In re Maughan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 130,376 In the Matter of CARL F.A. MAUGHAN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Oral argument held September 17, 2026. Opinion filed November 6, 2026. One-year suspension. Alice Walker, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Julia A. Hart, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Gayle Larkin, Disciplinary Administrator, were on the formal complaint for the petitioner. N. Russell Hazlewood, of Graybill & Hazlewood, LLC, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Carl F.A. Maughan, respondent, argued the cause pro se. PER CURIAM: This is an attorney discipline proceeding against Carl F.A. Maughan, of Colwich. Maughan received his license to practice law in Kansas in September 1997. On December 23, 2025, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a formal complaint against Maughan alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC). Maughan filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the parties entered into a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223 (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277) (Summary submission is "[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent," which 1 includes "a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or conclusions of law will be taken."). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We quote the relevant portions of the parties' summary submission below. "Findings of Fact .... "7. On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court suspended respondent's law license for one year based on violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8(f) (accepting compensation from a third -party payor for representing a client without satisfying all requirements), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In re Maughan, 318 Kan. 890, 898-901, 906, 549 P.3d 1134 (2024). Respondent's license has remained suspended since that time. "8. When respondent engaged in the conduct described below, he practiced law in Sedgwick County and served as a state legislator representing District 90 in the Kansas House of Representatives. His disciplinary case was also pending before the Supreme Court. See In re Maughan, 318 Kan. at 890, 906-07 (noting that respondent's disciplinary hearing occurred on December 7, 2023; oral argument, which respondent failed to appear for, occurred on May 10, 2024; and the court's decision was published on June 14, 2024.). "DA 14,111/ Shawnee County DUI; Case No. 24CR909 "9. Respondent maintained a residence in Sedgwick County and commuted to Topeka, Kansas, during the legislative session to perform his elected duties. Respondent also maintained a long-term hotel room at the Ramada Inn, located at 420 SE 6th Street, Topeka, where he stayed during legislative sessions. 2  "10. On Sunday, March 3, 2024, respondent prepared to travel to Topeka for legislative business and packed a duffel bag for the week. Prior to departing that evening from his residence in Colwich, respondent drank alcoholic beverages. "11. Respondent stopped in El Dorado, where he drank additional alcoholic beverages with friends before continuing to drive to Topeka on the Kansas Turnpike. "12. After exiting the turnpike in Topeka, respondent proceeded north on Topeka Boulevard toward the Ramada Inn. "13. At approximately 12:36 a.m. on March 4, 2024, around the intersection of 29th Street and Topeka Boulevard, a police officer observed respondent's vehicle traveling below the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour while weaving within and crossing over the traffic lane markings. The officer also saw respondent's vehicle change lanes without first signaling. "14. The officer initiated a traffic stop, contacted respondent, and asked whether any weapons were present in the vehicle. Respondent stated that a 9mm handgun was in the blue duffel bag on his front passenger seat. "15. Another police officer arrived on scene, approached respondent's vehicle, and saw a twelve-pack cardboard box of beer, missing seven cans, on the rear passenger floorboard. "16. Both officers detected the odor of alcohol emanating from respondent. "17. Law enforcement requested that respondent participate in standardized field sobriety tests. Respondent stated he had a knee injury and refused to perform the tests. "18. Law enforcement then requested that respondent submit to a preliminary breath test; respondent refused. 3  "19. Based on the officers' observations, respondent was arrested for driving under the influence. "20. Law enforcement read the DC-70 implied consent advisory form to respondent and requested that he consent to a breathalyzer test. Respondent initially agreed to take the breathalyzer test. "21. Officers conducted a search of respondent's vehicle and found the loaded handgun in the duffel bag as respondent had indicated. During the search of the duffel bag, officers also discovered one small empty bottle of whiskey and two full, unopened bottles of whiskey. "22. Police transported respondent to the law enforcement center to administer the breathalyzer test. However, after arriving, respondent withdrew his consent and refused to provide a breath sample. "23. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant that authorized the collection of a blood sample from respondent to test for the presence of alcohol. Respondent was transported to a local hospital, where a blood draw was conducted at 3:23 a.m. on March 4, 2024. "24. The blood sample was submitted to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for forensic analysis. The test results revealed the presence of ethyl alcohol at a concentration of .22 grams per 100 milliliters of blood. "25. On May 8, 2024, respondent was charged in Shawnee County District Court, Case No. 24CR909, with possession of a firearm while under the influence, a class A nonperson misdemeanor; driving under the influence (DUI), a class B nonperson misdemeanor; failure to signal a lane change, an infraction; and failure to maintain a single lane, an infraction. 4  "26. On September 27, 2024, Respondent entered a guilty plea to DUI, a class B nonperson misdemeanor. The prosecution dismissed the remaining charges. The district court sentenced respondent to a suspended jail sentence and placed him on probation for six months with the requirement that he comply with all treatment recommendations set forth in his drug and alcohol evaluation. "27. On March 27, 2025, Respondent successfully completed court-ordered probation. "28. The ODA docketed a disciplinary complaint in this matter on June 13, 2024. "29. Following the docketing of the complaint, respondent cooperated in the investigation of this complaint. "DA 14,121/Sedgwick County DUI; Case No. 24TR16142 "30. On May 25, 2024, at around 7:30 p.m., emergency management dispatched law enforcement and EMS to the scene of an accident where respondent had driven his vehicle into a pole and was trapped inside. "31. At the crash scene, law enforcement detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the respondent. "32. Witnesses told law enforcement they saw bottles of hard alcohol and beer in respondent's vehicle. Officers recovered whiskey bottles and beer cans/bottles from the crash site. "33. At the crash scene, respondent was semi-conscious and attempted to answer basic questions from law enforcement, but his responses were incoherent, and his speech was slurred. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital. "34. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant to collect a sample of respondent's blood for alcohol testing. 5  "35. The hospital collected the blood at 8:33 p.m. and sent respondent's blood sample to the hospital's lab for testing. The results indicated that respondent's blood plasma alcohol concentration was .365 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood at the time of the draw, significantly exceeding the legal presumptive limit of .08. "36. Respondent does not remember the events leading up to the crash or the crash itself. His first memory after the crash is waking up in the hospital's ICU. "37. Respondent sustained severe injuries from the crash, including a fractured sternum, broken ribs that extended to the spine attachment points, a concussion, and multiple bruises and cuts on his body. "38. On June 27, 2024, respondent reported his alcohol-related car crash to the ODA as a potential KRPC 8.4(b) violation. Respondent has maintained regular contact with the ODA since reporting the incident. "39. On September 26, 2024, respondent was charged in Sedgwick County District Court (Case No. 24TR16142) with DUI, a class B non-person misdemeanor, and failure to maintain a single lane, an infraction. "40. On October 28, 2024, respondent entered a guilty plea to the misdemeanor DUI charge. He was sentenced that same day to a suspended jail sentence and placed on a twelve-month reporting probation with the requirement that he follow all treatment recommendations set forth in his drug and alcohol evaluation. "41. On April 29, 2025, respondent successfully completed court-ordered probation, which included completion of all treatment recommendations set forth in his drug and alcohol evaluation in this case. "42. Respondent cooperated throughout the disciplinary investigation. 6  "Conclusions of Law "43. Under Rule 223(b)(1) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 276), respondent admits that he engaged in misconduct. Under Rule 223(b)(2)(C) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 276), the parties stipulate that the findings of fact stated above constitute clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g) (engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law) (2025 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 426). "44. A lawyer shall not 'engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). The Kansas Supreme Court has consistently held 'that the legal profession by its nature demands compliance with the laws governing the behavior of citizens.' In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 527, 241 P.3d 1010 (2010), reinstatement granted, 292 Kan. 366, P.3d 340. "45. In In re Robertson, 256 Kan. 505, 507, 886 P.2d 806 (1994), the Supreme Court stated: 'Any violation of the law creates some question about the trust and confidence that the public may reasonably be expected to place in a lawyer. No matter what the violation, some discipline may be required to deter the attorney involved and other members of the bar.' "While disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, respondent drove a vehicle on two occasions while he was severely intoxicated. One of these instances resulted in a serious car accident. Respondent was ultimately convicted twice of DUI under K.S.A. 8-1567. Respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of KRPC 8.4(g). "ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions "46. In making the joint recommendation for discipline, the disciplinary administrator and respondent 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. 7  "47. Duty Violated. Respondent violated his duty to the public and his duty to the profession. "48. Mental State. Respondent knowingly violated his duties. "49. Injury. As a result of respondent's misconduct, he caused harm to the public and the legal profession. "Aggravating and Mitigating Factors "50. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. Under Rule 223(b)(2)(D) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 276), the parties stipulate that the following aggravating factors are applicable in this case: "51. Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas Supreme Court admitted respondent to practice law in the State of Kansas in 1997. At the time of the misconduct, respondent had been practicing law for more than 28 years. "52. Pattern of Misconduct. The two underlying docketed complaints that form the basis for this agreement resulted from respondent being arrested for and convicted of DUI twice. First, on March 4, 202[4], respondent was arrested for DUI in Topeka, Kansas, and convicted on September 27, 2024. Then, on May 25, 202 [4], in Sedgwick County, Kansas, respondent was again arrested for DUI and convicted on October 28, 2024. "53. Prior Disciplinary Offenses. Respondent has been previously disciplined in the form of two prior diversions on three docketed complaints, and a one -year definite suspension with a reinstatement hearing required. "a. DA 9,673 and DA 9,784: (Due [to] this instance of misconduct/ discipline occurring approximately twenty years ago, the parties recommend that it not be considered as an aggravating factor)[.] On July 24, 2006, respondent 8  entered into a diversion agreement with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) for violations of KRPC 1.3 (diligence). In DA 9,673, the violation stemmed from respondent's appellate representation of thirty-four (34) incarcerated individuals who sought to appeal sentencing issues. The appellate court issued orders to show cause in each case requesting respondent to explain the delay. Respondent's delay did not cause any of the cases to be dismissed, and he ultimately resolved them in a manner satisfactorily to the court. In DA 9,784, BIDS appointed respondent to file an appeal. Due to a clerical error, the appeal was not filed, and respondent lost track of the case in his office. Eleven months after the respondent was appointed, his client wrote and asked for an update, which caused respondent to realize he lost track of the case. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal to be filed, and the client was not harmed. The diversion was successfully completed and dismissed on October 18, 2007. "b. DA 11,139: On December 29, 2010, respondent entered into a diversion agreement with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) for violation of KRPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions). The violation stemmed from respondent again making an argument to the appellate court that the court had rejected on thirty prior cases respondent participated in, of which he was counsel of record for nine cases. The diversion was successfully completed and dismissed on December 30, 2011. "c. DA 13,981: On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court suspended respondent's law license for one year based on violations of KRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8(f) (accepting compensation from a third -party payor for representing a client without satisfying all requirements), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In re Maughan, 318 Kan. 890, 898-901, 906, 549 P.3d 1134 (2024). Respondent's license has remained suspended since that time. "54. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. Under Rule 223(b)(2)(D) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 276), the parties stipulate that the following mitigating factors are applicable in this case: 9  "55. Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. Respondent's misconduct was not motivated by dishonesty or selfishness. "56. Personal or emotional problems, if such misfortunes have contributed to a violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent has a history of depression and anxiety, and at the time of the misconduct, these disorders were exacerbated by the end of his marriage and facing attorney discipline. "At the time of the misconduct, respondent was suffering from untreated alcoholism Since committing this misconduct, respondent has worked towards rehabilitation. He has completed intensive outpatient treatment, entered into a monitoring agreement with KALAP, and maintained his sobriety. Respondent's efforts suggest that so long as he remains vigilant towards his recovery, it is unlikely he will commit this misconduct again. "57. The present and past attitude of the attorney as shown by his or her cooperation during the hearing and his or her full and free acknowledgment of the transgressions. Respondent cooperated during the disciplinary process. "58. Previous good character and reputation in the community including any letters from clients, friends and lawyers in support of the character and general reputation of the attorney. Respondent has provided numerous character letters regarding his good character and reputation in the community. "59. Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. As a result of respondent's misconduct, he now has two class 'B' misdemeanor convictions for DUI, and has served court-ordered probationary terms. [T]his misconduct was committed [shortly before the] time period that respondent's license to practice law was suspended[;] he will also need to address these pending disciplinary complaints in his reinstatement hearing. "60. Remorse. Respondent is remorseful for his misconduct. 10  "Applicable ABA Standards "61. The parties agree that ABA Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanction 5.12 is the applicable standard in this case. '5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice.' "Relevant Case Law "62. In determining the applicable ABA Standards and appropriate discipline, the parties reviewed prior attorney disciplinary opinions, specifically: "a. In re Rundus, 319 Kan. 823, 561 P.3d 515 (2024): The Court found the appropriate sanction for three DUI convictions, one a felony, in a one -year period, and failing to timely notify the ODA of the convictions, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b) and Rule 219, was a one-year retroactive suspension. The Court accepted the parties' joint recommendation, citing mitigating factors of no prior disciplinary history, depression contributing to the misconduct, and criminal sanctions already imposed, and conditioned reinstatement on demonstrated treatment for depression, completion of criminal probation, and engagement with KALAP. "b. In re Johns, 291 Kan. 638, 243 P.3d 1101 (2010): The Court imposed a two-year retroactive suspension for three DUI convictions, including a felony, over fourteen years, violating KRPC 8.4(b). It did not find chemical dependency as a mitigating factor, citing failure to meet the four-part test, but credited mitigation for lack of prior discipline, alcoholism contributing to misconduct, remorse, and cooperation. Reinstatement dependent on a professional evaluation by a KALAP-approved provider, adherence to treatment, and proof of sobriety during suspension. 11  "c. In re Laskowski, 282 Kan. 710, 147 P.3d 135 (2006): The Court imposed an indefinite retroactive suspension on an attorney who committed three DUIs over a two-year period, the third a felony, in violation of KRPC 8.4(b) and 8.4(g). Despite mitigation of no prior Kansas discipline, cooperation, remorse, completion of substance abuse treatment, and two years' sobriety, the Court concluded that a felony conviction, while not a breach of duty to a client, violated the respondent's primary duty to the court and the bar and eroded public confidence in the judicial system, warranting a sanction more severe than the panel recommended. "[]Recommendation for Discipline "63. Based on the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, ABA Standards 5.12, the aggravating factors, and the mitigating factors, and under Rule 223(b)(3) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277), the parties jointly recommend that the Supreme Court order respondent be disciplined by a twelve-month suspension, but that the suspension be stayed for the respondent to complete a twelve-month probation term. The parties recommend that respondent's probationary period begin upon the reinstatement of his law license from suspended to active status. While serving his probationary period, the parties recommend the following terms and conditions: "64. Dan Monnat, Kansas attorney registration number 09363, shall be respondent's supervising attorney during probation period. "65. Respondent chose Mr. Monnat as his supervising attorney because he is a respected, experienced and diligent attorney with an impeccable reputation. Respondent worked for Mr. Monnat between 1999 and 2002. Mr. Monnat knows respondent's work habits, legal training, and background. Mr. Monnat is a respected mentor [from] whom respondent has often taken personal and professional advice. Respondent believes that Mr. Monnat will approach the supervision of probation with the same diligence and strict adherence to rules and procedure as he has demonstrated in his practice of law. 12  "66. Mr. Monnat has agreed to execute a confidentiality agreement to protect the confidentiality of any client-sensitive information which is disclosed as a result of this supervision. Respondent shall co-ordinate with the supervising attorney to ensure that conflict checks exist to protect from the possibility that respondent and the supervising attorney do not enter into conflicting situations. If such a situation arises, respondent and the supervising attorney shall discuss and implement contingency plans and/or seek the appointment of an alternate supervising attorney. "67. Respondent shall comply with the conditions of this proposed plan from the date the probation plan is submitted to the panel on February 18, 2026, until it has either been rejected or approved. "68. Respondent shall abide by all KRPCs, relevant court orders, regulatory and legal requirements relevant to his practice of law in all jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice. "69. Respondent shall continue a course of therapy by a licensed therapist until or unless the therapist decides that such therapy is no longer necessary or advisable. "70. Respondent shall not commit misconduct as defined by Supreme Court Rule 201(n) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 251). "71. Respondent shall continue to attend a twelve-step program meeting at least 4 times per month and report time and place of attendance to his supervising attorney. "72. Respondent shall continue to maintain sobriety throughout the period of probation. "73. Respondent shall report any prescription drugs which may cause impairment to his supervising attorney. "74. Respondent shall meet with his supervising attorney no less than once per month to address his continued fitness to practice law and compliance with this probation plan. The supervising attorney shall immediately inform the ODA if the supervising 13 attorney knows or reasonably believes that respondent has failed to comply with any condition of this probation plan, in accordance with Rule 227(i)(2) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 282). "75. Respondent shall refrain from driving any vehicle on the highways unless the vehicle is equipped with an ignition interlock device to detect the use of alcohol for as long as Kansas statute requires. "76. Respondent shall attend an additional 6 hours of ethics CLE (beyond that required by the standard CLE requirements). "77. Respondent shall advise his supervising attorney of any change in employment, the type of law being practiced, and change in jurisdiction or location of practice. "78. Respondent shall discuss with his supervising attorney the conditions under which he is practicing law and abide by any reasonable suggestions of his supervising attorney necessary to ensure that sufficient guard rails are in place to ensure continued fitness to practice law. "79. Respondent shall promptly report any allegations of a violation of criminal law, or of the rules of professional conduct to his supervising attorney and self-report to the ODA as required by the Rules. "80. Respondent shall maintain a monitoring agreement with the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program ('KALAP') and abide by all requirements of said monitoring agreement. Respondent shall sign a release to allow KALAP to communicate with the ODA regarding respondent's probation compliance. "81. Respondent shall submit to random substance abuse testing as required under the KALAP monitoring agreement or as otherwise directed by the supervising attorney or the ODA. Results of any such testing shall be made available to the supervising attorney and the ODA. Respondent's refusal or failure to submit to testing shall constitute a violation of this probation. 14  "82. Respondent shall submit a written monthly report to his supervising attorney and the ODA by e-mail . . . . Such report shall be submitted by the last day of each calendar month and detail all meetings and discussions with the supervising attorney, all meetings under the KALAP monitoring agreement, all times and locations of 12-step program meetings attended, therapy meetings attended, all CLE courses attended, and any changes in employment arrangement. "83. No later than 14 days before the expiration of the probationary period, respondent shall submit a final report to the supervising attorney and the ODA detailing respondent's compliance with each condition of this probation plan. "84. Respondent acknowledges that, pursuant to Rule 227(h), Respondent remains on probation until discharged by the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the stated term of probation has expired. Upon expiration of the probationary period, respondent may file a motion for discharge from probation with the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 227(g) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 282)." DISCUSSION In a disciplinary proceeding, this court generally considers the evidence, the disciplinary panel's findings, and the parties' arguments to determine whether KRPC violations exist and, if they do, the appropriate discipline to impose. Attorney misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 258 P.3d 375 (2011); see also Supreme Court Rule 226(a)(1)(A) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 281) (A misconduct finding must be established by clear and convincing evidence .). "Clear and convincing evidence is 'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 610 (2009). 15  The Disciplinary Administrator provided Maughan with adequate notice of the formal complaint. The Disciplinary Administrator also provided Maughan with adequate notice of the hearing before the panel, but he waived that hearing after entering into the summary submission agreement. Under Rule 223, a summary submission agreement is "[a]n agreement between the disciplinary administrator and the respondent to proceed by summary submission[. It] must be in writing and contain the following: "(1) an admission that the respondent engaged in the misconduct; "(2) a stipulation as to the following: (A) the contents of the record; (B) the findings of fact; (C) and conclusions of law, including each violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys, or the attorney's oath of office; and (D) any applicable aggravating and mitigating factors; "(3) a recommendation for discipline; "(4) a waiver of the hearing on the formal complaint; and "(5) a statement by the parties that no exceptions to the findings of fact or conclusions of law will be taken." Rule 223(b) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 277). The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the summary submission and canceled a hearing under Rule 223(e)(2). As a result, the factual findings in the summary submission are admitted. See Supreme Court Rule 228(g)(1) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 287) ("If the respondent files a statement . . . that the respondent will not file an exception . . . , the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the final hearing report will be deemed admitted by the respondent."). The summary submission agreement, and the admissions therein, establish by clear and convincing evidence the charged conduct violated KRPC 8.4(g) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 432). We adopt the findings and conclusions set forth by the parties in the 16 summary submission. We also note that at oral argument, the parties alerted us to typographical errors in two paragraphs. We also adopt those corrections and have incorporated them into this opinion. The remaining issue is deciding the appropriate discipline. The parties jointly recommend a one-year suspension of Maughan's law license, but that the suspension be stayed for the respondent to complete a one-year probation term. The parties also recommend that the probationary period begin upon the reinstatement of his law license from suspended to active status. An agreement to proceed by summary submission is advisory only and does not prevent us from imposing discipline greater or lesser than the parties' recommendation. Rule 223(f). After full consideration, we hold a one-year suspension with a required reinstatement hearing is an appropriate sanction. By imposing this discipline, Maughan's scheduled reinstatement hearing for the suspension ordered in In re Maughan, 318 Kan. 318 Kan. 890, 908-09, 549 P.3d 1134 (2024), can no longer go forward. Maughan will not be eligible for reinstatement until he completes his definite suspension in this case . "The varying sanctions imposed by this court result from a careful consideration of mitigating and aggravating facts in each case." In re Cure, 309 Kan. 877, 885, 440 P.3d 563 (2019), reinstatement granted 312 Kan. 870, 483 P.3d 1046 (2021). In rejecting the parties' recommendation for probation upon reinstatement, we acknowledge the great and continued effort that Maughan has made in his recovery. However, we must also consider the severity of Maughan's actions at the time, and the severity of the two DUIs in Maughan's case weighs heavily in our analysis. Though every disciplinary case is unique and turns on its specific facts, we are informed by our prior decisions addressing similar circumstances. 17  While Maughan was not convicted of a felony DUI, his level of intoxication in each case—.22 and .365 grams per 100 milliliters of blood—was severe. "It is expected that the 'trust and confidence placed on those that practice law also requires compliance with the law.'" 309 Kan. at 884-85 (quoting In re Frahm, 291 Kan. 520, 527, 241 P.3d 1010 [2010]). See also In re Harrington, 296 Kan. 380, 394, 293 P.3d 686 (appropriate discipline for respondent's three plea-based misdemeanor convictions, including a DUI conviction was a two-year suspension, with a conditional stay after three months), reinstatement granted 297 Kan. 180, 299 P.3d 308 (2013). We have stated that "although a . . . DUI conviction is not a breach of professional duty to a client, it violates KRPC 8.4 . . . because it is a violation of the attorney's 'primary duty to the court and the bar, and it erodes the public confidence in the judicial system.'" Cure, 309 Kan. at 884. Unlike how Maughan has responded, when lawyers fail to take accountability for their actions in DUI cases, this court has imposed more severe sanctions than a one-year suspension. Frahm, 291 Kan. at 531 (suspending attorney for three years after conviction of felony DUI and two counts of aggravated battery where respondent left the scene of an accident to avoid prosecution); In re O'Neill, 285 Kan. 474, 483-84, 172 P.3d 1179 (2007) (suspending attorney indefinitely for felony DUI conviction and attorney's failure to disclose five arrests in attorney's application for admission to the Kansas bar); In re Laskowski, 282 Kan. 710, 714, 147 P.3d 135 (2006) (suspending attorney from the practice of law indefinitely after receiving a felony DUI when the evidence showed respondent continued to consume alcohol following his arrest). Even when lawyers have made significant strides to address their problems which led them to violations, sometimes the appropriate discipline is more than a one-year suspension. See Cure, 309 Kan. at 885 (felony DUI resulted in 18-month suspension). 18  CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Carl F.A. Maughan is suspended for one year from the practice of law in the state of Kansas, effective the date of this opinion, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(3) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 280) for violation of KRPC 8.4(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 231 (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 291). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondent applies for reinstatement, he shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 232 (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 292) and be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas Reports. 19