondent that he
did not have 'that kind of money.' The Respondent assured [J.J.] that the fee was
negotiable. Subsequently, [J.J.] terminated the representation of the Respondent and
requested that the $3,500.00 be returned. The Respondent never returned the $3,500.00.
The Respondent threatened to sue [J.J.].

"43. [J.J.] and his parents believe that the Respondent's treatment of [J.J.]'s
chain of command negatively impacted [J.J.]'s military career. As a result of [J.J.]'s
criminal case and the Respondent's treatment of [J.J.]'s chain of command, [J.J.] received
a general discharge from the Kansas Army National Guard. [J.J.]'s family had a long and
proud history of military service. The Respondent's conduct which materially contributed
to [J.J.]'s discharge was emotionally devastating to [J.J.] and his family.

"44. When an army JAG attorney is appointed to represent a soldier in a

military setting, pursuant to Army regulations, the JAG attorney is prohibited from
representing that same soldier in a civilian setting if a fee is charged.

"45. Other than entering his appearance, continuing the April 11, 2008,
hearing, and filing the Defendant's Affidavit in Support of Defendant's Application for
Change of Judge, the Respondent did nothing to earn the $3,500.00 fee.

"Count V – DA10529
"Municipal Court of Grandview, Missouri

"46. On June 2, 2008, the Respondent appeared in behalf of a client at the

Municipal Court of Grandview, Missouri. While court was in session, the Respondent
was speaking in a loud voice and disrupted the court session. Mike Smith, the court
bailiff asked the Respondent to move to an area that was made available for attorneys to
meet with their clients and the court bailiff also asked the Respondent to keep his voice
down.

"47. The Respondent began yelling at Mike Smith, telling him to get out of
his face and that he can stand wherever he wanted to stand. A court security officer, Greg

10
 
 

Smith, came to where the Respondent was making the commotion and escorted the
Respondent to the courtroom.

"48. The Respondent continued to speak in a loud voice. Because he was

disrupting court, Greg Smith escorted the Respondent to the bench. The Respondent
stated that the Grandview Municipal Court is a 'kangaroo court.' The Respondent started
turning his hands around yelling, 'I'm Carlos Romious and I'm an attorney and I'm being
treated unfairly in this courtroom.' As a result of the Respondent's disruptive behavior,
the municipal court judge held the Respondent in contempt of court.

"49. Greg Smith placed the Respondent under arrest and escorted him to the
detention area. The Respondent's client observed Greg Smith escort the Respondent from
the courtroom. Greg Smith heard the Respondent's client state, 'That's my attorney and I
don't want to have anything to do with him.'

"50. While the Respondent was being detained, the Respondent called Greg
Smith a snake. The Respondent stated that 'all you guys in Grandview you are all snakes,
that's all you all are.'

"51. Approximately fifteen minutes later, the judge called the Respondent
back from the detention area. The judge admonished the Respondent to behave
professionally in the courtroom and released him from custody.

"52. Two days later, Greg Smith observed the Respondent in the Grandview
Municipal Court again. When the Respondent noticed Greg Smith, the Respondent
started yelling at him. The Respondent yelled, 'I'm back in Grandview. All the snakes are
back again.' The Respondent continued to scream that everyone was a snake and that
Grandview is full of snakes.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 3.4, KRPC 3.5, KRPC
4.4, KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211, as detailed below.

11
 
 

"2. The Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the Formal Complaint.
It is appropriate to proceed to hearing when a Respondent fails to appear only if proper
service was obtained. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215 governs service of process in disciplinary
proceedings. That rule provides, in pertinent part as follows:

'(a) Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint in any disciplinary
proceeding shall be made by the Disciplinary Administrator, either by personal service or
by certified mail to the address shown on the attorney's most recent registration, or at his
or her last known office address.

....

'(c) Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall be deemed complete
upon mailing whether or not the same is actually received.'

In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by
sending a copy of the Formal Complaint and the Notice of Hearing, via certified United
States mail, postage prepaid, to the address shown on the Respondent's most recent
registration. Additionally, the Disciplinary Administrator sent a copy of the Formal
Complaint and the Notice of Hearing to several other addresses. Finally, it appears that
actual service was obtained as the Respondent sent an electronic mail message
acknowledging the hearing. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent was
afforded the notice that the Kansas Supreme Court Rules require.

"3. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their clients. KRPC

1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.' In representing [J.J.] in the
Johnson County District Court matter, the Respondent lacked reasonable competence. He
filed a motion seeking the recusal of a judge without making any factual allegations.
Because the Respondent was incompetent in representing [J.J.], the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1.

12
 
 

"4. According to KRPC 1.5(a), '[a] lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.' The
Respondent orally agreed to represent [J.J.] in the criminal case for a flat fee of
$3,500.00. While that fee was more than double the fee Mr. Neighbors' charged [J.J.] for
the same representation, that fee was not per se unreasonable. However, later in the
representation, the Respondent attempted to change the fee agreement from a flat fee of
$3,500.00 to an hourly rate of $3,500.00. An hourly rate of $3,500.00 is unreasonable.

"5. KRPC 8.4(a) prohibits attorneys from violating or attempting to violate

the Kansas Rules of Professional conduct. By attempting to charge [J.J.] $3,500.00 per
hour, the Respondent attempted to violate KRPC 1.5. As such, the Hearing Panel
concludes that by virtue of KRPC 8.4(a), the Respondent violated KRPC 1.5.

"6. Pursuant to KRPC 3.4(c), lawyers shall not 'knowingly disobey an

obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion
that no valid obligation exists.' In this case, the Respondent knowingly disobeyed an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal when he engaged in contemptuous conduct in the
Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri, and Grandview Municipal Court. Accordingly,
the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.4(c).

"7. KRPC 3.5(d) prohibits lawyers from 'engag[ing] in undignified and

discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.' The Respondent repeatedly engaged in
undignified and discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal in the Circuit Court of
Green County, Missouri, and Grandview Municipal Court. Therefore, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.5(d).

"8. KRPC 4.4(a) provides:

'In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no
substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or
use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.'

In this case, the Respondent shouted profanities at the clerks of Shawnee, Kansas,
Municipal Court and at the court security officers and the United States Deputy Marshals.
In addition, the Respondent was rude and disruptive in the Circuit Court of Green

13
 
 

County, Missouri, and the Grandview, Missouri, Municipal Court. The Respondent's
conduct had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden court personnel. As
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 4.4(a).

"9. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act

that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects.' KRPC 8.4(b). In this case, the Respondent engaged in criminal conduct at
the Municipal Court of Shawnee, Kansas, and in the federal courthouse. As a result, the
Respondent was convicted of disorderly conduct in the Johnson County District Court
and was convicted of failing to comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory,
and directory nature and with the lawful direction of a federal police officer in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent committed criminal acts and those criminal acts reflect directly on the
Respondent's fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b).

"10. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The Respondent
engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty when he drafted the fee agreement and
asserted that [J.J.] agreed to pay $3,500.00 per hour rather than $3,500.00 as a flat fee. As
such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c).

"11. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that

is prejudicial to the administration of justice.' KRPC 8.4(d). In this case, the Respondent
engaged in 'conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' when he disturbed
the peace of the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal Court clerk 's office, when he created the
disturbance at the federal courthouse, when he disrupted court in the Circuit Court of
Green County, Missouri, when he entered his appearance in behalf of [J.J.] without
authorization, and when he disrupted court in Grandview Municipal Court. As such, the
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(d).

"12. 'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other

conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. KRPC 8.4(g). The
Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 8.4(g).

14
 
 

"13. First, shouting profanities while in the Shawnee, Kansas, Municipal

Court clerk's office adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law.

"14. Next, the Respondent's conduct at the federal courthouse adversely

reflects on his fitness to practice law. Specifically, the Respondent was unwilling to
remove his watch and walk back through the magnetometer. The Respondent shouted
profanities at the court security officers and the United States Deputy Marshals. The
Respondent attempted to gain entrance to the federal courthouse without security
clearance. Finally, refusing to leave the building and instead, engaging in a brawl with
the United States Deputy Marshals adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to
practice law.

"15. Generally, the Respondent's conduct in the Circuit Court of Green

County, Missouri, adversely reflects on the Respondent's fitness to practice law.
Specifically, accusing the judge in the Circuit Court of Green County, Missouri, of being
a pedophile also adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

"16. Without being retained to represent [J.J.] in the criminal case, the
Respondent entered his appearance. The Respondent's conduct in inserting himself in
[J.J.]'s criminal case pending before the Johnson County District Court adversely reflects
on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. Further, the Respondent engaged in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law when he failed to return the unearned
fees of $3,500.00 to [J.J.] or [J.J.]'s mother.

"17. The Respondent engaged in disruptive behavior while in the Municipal

Court of Grandview, Missouri. The Respondent's conduct in that court also reflects
adversely on the Respondent's fitness as an attorney.

"[18.] In summary, the Respondent's conduct resulted in two criminal

convictions, a contempt adjudication that lead to 120 days in jail, minor injuries to a
United States Marshal, and an adverse impact on a military career. The Respondent's
treatment of court staff and the judiciary was far below any acceptable standard. The
Respondent's conduct caused a negative public perception of the legal profession. Finally,

15
 
 

the Hearing Panel cannot ascribe any good cause, justifiable reason or mitigating factor to
the Respondent's conduct in this case.

"19. Accordingly, the Respondent repeatedly engaged in conduct that

adversely reflects on the his fitness to practice law. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes
that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g).

"20. The Kansas Supreme Court Rules require attorneys to file Answers to
Formal Complaints. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provide the requirements:

'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary Administrator

within twenty days after the service of the complaint unless such time is extended
by the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel.'

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b). In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by
failing to file a written Answer to the Formal Complaint. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b).

"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the
factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered
are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by
the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duties to his clients, to the public, to
the legal system, and to the legal profession.

"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duties.

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent caused

actual injury to his client and to the legal system.

16
 
 

"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any

considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case,
found the following aggravating factors present:

"Prior Disciplinary Offenses. On May 9, 2001, the Respondent was informally

admonished for having violated KRPC 1.1 and KRPC 1.3.

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a consistent pattern of

rude, disruptive, and at times criminal, misconduct.

"Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.5, KRPC 3.4,
KRPC 3.5, KRPC 4.4, KRPC 8.4, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211. As such, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent committed multiple offenses.

"Refusal to Acknowledge the Wrongful Nature of his Conduct. To a very limited

extent, the Respondent acknowledged wrongful conduct in Disciplinary Administrator
Exhibit 14.

"Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has not reimbursed

[J.J.]'s mother for the $3,500.00 that she paid for the representation. [J.J.] and his mother
made a claim with the Client Protection Fund and, as a result, received $3,500.00 from
the fund. The Respondent should be required to reimburse the Client Protection Fund
$3,500.00.

"Illegal Conduct, Including that Involving the Use of Controlled Substances. The
Respondent was convicted of disorderly conduct and failing to comply with official signs
of a prohibitory, regulatory, and directory nature and with the lawful direction of a
federal police officer. Thus, the Respondent engaged in illegal conduct.

"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a

reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for
discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found no mitigating circumstances present.

17
 
 

"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly
examined and considered the following Standards:

'4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

'6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or
another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a party, or
causes serious or potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding.

'7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the
intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.'

"RECOMMENDATION

"The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be disbarred. The

Disciplinary Administrator stated that had the Respondent filed an Answer or otherwise
participated in the process, indefinite suspension might have been an appropriate
recommendation.

"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards listed
above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be disbarred.

"Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by the

Office of the Disciplinary Administrator."

The Hearing Panel also noted that it would have also concluded respondent
violated KRPC 1.15 and KRPC 1.16, for failing to refund the unearned fee to J.J. or his
mother, had violations of those rules not been alleged.

18
 
 

DISCUSSION
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of KRPC
exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610
(2009); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 321). Clear and convincing
evidence is "evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that 'the truth of the facts asserted is
highly probable.'" 288 Kan. at 505 (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1
[2008]). The evidence before the hearing panel establishes the charged misconduct of the
respondent by clear and convincing evidence and supports the panel's conclusions of law. We
therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions.

CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Carlos Dupree Romious, a/k/a D. Carlos Romious,

be disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective on filing of this
opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot.
272).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carlos Dupree Romious comply with Supreme

Court Rule 218 (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 361).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the

respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports.

PATRICIA MACKE DICK, District Judge, assigned. 1

1
REPORTER'S NOTE: Pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by art. 3, ' 6(f)
of the Kansas Constitution, Judge Macke Dick was appointed to hear case No. 104,200 to fill the
vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Chief Justice Robert E. Davis.
19