► Ethics Complaint v. Kris Kobach Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0


July 7, 2017 



Disciplinary Administrator

701 Jackson Street

First Floor

Topeka, Kansas



David Palmer

Folsom, California


RE: Misconduct of attorney Kris Kobach

      License date: 1995

      Currently Kansas Secretary of State




The attached complaint deals with the misconduct of Kris Kobach as lead counsel in the case of Steven Wayne Fish, et al. vs. Kris Kobach in his capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansa, Case No. 16-2105-JAR pending in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas.


Mr. Kobach is the “lead counsel” in the above referenced litigation as referenced on the Case Summary under “Defendant’s Counsel” on the Federal Court’s website at http://tinyurl.com/yahbfugs.


A copy of Magistrate O’Hara’s sanction order can be found at the Federal Court’s website or at http://tinyurl.com/yaszbw5n.


The Sanction Order of Magistrate O’Hara clearly demonstrates that Mr. Kobach as lead counsel in the Fish v. Kobach matter is guilty of violating the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.


3.1 Advocate: Meritorious Claims and Contentions states:


A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.


Magistrate O’Hara’s ruling clearly demonstrates that Mr. Kobach knowingly and intentionally misled the court regarding documents that plaintiffs had requested in the discovery process.


3.3 Advocate: Candor Toward the Tribunal states:


(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false


The Magistrate’s sanction ruling proves beyond all doubt that Mr. Kobach intentionally misled the court regarding documents plaintiffs had requested in the discovery process. In addition, the ruling states that counsel [Kobach] made false references in his brief. In fact, Magistrate O’Hara clearly states that Kobach had a “duty of candor to the court.” (emphasis added)


3.4 Advocate: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel states:


A lawyer shall not:


(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.


The court’s sanction order proves that Mr. Kobach knowingly, intentionally and cheerfully concealed documents from the plaintiff’s that were of potential or actual evidentiary value.


8.4 Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession: Misconduct states:


It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:


(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(g) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.


There is no doubt that Mr. Kobach engaged in dishonest or deceitful conduct in his dealings with Magistrate O’Hara and plaintiff’s and plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, it is plainly clear that Magistrate O’Hara adjudged Mr. Kobach guilty of engaged in misrepresentation in his dealings with the court.


The evidence further proves that Mr. Kobach is guilty of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. This misconduct is set forth in the Magistrate’s sanction order regarding the basis for the $1,000 sanction as reimbursement to the court for the time spent proving Mr. Kobach’s misconduct.


It would be frivolous to the nth degree for anyone to argue that Mr. Kobach’s deplorable conduct does not constitute conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.


The egregious nature of Mr. Kobach’s misconduct in knowingly, intentionally and cheerfully deceiving the court by engaging in various misrepresentations of the truth mandates that at a minimum that he receive a suspension of his law license for at least one (1) year. Disciplinary cases summaries with URL cited below support such a suspension.


Attorney Steven Wagle of Wichita, KS; serial liar: 1 year suspension

  • Provided false and misleading information to bankruptcy court
  • Engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation
  • Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice



Attorney Kevin Shepherd of Topeka; congenital liar: 2-year suspension

  • Engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation
  • Failed to be candid (truthful) towards tribunal



Attorney Howard Boyd of Wichita; ethical misfit, liar: 2-year suspension

  • Failed to act with candor (lied) to tribunal



It is indeed a sad state of affairs when a public official who has taken an oath both as Secretary of State and as an attorney finds it acceptable to intentionally deceive a court for the sole purpose of furthering an agenda that is intent on making it more difficult for various segments of society to cast a vote.


Please provide me with a copy of Mr. Kobach’s response to this ethics complaint.






Dave Palmer 


Who's Online

We have 252 guests online

Donation Request

Your donations are needed to help defray the recurring costs for internet services, cable access, research via LexisNexis, media subscriptions, and the employment of a researcher and editor.

Donate Here

The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials, Powered by Joomla!; Joomla templates by SG web hosting

website counter