The Kansas Supreme Court has decided not to suspend former Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez’s law license for one year, or impose any sanctions against her.
The court delivered an opinion Friday morning that Valdez had not violated professional rules of conduct for attorneys.
Valdez did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday morning.
Background
The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator initiated the complaint in March 2021 after Douglas County District Court’s chief judge reached out for guidance regarding then-DA Valdez’s conduct. Specifically, Valdez made some public statements that called the judge’s integrity into question — and by extension, the integrity of the entire court, some witnesses testified.
Just two months after Valdez took office in January 2021, she issued a press release that implied the judge had falsely asserted that her office was on board with a plan to resume holding jury trials in April 2021 after trials had long been on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A special prosecutor filed a formal complaint against Valdez in August 2023.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
The primary issues at the heart of the hearings are the public and private communications Valdez made about or to Chief Douglas County District Judge James McCabria: press releases, a Facebook post and some text messages. The disciplinary panel of three attorneys had to determine whether they believed Valdez violated four professional rules of conduct.
The panel heard testimony, including from Valdez, over the course of a three-day hearing in December 2023. They weighed the evidence and compiled a final hearing report, which included their recommendations for discipline.
The special prosecutor on the case, Kimberly Bonifas, had asked the panel to impose a one-year suspension of Valdez’s law license. Valdez’s attorney, Stephen Angermayer, said he believed a public censure was the appropriate remedy. The panel attorneys, in their report, agreed with Valdez’s attorney.
They concluded that Valdez had violated Rule 3.5(d) twice — first with a news release, and again with her Facebook post. That rule states simply that a lawyer shall not “engage in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.”
Valdez had shared the press release from the DA’s office’s Facebook page to her personal page, which was public, with the message, “Women of the world- be prepared! If you are hardworking, outspoken, honest, AND in a position of authority, the INSECURE MAN will try to tear you down. Not me, says I!!”
Read more background in the articles linked below.
Supreme Court arguments
The final decision about whether Valdez should face discipline was the Supreme Court justices’ to make.
During oral arguments in April, some of the justices raised questions about free speech, and one called Valdez’s comments “stupid and unprofessional.”
The justices gave Valdez an opportunity to address them, as well. She told them that never in her “craziest of nightmares” did she believe she’d be standing before them for a disciplinary hearing. She apologized and told them she’d made a grave mistake when she let “the turmoil and COVID and all the anxiety and all of that to get the better of me.”
Justices wrote Friday that “After reviewing the panel’s factual findings, the record, the relevant caselaw, and the ABA Model Rules, we conclude that Valdez’ conduct, which formed the basis for the disciplinary complaint, did not violate KRPC 3.5(d).”
“Her press release — though sharply critical of the district court’s decision to hold jury trials at the local fairgrounds during the COVID-19 pandemic and of Chief Judge McCabria’s characterization of her office’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the development of that plan — was not made in the context of an actual legal or other adjudicative proceeding,” the opinion continued.
“Similarly, her Facebook post, while arguably disparaging of the chief judge both personally and professionally, was also made outside an adjudicative setting. Given these facts, we view her commentary as speech and expression that falls beyond the limited scope of KRPC 3.5(d) and reject the panel’s broad reading of the rule as extending to extrajudicial commentary about courts or judges, even when the comments are unwise, inappropriate, or offensive.”
They dismissed the complaint and ordered that Valdez not be assessed any costs of the proceedings.
Justice Caleb Stegall wrote a concurring opinion, meaning he agreed with the decision but for different reasons.
“(Y)ears later, after countless news stories, public outcry, lawyers hired, weeks and months of investigations and hearings, and a subsequent election for Douglas County District Attorney at which the respondent was unseated in part because of these charges—here we are. Was it worth it? No, it was not,” Stegall wrote.
He wrote that he did not believe the rules of professional conduct apply to political speech.
“… (I)t cannot pass our notice that this entire process was aimed squarely at punishing political speech. Even after (perhaps especially after) Valdez was acquitted by the panel of the most serious charges (and now, finally, is absolved of all guilt by this court), we cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that this attorney disciplinary process played a starring role in an important public election in Douglas County,” Stegall’s opinion stated. “Without question it impacted the outcome — if perhaps not the ultimate victor.”
Justice Eric Rosen wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that “Today’s decision allows an attorney to escape accountability for flagrant violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC), particularly in relation to the duty of maintaining respect for the legal system and its officers.”
“Respondent launched reckless public accusations directed at the Seventh Judicial District Court and the chief judge, thereby undermining the integrity of the judiciary and eroding public confidence in the legal process,” Rosen’s dissent continued. “Attorneys are expected to advocate zealously within the bounds of the law and our ethical standards, not engage in inflammatory attacks that demean the dignity of the bench and bring disrepute to the profession as a whole.”
Justices Keynen “K.J.” Wall Jr. and Evelyn Wilson did not participate in the decision.
Here’s the court’s full opinion (click here to open it in a new tab):
caseDecisions_2526ecf3-5863-49e2-922b-f5df0eb8b668_127835If local news matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark@lawrencekstimes.com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.
More coverage:
Molly Adams / Lawrence TimesKansas Supreme Court finds former Douglas County DA did not violate professional rules of conduct
Molly Adams / Lawrence Times
Mackenzie Clark/Lawrence Times
Latest Lawrence news:
Nathan Kramer / Lawrence Times
