Christine Pina Rosengreen

Christine P. Rosengreen is a family law attorney located in Kansas City, MO. Ms. Rosengreen practices in all areas of family law, including but not limited to, divorce, paternity, modification, guardianship, Guardian ad Litem and adoption. A life-long advocate for children and families, she is a Certified Family Law Mediator for the State of Missouri.

Read More →

If you’ve reached the decision to file for divorce in Kansas or Missouri, then the next steps are going to be consequential for you and your family. Knowing the basics of divorce will help you to not only anticipate forthcoming divorce proceedings but develop a comprehensive strategy for seeking the best possible outcome. Working with an experienced attorney is the best way to understand and apply Kansas City divorce laws to your case. Trust the steady guidance of Joseph, Hollander & Craft.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Divorce in Kansas City: a Quick Overview

Before you can file for divorce in Kansas City, you need to meet the state residency requirements of either Kansas or Missouri. A Kansas divorce requires that one spouse be a state resident for at least 60 days prior to filing. In Missouri, meanwhile, one spouse must be a resident for at least 90 days before filing.

In Kansas, the earliest that the court will grant a divorce is 60 days after the divorce petition is filed. The minimum is 30 days after the petition filing date in Missouri. If the divorce is uncontested (meaning, the spouses agree on how to settle all issues), then the divorce process will be completed about 90 to 120 days after filing. Contested divorces, in which spouses disagree as to one or more issues, may take six to twelve months or longer to resolve.

The actual divorce is initiated once the petitioner files the petition for divorce in the court which has personal jurisdiction over the matter. Nearly all Kansas City, Kansas divorces are filed in Wyandotte County District Court, while most Kansas City, Missouri divorces are filed in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Jackson County. The petitioning spouse then needs to serve the divorce papers on the responding spouse.

Grounds for Divorce in Kansas City, MO

The legal grounds for divorce are defined as the reasons to end the marriage. Missouri has a no-fault divorce system. Instead of having to prove misconduct like adultery, one spouse simply has to allege that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This means the marriage cannot and is unlikely to ever be repaired.

While fault does not matter insofar as the grounds for divorce, it can affect other matters like child custody and financial issues. For example, allegations of domestic violence may affect which party is granted physical or legal custody of a child.

Grounds for Divorce in Kansas City, KS

In Kansas City, KS, most spouses ask for a divorce based on incompatibility. This is a no-fault allegation that essentially means the marriage has broken down and cannot be recovered. Another no-fault claim is incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity. The purpose of this type of divorce is not to punish a mentally ill or incapacitated spouse but to argue that the marital relationship cannot continue due to mental deficiency.

Kansas also recognizes fault grounds which broadly fall into a category known as failure to perform a material marital duty or obligation. The statute does not include a comprehensive grounds of conduct which may qualify, but it can include:

• Abandonment
• Extreme neglect
• Refusal to provide support
• Adultery
• Serious misconduct that affects the marriage

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Considerations

One of the major issues that spouses have to decide is spousal maintenance, also known as alimony. Whether the spouses can resolve this, along with the other matters arising out of their marriage, will determine if they will have a contested or uncontested divorce.

Neither Missouri nor Kansas uses an express formula to calculate spousal support. Judges in both states also have considerable discretion in deciding whether to award alimony and in what amount. Beyond this, the two states diverge.

Missouri Spousal Maintenance Laws

Before awarding alimony, a judge must find that the spouse requesting it lacks enough property to meet his/her financial needs and is unable to meet his/her needs through employment. If a spouse can meet this criteria, then the court may award spousal support. The statutory factors used to determine the amount include:

• The duration of the marriage
• The spouses’ standard of living during the marriage
• Both spouses’ earning capacities
• The financial resources of both spouses
• The age and health of both spouses
• Any evidence of marital misconduct

The Missouri approach tends to result in more indefinite alimony awards versus Kansas. That’s because the focus is on whether the receiving spouse can become self-supporting. So courts can award temporary and rehabilitative alimony as well as long-term and, in some divorce cases, indefinite spousal support.

Kansas Spousal Maintenance Laws

Kansas law allows spousal maintenance that is fair, just, and equitable under the circumstances. This gives judges broader discretion compared to Missouri. Also, unlike Missouri, Kansas does not explicitly include marital misconduct as a spousal maintenance factor.

Kansas courts tend to view spousal maintenance in more practical terms than Missouri. The objective in awarding spousal maintenance is to help the receiving spouse become self-supporting. Spousal maintenance therefore tends to be temporary and rehabilitative in nature. Kansas also imposes a statutory limit of 121 months of spousal maintenance which reinforces its approach to alimony.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Asset Division and Equitable Distribution

Dividing marital property is another important step in finalizing divorce. The division of assets in both Kansas and Missouri is based on principles of equitable distribution. “Equitable” means fair, not necessarily equal, so a 50/50 split in property is not guaranteed.

Importantly, courts in both states are primarily concerned with marital property. Marital includes anything the spouses acquired after the date of marriage. Separate property such as gifts to one spouse, inheritances, or anything that a spouse owned before marriage is generally not considered. However, there are more complex cases in which marital and separate property are commingled.

Your Kansas City divorce lawyer will walk you through the basic steps of property division, which include:

• Identification of all property and debts: Included are real property, bank and investment accounts, retirement accounts, vehicles, family businesses, credit card balances, and personal property.
• Classification of all property and debt: The two essential categories are marital property and debts (subject to division) and separate property and debts (to be retained by one or the other party).
• Exchange of financial information and valuation: This is often done through the process of discovery. The goal is to determine the value of each item of marital property and debt. Valuation of the marital assets and debts must take place before either can be distributed between the spouses.
• Apply the equitable distribution factors: In deciding how to divide the assets and debts, the court takes into account such factors as the length of the marriage, the spouses’ financial circumstances, the economic needs of both spouses, and evidence of marital waste.
• Settlement or trial: The spouses are often required by the court to attempt mediation to try to determine who will receive each item of property and debt. If this does not work, then the judge will have to decide. Regardless, the final divorce decree will formalize the asset and debt distribution.

How a Kansas City Divorce Attorney Can Help

The above is only an overview of how a Kansas City divorce works. Seemingly simple divorces can become quite complex, particularly when unusual financial assets are at issue. There are also other considerations like child support and child custody.

No matter what the details of your divorce are, it’s time to get serious about your rights. Having knowledgeable legal counsel in your corner is critical. The family law attorneys of Joseph, Hollander & Craft have extensive experience with Kansas City divorce laws. We know what’s at stake in your case and we know how to develop a personalized legal strategy that puts your best interests first. If divorce is in your future, reach out to us today.

The post Kansas City Divorce Laws: What to Know Before Filing appeared first on Home.

Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: September 30, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 9

FEATURE ARTICLE: The Right to Be Wrong

A great deal of attention has been focused on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and the dangers of the documents produced being error prone. The vast majority of this attention has been focused on one kind of mistake: so-called hallucinations, situations where AI cites a non-existent case in its work product. Judges have unanimously condemned the use of documents containing hallucinations, and lawyers are now attempting to find ways to prevent this. But AI problems in document production are not limited to hallucinations. AI also makes substantive mistakes, including mistakes in interpretation, vocabulary, and intent.

In a recent letter from Sullivan & Cromwell apologizing for submitting documents with multiple hallucinations, the firm also acknowledged the existence of non-hallucinatory mistakes (although the letter does specify what these were). Still, the letter focused almost entirely on hallucinations and the process used to eliminate them. Should lawyers focus on hallucinations primarily? Or should the profession recognize that the problem of mistakes in documents and other work product may go beyond hallucinations?

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

OPINION: Law School Accreditation

The current administration in Washington is attempting to change the accreditation process for law schools. This has caused a tidal wave of protest by law school administrators and faculty as well as by the American Bar Association, which is currently the primary law school accreditor. Although many reasons for these changes have been proposed, one focus has been accreditation rules are viewed by the administration as unacceptably liberal, such as the rules on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Further, the current administration has had rocky relations with the ABA on such matters a judicial selection. There is an old cliché that seems applicable: “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” Accreditation is about far more than DEI. It is about assured consistency in legal education, maintenance of educational standards, and lawyer mobility.

The ABA is the primary accreditation body that works with the American Association of Law Schools (an organization of law deans and law faculty) and state accreditation bodies. The most practical aspect of the current system is that law students who attend ABA/AALS accredited law schools may take an examination to be admitted in any state bar anywhere in the United States. By contrast, law students who attend a law school without ABA/AALS accreditation but that has state accreditation may take the bar exam only in the state in which the school is accredited.

The accreditation process does more than increase lawyer mobility, though. It also works to assure that law schools meet minimum standards set by the ABA (and generally the AALS). When the accreditation machinery was first adopted, there was an immense variety of law schools—ranging from work-study law schools run by the YMCA, to practitioner-run night and weekend schools, to traditional Harvard or Columbia model schools. The quality of instruction, facilities, and graduation requirements were inconsistent and variable. Law school applicants did not have the guarantee of a minimum instructional level. Accreditation rules were aimed at improving law school instruction and assuring that every law student would receive an acceptable, minimum level of legal education to protect the public from incompetent lawyers.

The imposition of consistency and minimum standards through the accreditation process also make law firm, corporate, and judicial hiring more efficient and reliable. Law firms can hire students from any accredited law school without doing deep research into a law school’s curriculum, practical training, and other factors since they knew that every accredited law school has minimum standards for graduation.

The value of a national accreditation system run by lawyers and judges far exceeds the three benefits listed above, but these should be enough to suggest that doing away with the present system of ABA/AALS accreditation is ill-considered. Regardless of how one views issues like DEI, the answer is not to dismantle the whole system. Similarly, unhappiness with other ABA activities should not motivate disruption of legal education.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Articles on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

1.) Sierra Kayland Bernard, Note, From Courtroom to Content: Attorneys as Social Media Influencers, 50 J. Legal Prof. 73 (2025).

Increasingly, social media has become a source of significant celebrity –and income—for many lawyers.

2.) Elizabeth R. Carter, Joint Representation of Spouses and Romantic Partners: Ethical Considerations for Estate Planners, 79 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (2026).

Representation of couples is a perennial problem for lawyers and requires careful navigation of ethics rules.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Dos Passos on Lawyers

It is a principle of universal jurisprudence, that lawyers in their dealings with their clients, and with the court, must observe the strictest rules of honor, fidelity, respect, and obedience. They are held, therefore, to a standard of morals, above and not below the average; a proof that their morale at some time, and in some way, was fixed at a level with their presumed attainments, and corresponding to their opportunities. Popularly, this is always lost sight of, when a member of the profession incurs censure.

— John Dos Passos, The American Lawyer: As He Was, As He Is, As He Can Be (1907)

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 9

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 9 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 9 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published September 30, 2026.

A great deal of attention has been focused on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and the dangers of the documents produced being error prone. The vast majority of this attention has been focused on one kind of mistake: so-called hallucinations, situations where AI cites a non-existent case in its work product. Judges have unanimously condemned the use of documents containing hallucinations, and lawyers are now attempting to find ways to prevent this. But AI problems in document production are not limited to hallucinations. AI also makes substantive mistakes, including mistakes in interpretation, vocabulary, and intent.

In a recent letter from Sullivan & Cromwell apologizing for submitting documents with multiple hallucinations, the firm also acknowledged the existence of non-hallucinatory mistakes (although the letter does specify what these were). Still, the letter focused almost entirely on hallucinations and the process used to eliminate them. Should lawyers focus on hallucinations primarily? Or should the profession recognize that the problem of mistakes in documents and other work product may go beyond hallucinations?

The Sullivan & Cromwell letter tracks recent judicial discussions of AI problems, which substantially focus on ethical and procedural rules that may be violated when a final product contains hallucinations, (particularly MRPC 1.1 and 5.3 and FRCP 11(b)). These provide several means of critiquing lawyer citations of hallucinated documents, including incompetence, failure to supervise, and signature of documents that do not meet the requirements of verification of 11(b). The problem is that this focus on AI-generated hallucinations has led lawyer attention to be focused only on hallucinations and not the possibility of other errors, which are equally subject to these rules.

It might be useful in understanding this problem by using a hypothetical. Imagine a situation in which an associate in a small firm is asked to draft a mortgage for a borrower on an apartment building that is being purchased by the client. The task of drafting the mortgage is given to a first-year junior associate. There is also a partner in charge of the matter and a senior associate directly supervising the junior associate. Now consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, the junior associate who is well-trained and experienced in using GAI and formulating prompts, gives the task to the firm GAI. Within a few minutes, a draft of the mortgage is produced. The junior associate reviews the draft, makes several corrections and hands it off to the senior associate. The senior associate, too, reviews the document closely and, satisfied that there are no hallucinations, the senior associate lawyer turns it over to a proofreader. Once the proofreader has finished, the document is presented to the partner. The partner reviews it, but, perhaps, not as thoroughly as the associates because the partner knows that the associates are more than competent and because to do another detailed review would cost the client unnecessary fees. The draft is finalized, and the mortgage is signed by all the parties.

Two years later, the partner gets a call from the client. The client was served papers stating that a lien has been filed against their property by the lender. The lien has been placed on the apartment building because the property has become uninhabitable due to toxic lead paint and the client has failed to make three mortgage payments. Further, the client states that a lien has also been filed by the lender against their residence and investment accounts. The client had directed the law firm that the “deal” was to be nonrecourse, i.e. that the borrower would have no liability beyond the property subject to the mortgage. After reviewing the document, the senior partner discovers that the mortgage text uses both the phrases nonrecourse and recourse interchangeably, leading the lender to take the position that the borrower has personal liability.

For our purposes, the resolution of the mortgage dispute is irrelevant. Our concern is whether the law firm acted unethically under current law. Judging by recent cases and rulings, the answer may be “yes” because courts and commentators seem to be taking that absolutist position that, if AI is involved in an error and human lawyers did not catch it, then an ethical violation has occurred. And yet, in this hypothetical, the AI did not generate a hallucinatory case. It simply made an error just like a human lawyer might. Unfortunately, the reviewing lawyers were focused on detecting hallucinations and did not do an adequate substantive review.

Had AI not been involved and the error has been solely that of the junior lawyer and the failure of the reviewing lawyers, would judges and commentators have taken the position that an ethical breach had occurred? In other words, is making a mistake an ethical breach of competence under Rule 1.1 and/or a failure of supervision under Rule 5.3? Does it matter whether the mistake is human or machine caused? The answer should be no.

Rules 5.1 and 5.3 are concerned with office processes that generate ethical results. The rules require that lawyers adopt document production processes designed to avoid ethical violations:

A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the rules of professional conduct.

They require reasonable efforts to assure that ethical rules, including Rule 1.1 are satisfied.

How, then, do we understand what seems to be the overwhelming focus on AI hallucinations? The answer may be that hallucinations are new and frightening. In looking at Rules 1.1, 5.1, and 5.3, we must treat hallucinations as a special kind of error, one which needs an absolutist, zero tolerance approach and a different office process than for substantive errors. As noted earlier, any time a hallucination is included in a final legal document, there has been a failure of the lawyers adequately to monitor and supervise document production. An AI-generated document should never be finalized without all the cited cases being subject to a rigorous verification process. Failure to do so is clearly a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 5.1 and 5.3. In other words, AI hallucinations can be caught and eliminated by appropriate document production processes. It is easy to prevent hallucinations from being included in final documents. There is no excuse, as courts have pointed out, for not doing so. This does justify a zero-tolerance approach to hallucinations, as most courts have adopted.

Non-hallucinatory errors, even those by an AI, however, are not so easy to deal with. Lawyers make mistakes, and running citations through a digital database will not catch these substantive errors. The whole purpose of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 is to encourage lawyers to establish work production processes to minimize mistakes from entering final work product. In the hypothetical above, the problem is that the lawyers did not pay enough attention to each word. Three lawyers reviewing the document all missed a legally significant error in wording. One can wonder whether a focus on hallucinations left them with a false sense of comfort when the verification process showed none. It should not have. Hallucinations are one problem. Substantive errors are another. Both require lawyer attention.

A recent Alabama ethics opinion, OGC Opinion 26-01, expresses this point well by emphasizing that ethical use of AI in document drafting requires both verification and “substantive” review of the documents, just as much as would be done in reviewing a first-year associate’s work. In effect, the introduction of AI into the law office does not change Rules 5.1 and 5.3 or substitute verification review for substantive document review. It requires both. Verification review does not replace substantive review. A first-year associate or AI may make substantive errors. This will not necessarily show incompetence by the lawyer. But failure to catch these errors is more likely to result in a disciplinary body finding a 5.1 or 5.3 violation. The message here is clear. Focus on hallucinations alone is an error.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 9

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post The Right to Be Wrong appeared first on Home.

Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: August 31, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 8

FEATURE ARTICLE: Ethical Issues with Judicial Use of Generative AI

Lawyers have been using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for the past decade. During that time, AI has evolved rapidly, and dependence on AI by lawyers has increased enormously. With that increased usage, lawyers have discovered that there are often critical problems with GAI.

When used to do research and draft documents such as memoranda, motions, and briefs, GAI makes mistakes and cites fictional cases and other sources, called hallucinations, and misinterprets real cases that it cites. Indeed, the number and quality of lawyers and law firms that have submitted flawed GAI-generated documents to courts is rather frightening.

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

NEW AUTHORITY: An Important Source for AI Information

In this month’s newsletter we want to highlight a source for legal professionals seeking authority addressing generative AI produced hallucinated content: https://www.damiencharlotin.com. This website maintains a database of legal decisions issued in cases where GAI hallucinated content has been submitted in court filings. The website includes cases from throughout the globe, although the majority of cases listed are from jurisdictions in the United States of America.

The site links to the relevant decisions while also listing key information, such as: case name; court/jurisdiction; party using AI (e.g., lawyer, judge, pro se litigant); and outcome of the AI issue (e.g., bar referral, admonishment, sanction). It is searchable as well. Currently, at this writing, the website contains over 1965 decisions addressing instances of hallucinated material in court documents.

This compilation is far more important than one might think. First, has become an accepted source that can be used to document frequency of hallucinations. See, e.g. Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2026) (relying on the website in discussing the increasing problem of hallucinations); Parnell v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 181 F.4th 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 2026) (same). Second, it is something that every lawyer should see at least once to demonstrate the very real danger of hallucinations caused by unverified GAI products. Third, it forms a reliable source by which lawyers and legal scholars can discover the kinds of hallucinations GAI has produced in legal situations so that professionals can better understand the risks of using it and inform colleagues what they should be looking for.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Standing Committee on Law and National Security, The Role of the Judge Advocates General and of Judge Advocates: A Primer, 16 J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y 3 (2026).

For readers with an interest in military law and justice, this is a timely paper.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: The Study and Practice of the Law in their Relation to Society

He who is influenced by the spirit of Integrity, will never himself misrepresent or knowingly be the cause of others misrepresenting the truth in a court of justice: no prospect of advantage to himself or his client will tempt him to the commission of so gross an error.

— A Member of Lincoln’s Inn (John Raithby), The Study and Practice of the Law in their Relation to Society 344 (rpt. Portland 1806).

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 8

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 8 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 8 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published August 31, 2026.

Lawyers have been using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for the past decade. During that time, AI has evolved rapidly, and dependence on AI by lawyers has increased enormously. With that increased usage, lawyers have discovered that there are often critical problems with GAI.

When used to do research and draft documents such as memoranda, motions, and briefs, GAI makes mistakes and cites fictional cases and other sources, called hallucinations, and misinterprets real cases that it cites. Indeed, the number and quality of lawyers and law firms that have submitted flawed GAI-generated documents to courts is rather frightening.

Damien Charlotin maintains a website that keeps track of hallucination cases.¹ According to his records, there have been close to 2,000 cases in which GAI involvement has been discovered in legal documents as a result of hallucinations being submitted for official use. Lawyers who have submitted these documents have ranged from solo practitioners to members of the most elite law firms. Even though the problem has become well known throughout the Bar, this practice is not decreasing. Meanwhile, the penalties imposed on the lawyers have been significantly increasing.

Virtually all the attention about legal use of GAI has focused on hallucinations in documents submitted to courts or produced for courts and how procedural rules and ethical rules may be violated by the lawyers. But this is only one part of the problem.

Now the profession is beginning to consider the problem of how to deal with hallucinations which make it into judicial opinions and orders—either because a judge or judicial clerk has used GAI or because the judge or judicial clerk has repeated hallucinations submitted by an attorney.

It is important to realize that judges—lots of them—are using GAI. Sen. Charles Grassley held a Senate hearing on this issue in October 2025, and, in a speech on the Senate floor, expressed his concern that federal judicial use of GAI was a serious issue for the federal government:

This month, I sent letters to a pair of federal judges regarding their suspected use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in published court orders.

The two judges issued orders that were wrought with serious, inexplicable errors that were of great concern to the litigants, to the public and to me.

One judge, sitting in the Southern District of Mississippi, issued an order that named plaintiffs and defendants who were not even parties to the case.

It misquoted statutory text. It erroneously cited evidence that didn’t exist in the record. And it referred to sworn declarations by people who had not appeared anywhere in the case.

I’ve never seen or heard of anything like this from a federal court.

The other judge, sitting in the District of New Jersey, issued an order with fake quotes and misstatements about case law.

The order even falsely attributed quotations to the defendants that apparently were never made.

The two cases Grassley mentioned were obvious egregious examples of the types of errors that can be caused by unverified use of GAI, but they are not the only cases where errors attributable to GAI have been entered into the court record by the judge. Charlotin’s webpage shows that other U.S. judges have had similar problems with unverified GAI and that judges in other countries have fallen prey to the dangers of GAI, too.

One particular case, H. C. v. Contreras, No. F089316, 2026 WL 1493401 (Cal. Ct. App. Unpub. May 28, 2026), shows the negative result of an hallucinated citation. In that case, the California Appellate Court discussed and criticized the lower court’s reliance on a hallucinated citation when refusing to issue a protective order in a domestic child abuse case. The appellate court reversed, stating:

We have no difficulty concluding that it is an abuse of discretion for a court to rely in material part on fictional case authorities in rendering a decision or making an order. Reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with an informed exercise of discretion controlled by genuine principles of law. It seriously undermines the integrity of the outcome and erodes public confidence in our judicial system. It can also hinder meaningful appellate review.” (Campos and Munoz, supra, 118 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1123-1124.)

“This is not to say that the factors the court relied on were legally improper or that it could not have reached the same result applying proper legal reasoning grounded in genuine law. We hold only that the path the court took to reach its result constituted an abuse of discretion because it relied in material part on the holdings of nonexistent legal authorities” and misread the law. (Campos and Munoz…

Id. at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).

When a judge includes a hallucinated citation or hallucinated law in a decision the results can be far worse that an attorney including the same in a pleading. It may be some time before the hallucination is uncovered—if ever. Until it is discovered and corrected, the erroneous decision may have real world, practical effects far beyond the case in which it is filed.

There may come a time when judges will be sanctioned for incorporating hallucinated cases into official court documents, but that time does not appear to be approaching anytime soon. Instead, it appears that the judicial brethren are attempting to deal with the problem by a combination of public embarrassment and quite a bit of published advice. In terms of embarrassment, when a hallucinated citation is discovered in an opinion or court order, it is almost always withdrawn or appealed and quickly reversed. Of course, in these cases there are additional costs for the court and the litigants.

Short of banning judicial use of GAI, there are other ways to deal with the problems it creates. The National Center for State Courts has published several reports of judicial use of GAI incorporating results of surveys. One reported noted:

Although judges interviewed were keenly aware of the risks of GenAI, they nevertheless were finding value in GenAI tools to increase their productivity and efficiency. In addition to the use cases for GenAI discussed above, judges also reported using (or considering using) GenAI in the following ways:

• Assistance with drafting law review articles or research for law review articles
• Assistance with teaching classes at law schools
• Data analysis, such as when to hold hearings to maximize attendance
• Possible translation or transcription services in future if technology improves (though another judge said those were not good enough yet)

Obviously, some of these uses, such as writing for law reviews or preparing class materials may not have as many real-life negative aspects as using GAI with hallucinations. Yet uses that create legally authoritative documents are a whole different, and far riskier, category of use.

We suggest that because of the paucity of specific guidance for judges, they also might look to the types of workflow patterns that private law firms are developing. In essence, these firms have discovered that they cannot trust GAI generated documents. It is imperative that skilled and trained humans verify that every GAI document does not contain hallucinations or other errors and that these be corrected before the document is used.

As noted, GAI can be extremely helpful to sitting judges, especially those without adequate staffing. Even judges with clerks need warning. According to recent surveys, most law students use GAI all the time. Indeed, many would have difficulty if they were prohibited from using it by a judge. Still many, if not most, clerks have substantial workloads. It may well be necessary for judges either to decrease clerk workload or find other trained court personnel to do this critical task.

It is clearly time for lawyers, regulators, and the judiciary to formulate effective rules on judicial use of GAI to prevent further errors entering the stream of law and threatening the legitimacy of the judicial system.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 8

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Ethical Issues with Judicial Use of Generative AI appeared first on Home.

This honor is presented to only one individual in each practice area and geographic region and is based entirely on peer-review evaluations, making it a singular recognition of professional excellence and reputation within the legal community.

Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity.

In addition to “Lawyer of the Year,” Dionne M. Scherff was listed in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^® in the following practice areas:

• Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Criminal Defense: White-Collar

This is Dionne’s seventh consecutive year receiving recognition by The Best Lawyers in America^® for criminal defense. This is her second time receiving recognition as a “Lawyer of the Year”.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as a definitive guide to legal excellence. For more than four decades, Best Lawyers has helped those in need of legal services identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Lawyers are not required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, recognition by Best Lawyers is a significant distinction.

The post Dionne Scherff Named 2027 Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” in Kansas City, KS appeared first on Home.

Best Lawyers^® states that its purpose is to identify the “best legal talent in the world.” Attorneys appearing in The Best Lawyers in America^® have been identified by their professional peers as leading the way in terms of their legal abilities. Attorneys featured by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch^® are earlier in their careers (5-9 years into practice) who have demonstrated talent catching the notice of their contemporaries and more seasoned colleagues.

Joseph, Hollander & Craft would like to congratulate the following lawyers named in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^®:

• Christopher M. Joseph – Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Julia A. Craft – Family Law
• Dionne M. Scherff – Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Jess W. Hoeme – Criminal Defense: General Practice and DUI / DWI Defense
• Ardith Smith-Woertz – Family Law and Family Law Mediation
• Diane L. Bellquist – Administrative / Regulatory Law, Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law, Health Care Law, Medical Malpractice Law: Defendants, and Professional Malpractice Law: Defendants
• Anne M. Kindling – Health Care Law, Litigation: Health Care, Medical Malpractice Law: Defendants
• Christopher M. McHugh – Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Lindsey P. Erickson – Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Casey Y. Meek – Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Hannah R. Wittman – Family Law

Joseph, Hollander & Craft would like to congratulate the following lawyers recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch^®:

• Rylee M. Broyles – Family Law
• Ashley E. Franden – Family Law
• Mackenzie P. Orchard – Family Law
• Kylee A. Tokoi – Family Law
• Marisa A. No – Family Law
• Courtland R.T. Triplett – Family Law
• Samantha M. Fisher – Health Care Law
• Alexandro Vasquez – Family Law

The post 19 Joseph, Hollander & Craft Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® appeared first on Home.

Webinar Time: 12:00–12:50 p.m.

Location: Zoom

Please join your Kansas and Missouri Bar colleagues for a complimentary CLE webinar: The Lawyer’s Duty to Report Misconduct

Sponsored by Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Approved for 1.0 hour of ethics CLE credit in Kansas & Missouri

Registration Closed

Resources

• • PARTICIPATION GUIDE
  • PRESENTATION MATERIALS

Program Description

Guest speaker Stan Hazlett, former Kansas Disciplinary Administrator, will present with Professor Hoeflich a comprehensive examination of the rules of professional responsibility and the lawyer’s ethical obligation to report professional misconduct. This duty to report is fundamental to upholding the integrity of the profession. Participants will learn what level of knowledge and types of misconduct triggers a mandatory report. The program will equip participants with information needed for compliance with the technical rule requirements, but also provide nuanced guidance to assist navigating ambiguous situations to minimize disciplinary exposure for failure to report.

Webinar Instructions (Registration, Participation, CLE Credit)

Notice to first-time participants and any who have previously encountered technical or credit-related issues: This webinar will be hosted via Zoom. To ensure a smooth experience and CLE credit eligibility, please review our Webinar Participation Guide and follow the instructions closely. Failure to do so may prevent you from joining and/or receiving participation credit for this webinar.

About the Presenters

Stanton A. Hazlett | Attorney, Stevens & Brand LLP

Stan Hazlett graduated from Kansas University in 1974, and Washburn University Law School in 1977. He engaged in a small firm general practice until 1986. In 1986, he accepted a position in The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator as a Deputy. That office investigates and prosecutes ethical complaints against Kansas attorneys. In 1997, the Kansas Supreme Court appointed Hazlett to the position of Disciplinary Administrator. He retired from that job in 2021. Hazlett is presently Of Counsel to the firm of Stevens & Brand in Lawrence, handling attorney discipline and admission cases.

Dr. Michael H. Hoeflich | Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Kansas School of Law

Michael Hoeflich holds degrees from Haverford College, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School. He taught at the University of Illinois from 1980–1988, was dean of the Syracuse University College of Law from 1988-1994, and was dean at the University of Kansas School of Law from 1994–2000. Hoeflich is the author or editor of more than 25 books and 149 articles. He previously served as the director of the M.S. in Homeland Security: Law & Policy degree program at KU Law. He is the principal investigator on a five-year, $1.5 million Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence grant to the University of Kansas. In 2021, Hoeflich was the recipient of a Higuchi-KU Endowment Research Achievement Award, the state higher education system’s most prestigious recognition for scholarly excellence. Hoeflich received the Balfour Jeffrey Award in Humanities & Social Sciences for his significant research contributions to legal history and ethics.

REGISTER NOW

JHC offers free CLE programs tailored to members of the Kansas and Missouri Bars at least quarterly. Visit our Ethics page for more information and to subscribe to our email news list, which receives CLE invitations and our monthly ethics newsletter.

The post The Lawyer’s Duty to Report Misconduct: a Free CLE Webinar appeared first on Home.

Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: July 31, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 7

FEATURE ARTICLE: Loyalty & Discretion

Many lawyers will be surprised to be told that the term “loyalty” does not actually appear in the text of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It does appear in several explanatory comments, but not in the text of the actual Rules.

Loyalty is probably most commonly considered with regard to conflicts of interest. Indeed, Comment 1 to KRPC 1.7, Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, invokes the term immediately, stating:

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

NEW AUTHORITY: New York on AI Use

As of June 1, 2026, lawyers practicing in the New York State Unified Court System are governed by a new rule regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI). After months of deliberation and consultation, the Unified Court System adopted 22 NYCRR Part 161.

It begins with a general statement of policy:

It is the policy of the Unified Court System that the use by attorneys and parties of artificial intelligence tools in preparing papers submitted to a court should not be prohibited, as long as such use is in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that apply to individuals who submit papers to a court. Since those duties and responsibilities already apply to all submissions, regardless of whether AI tools were used, attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI in the preparation of such papers.

The order also includes a model rule, which New York judges may use in whole or part:

Every attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in preparing any paper submitted to this court is expected to understand that tool’s capabilities and limitations. Attorneys and parties need to be aware that AI tools, among other risks and limitations, can generate fabricated information or fictitious citations to authority (commonly known as hallucinations). Under existing authority, by signing a paper and submitting it to this court, an attorney or party certifies that the paper does not contain any false material factual statement or any frivolous legal argument Cree, e.g, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, 130-1.1a), and an attorney who submits any paper to this court is additionally bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(b), filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before this court is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content. If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.

A number of provisions of this model rule are quite important. First, and most basic, every lawyer is expected to understand that AI is far from perfect and that hallucination are common. Therefore, every attorney practicing in New York, by submitting a document to a N.Y. court certifies that it is free of hallucinations or “fictitious citations.” Second, the model rule also makes it clear that submission of a document with hallucinations to a party before the court will also bring sanctions. Finally, the court makes a point to say that this rule is based on “existing authority,” so lawyers cannot argue that the Court is making a new rule.

While 22 NYCRR Part 161 only applies to practice in the state of New York, it undoubtedly will have a major impact on state and federal courts looking to develop appropriate regulations for AI in their own jurisdictions. It is, therefore, something every lawyer should study.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

David A. Grenardo, “Why Civility?” 57 U. Tol. L. Rev. 421 (2026).

In spite of efforts over the past two decades to improve civility at the Bar and reintroduce a sense of collegiality among lawyers, the issue remains difficult and unresolved. In this article, Professor of Law & Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at University of St. Thomas School of Law David Grenardo highlights experiences that illustrate both the importance of civility and the costs of incivility.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: From the Not so Distant Past: Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct

Lawyers should always remind themselves of the Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct. There is wisdom contained therein:

Many of a lawyer’s professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of public service.

— Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope, 7.

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 7

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 7 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 7 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published July 31, 2026.

Many lawyers will be surprised to be told that the term “loyalty” does not actually appear in the text of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It does appear in several explanatory comments, but not in the text of the actual Rules.

Loyalty is probably most commonly considered with regard to conflicts of interest. Indeed, Comment 1 to KRPC 1.7, Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, invokes the term immediately, stating:

Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or from the lawyer’s own interests.

But conflict analysis is not the only place for loyalty in legal ethics.

The obligation of loyalty to one’s client is one of the underlying principles of most of the Rules found in the Code. It dates back, in its most extreme form, to a statement by Lord Brougham during his defense in the English Parliament of the Case of Queen Caroline in 1820:

…[a]n advocate, by the sacred duty of his connection with his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other. To save that client by all expedient means-to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others, and among others to himself-is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties; and he must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction, which he may bring upon any other; nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client.

This statement is probably one of the most extreme positions to be taken on the duty of loyalty owed by a lawyer to her client.

In contrast to Lord Brougham’s extreme position, the Rules of Professional Conduct take a substantially softer approach. For example, Comment 1 to KRPC 1.3, Diligence, explains:

A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.

A lawyer should act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. A lawyer has professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2.

(emphasis added). This requirement of diligent advocacy is worlds away from Brougham’s concept of diligence, especially since it leaves a great deal of discretion to a modern lawyer as to how far to go in the representation.

This difference between Comment 1 to Rule 1.3 and Lord Brougham’s ideal of total loyalty is more than a history lesson. It reflects a significant change in perspective regarding what role a lawyer is meant to occupy. It is also gaining importance as judges are speaking out against lawyers and litigants bringing litigation for political purposes or to harass others without any real expectation of winning–or to gain some advantage separate from the claims made in the case. Often, this type of litigation is brought with the knowledge that a settlement would be preferable for the defendant than a long, drawn-out expensive suit with negative publicity.

Like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), many Rules of Professional Conduct are designed to stop such litigation. KRPC Rule 3.3 prohibits frivolous lawsuits:

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. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

However, laws are rarely so clearly drafted that frivolity of a claim is beyond contestation. Indeed, Comment 1 to KRPC 3.1 is quite sensitive to this fact:

The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law’s ambiguities and potential for change.

A good lawyer can often press a claim or defense that borders on abuse of process which, while not brought for the purpose of adjudicating a real dispute, is pursued for other external reasons—such as publicizing a cause or gaining notoriety.

Judges are rightly hesitant to declare such borderline cases frivolous or sanction lawyers in such circumstances. In essence, a lawyer being asked to bring or defend litigation that is borderline is left to her own judgement and discretion whether to take the representation on. This exercise of judgement is extremely important for the lawyer and the system of justice.

Why would a lawyer take on a questionable, borderline case?

The most obvious answer is money. Only corporations, well-funded not-for-profits, and wealthy individuals will bring an expensive lawsuit with little hope of winning. Litigation is almost always quite expensive, and if the target of the litigation lacks the resources to adequately defend, they will often simply settle to avoid the costs of defense. From the lawyer’s perspective, taking on such a case will be profitable. It may also bring in a new client with a real possibility of repeat business or referrals to others; the networking and financial benefits may be great for the lawyer.

Another reason may be that the party seeking representation is a past or present client and refusal to take the dubious case might result in the loss of the client. If a client provides a major source of a firm’s or lawyer’s business, then the possibility of losing that client becomes quite problematic and may incline the lawyer to take on the dubious matter.

A third possibility is that the case, albeit dubious, provides the potential for publicity for the lawyer or law firm. If the case is potentially a high-profile case that will attract media attention, a lawyer may well decide that the representation is worth the exposure, even though the case may not be popular.

Still, when taking on a dubious representation, the lawyer must ensure that she honestly and independently explains the downside of the matter to the client:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.

KRCP 2.1.

From the lawyer’s perspective, Rule 1.2(c) provides a “safe harbor” that taking on the representation does not reflect the lawyer’s personal beliefs:

A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

This may protect the lawyer from some degree of public criticism, but that does not mean that negative public opinion will disappear. Nor does it mean that members of the judiciary and the Bar will approve of a lawyer taking on the case in the first place. A lawyer who takes on a dubious case which pushes the boundaries of FRPC 11(b) or KRPC 3.3 and can always claim that, when the law is ambiguous, her ethical duties do not proscribe the representation. But Rule 1.2(c) is not a miracle cure for reputational damage.

When lawyers take on dubious cases, they not only must calculate the personal risk that they may cross disciplinary lines and the reputational risk that the case may alienate future potential clients, but they should also consider what risk they pose to the credibility of the legal system. When the public witnesses dubious cases and questionable courtroom tactics, many blame the system as well as the lawyers involved. This endangers the judicial system’s legitimacy.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 7

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Loyalty & Discretion appeared first on Home.