Although these boards are endowed with considerable power, their decisions are not necessarily absolute. In some cases, professionals have the right to challenge the outcome of a board’s disciplinary proceedings. If you received an adverse decision from your licensing board and wish to appeal it, connect with the licensure defense team at Joseph, Hollander & Craft.

Grounds for Appealing a Licensing Decision

Disagreeing with the decision of a licensing board is generally not enough to get it undone on appeal. The professional who has been disciplined must have adequate grounds for contesting the board’s action. If any of the following apply to your case, you may be able to challenge the decision:

• Errors of law or procedure: Licensing boards must correctly apply the relevant laws to the facts of your case. In addition, there are certain protocols it must follow to protect your rights, such as affording you a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. If the board misapplied the law or failed to adhere to required procedures, you may appeal its decision.
• Insufficient evidence to support the decision: Licensing boards cannot take disciplinary actions without having a factual basis to do so. If the board acted without valid evidence, you could ask a court to overturn its decision. This question is considered in light of the evidence that the professional presents, making the record on appeal a vital component.
• Violations of due process or bias in proceedings: Professionals are entitled to due process, which ensures they have every chance to fully and fairly participate in the proceeding and offer their version of the incident. Each decision of the board should be free of any bias which would result in undue decisions made against the professional.
• Disproportionate disciplinary sanctions: The punishment must fit the facts. Unfortunately, some licensing boards are too harsh in the discipline they impose. If the allegations do not warrant license suspension, for instance, then this would not be an acceptable sanction.

Understanding the Appeals Process in Kansas and Missouri

There is a time limit to appeal a board decision. If you miss this deadline, you will permanently lose your right to appeal. However, you should take action much sooner so you have enough time to prepare and file a comprehensive challenge.

Appeals in Kansas

Most decisions that are made by licensing boards (e.g., the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts) can be appealed to district court under the Kansas Judicial Review Act. Contact a professional licensure attorney who can decide how best to handle the board’s action.

Appeals in Missouri

Depending on the nature of the decision, you may first be required to request a review by the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC). After this, or if AHC review is not required, you can appeal to a Missouri circuit court. The court will examine the administrative record, consider your attorney’s arguments, and decide how to dispense with the decision.

What an Professional License Attorney From Joseph, Hollander & Craft Does for You

Having skilled legal representation is essential for protecting your rights and presenting a cogent appeal of the board’s decision. The court will expect you to understand all relevant legal criteria and procedures that govern the review of board disciplinary actions. The board will have its own attorney, so don’t neglect your opportunity to retain counsel.

When you hire Joseph, Hollander & Craft to handle your appeal, we immediately get to work by:

• Reviewing the record and the decision: We examine the documents, statements, testimony, and exhibits entered into the record during the disciplinary hearing. The court will later need to evaluate this evidence to determine if the board’s actions were legally sufficient.
• Identifying legal error: As we review the record, we identify actions that the board took, or decisions it made during its disciplinary proceedings, which amount to legal error. These include the substantive and procedural problems identified above, as well as the fairness of the board’s ultimate decision.
• Filing petitions or notices of appeal with the correct agency or court: We know that timely drafting and filing of your petition is necessary to perfect your appeal and protect your right to judicial review. Our firm will handle the necessary paperwork and ensure it is both filed in the correct court and served on the appropriate parties.
• Preparing appellate briefs and arguing in court: Your appeal may require a legal brief setting forth the arguments in your favor. We will draft the brief in a way that complies with all procedural and substantive requirements. If necessary, we will argue your case in court and respond to the opposing counsel’s arguments.
• Petitioning for license reinstatement or sanctions modification, as needed: There are some situations in which an appeal is not viable. If there is no reasonable path for an appeal, we can assist with alternatives like reinstating your license or modifying the sanctions.

If You Miss the Appeal Window, Are You Out of Options?

Although you may have missed the chance to appeal the board’s decision, you could have other options. Speak with an attorney right away about these alternatives to an appeal:

• Petitioning for a reconsideration of the board’s decision or modifying the sanctions
• Reapplying for your license after a waiting period and compliance with the board’s terms
• Seeking a conditional reinstatement of your license or entering into a professional assistance or monitoring program

Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft

If you have received an adverse decision from your licensing board, it’s time to take a look at your options for resolving the matter. Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft. We represent professionals throughout Kansas and Missouri from offices in Overland Park, Lawrence, Topeka, Wichita, and Kansas City.

The post Can I Appeal a Professional Licensing Board Decision? appeared first on Home.

Vacation homes around Table Rock and the Ozarks are often passed down in Kansas City families and may carry both sentimental and financial value. However, many vacation homes, second homes, rental homes, and investment properties may be subject to property division in a Kansas City divorce. A Kansas City divorce attorney with Joseph, Hollander & Craft can advise you about likely property division issues and help you make informed decisions about how to protect these valuable assets.

Is the Vacation Home Marital Property in a Kansas City Divorce?

By law, all marital property is subject to division during a divorce – but what is considered “marital property” is not always as clear cut as you might suppose.

Under Missouri Statute 452.330:

All property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution of marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entirety, and community property.

However, the presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property:

1. Was acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;
2. Was acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage or in exchange for property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;
3. Was acquired by a spouse after a decree of legal separation;
4. Has been excluded from the marital estate by a valid written agreement of the parties; or
5. Was owned by one spouse prior to marriage and the increase in value during the marriage was due to factors unrelated to the other spouse or the marriage.

Under Kansas Statute 23-2801:

All property owned by married persons, including the present value of any vested or unvested military retirement pay, or, for divorce or separate maintenance actions commenced on or after July 1, 1998, professional goodwill to the extent that it is marketable for that particular professional, whether described in K.S.A. 23-2601, and amendments thereto, or acquired by either spouse after marriage, and whether held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership, such as joint tenancy or tenancy in common, shall become marital property at the time of commencement by one spouse against the other of an action in which a final decree is entered for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment.

But, similar to Missouri, Kansas Statute 23-2601 preserves an individual’s separate property rights in property:

1. Owned before marriage; and
2. acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent (along with the rents, issues, profits or proceeds thereof).

Except to the extent of a spouse’s contributions to the property’s value.

For instance, say your husband or wife undertook serious repairs on a lakehouse you owned by yourself prior to the marriage, and the property value was significantly raised by your spouse’s repairs and redecorating over the course of the marriage. In this case, the increase of the property value may be calculated as marital property, even if the deed to the vacation home is only in your name.

Missouri vs. Kansas Divorce Law Regarding Asset Division

Both Missouri and Kansas are equitable distribution states, with divorce laws that focus on dividing up assets fairly, and not necessarily down the middle. Both states will consider factors such as:

• Date of acquisition of the property
• Length of the marriage
• Tax implications of the assets
• Overall valuation of the assets
• Behavior during the marriage (to the extent it affected marital property)
• Economic circumstances of both spouses, outside of the value of the assets

At Joseph, Hollander & Craft our divorce lawyers in Kansas City can advise you about both Missouri as well as Kansas division of assets. There are subtle differences between those two states, for all that there are many similarities.

Suggestions for Vacation Homes in a Divorce

There is room to negotiate during a Kansas City divorce, especially if one spouse is particularly attached to a vacation home. A Kansas City divorce lawyer may be able to help you negotiate some of the following strategies:

One Spouse Keeps the Property

If one spouse has an attachment to the property, the law does not mandate that the vacation home be sold outright and the value distributed as marital property. Instead, one spouse may keep the vacation home, while the other is assigned a fair amount of financial accounts, stocks or other investments, and personal property like cars, art, and furniture. In many cases, one spouse may buy out the other in order to keep sole ownership of the property.

The Property Is Sold

Both parties may agree to the terms of a sale during a divorce. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, a forced sale of a property may be ordered. In this case, even elements like the timeline, listing price, and price reductions can all be approved by a court order.

Shared Ownership After Divorce

Shared ownership can involve joint management of a property or split time on an agreed upon schedule.

Financial Responsibilities Attached to a Vacation Property

Some examples of financial responsibilities you may continue to share with a spouse for a vacation property in Missouri after a divorce include:

• Property taxes
• Income tax, in the event that you rent the property
• Capital gains tax upon sale
• Maintenance expenses and upkeep
• Insurance costs
• Possible landscaping payments, dock fees, oil or gas bills, and other ongoing usage costs
• HOA dues
• Permitting expenses for hunting or fishing

How a Kansas City Divorce Attorney Values Your Vacation Home

In a high asset divorce, a spouse may dispute the value of a vacation property or allege that the other spouse is undervaluing a vacation home. A Kansas City divorce attorney will use proven methods to balance the scales and help clients make informed decisions about property division.

Our law firm may assist in engaging real estate professionals to provide an accurate valuation. We may also review financial records such as bank statements, tax reporting, and income assessments from rentals, while considering property equity and potential value in a buyout scenario. This type of legal representation is often critical in a contested divorce involving high-value assets.

Market analysis

One common method to value a vacation home in a Kansas City divorce is to use a market analysis approach. The property’s value can be disputed, or critical elements shielded in simple tax reporting. Therefore, a market analysis approach takes into account a slew of other similar homes in the region, and accounts for similar sized property’s asking and actual sale prices. Some of the factors considered in a market analysis approach include:

• Property amenities
• Location
• Years in use
• Size of the home or other buildings on the property
• Rental history in the area
• Turnover and maintenance costs
• Local real estate market conditions and their trends.

Dividing Other Properties in a Divorce

A family law judge has the final say in what is considered marital property versus separate property in a Kansas City divorce. How property division is handled can affect other financial outcomes, including alimony. Whether your case is a contested divorce or an uncontested divorce, these decisions require careful planning.

If you have significant assets or your business depends on property management, you should consult a Kansas City family law attorney to protect your interests. Joseph, Hollander & Craft has Kansas City divorce lawyers who can guide you through complex property issues and help you make informed decisions.

Second Homes

Second homes can greatly affect negotiations during divorce proceedings, as their value, debts, and any applicable liens all are considered shared between two spouses. If one spouse has moved into a second home, their overall financial stability and need for a solo residence can also become part of the picture, alongside the property value.

Rental Properties

Rental property managers and other similar business owners should consider how their rental properties will be valued in a divorce. The property’s liquidation value is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to providing a fuller financial picture for rental property owners. The cash flow component on rental properties may be considered as another marital asset, as well as the property’s underlying value. You may be asked to provide detailed accounting of recent rentals, as well as turnover rate, traffic, and costs.

Inherited Property

In general, inherited property is excluded from marital property division in a Kansas City divorce. Exceptions can apply, however, especially when one spouse’s labor has greatly affected the value of a property. Consult with a family attorney in Kansas City for the specifics of your case.

Dividing Vacation Homes Outside the Kansas City Metro

Missouri and Kansas courts can divide out-of-state real estate, but transferring ownership may require additional legal steps where the property is located. You also may wish to involve out of state appraisers, or other experts who may be able to bring more context to your vacation properties located in other markets.

Contact a Divorce Attorney in Kansas City Today

Joseph, Hollander & Craft offers a team of experienced Kansas City divorce lawyers ready for a consultation about your case. Our firm can clarify how vacation homes affect property division and devise a strategy that helps you protect whatever you decide matters most. Whether you would prefer to keep a vacation home in the family or if you need to protect your rental property business, our firm is available to fight for your needs during a divorce. Contact our firm at our Kansas City address, or at any of the other four locations today. Joseph, Hollander & Craft also maintains offices in Topeka, Wichita, Overland Park, and Lawrence for your convenience.

Reviewed by an Award-winning attorney at Joseph hollander & Craft

Julia A. Craft

Julia Craft is a family law attorney in Wichita, KS, whose practice includes divorce, child custody, child support, parenting time, spousal maintenance, premarital agreements, separation agreements, guardianships, and child in need of care proceedings. She also prepares wills and powers of attorney.

Read More →

The post Who Gets the Vacation Home in a Divorce in Kansas City? 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: March 31, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 3

FEATURE ARTICLE: AI & Sanctions

One of the most puzzling effects of the introduction of generative AI into current law practice is the number of lawyers who continue to use AI without proper safeguards against so-called hallucinations and submit documents to courts that provide the court with fictitious citations. At the time of writing this article, there are well over 1,000 reported instances of such submissions, and the number continues to grow.

The submission of such a document to a court may implicate both disciplinary rules and court-ordered sanctions. For sanctions, federal judges often focus on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

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

1.) Douglas B. Ammar, et al., The Lawyer as Active Participant in Public Life, 76 Mercer L. Rev. 1103 (2025).

Lawyers have taken part in the public life of the United States at every level since the birth of the nation. This article comments on that.

2.) Kyle Rozema, Hiding Lawyer Misconduct: Evidence from Florida, 22 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 318 (2025).

3.) Albert Yoon, In the Eye of the Beholder: How Lawyers Perceive Legal Ethical Problems, 22 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 345 (2025).

These two articles examine empirical evidence about ethics in practice. The more we can base ethical rules on actual practice, the better.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Blast from the Not so Distant Past

Remember, your AI intern, though incredibly fast and knowledgeable, is not flawless. It is crucial to keep a critical eye on and treat the AI as a tool that works for you. By defining its persona, engaging in a collaborative editing process, and continually providing guidance, you can take advantage of AI as as a form of collaborative co-intelligence.

— Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI 60 (Portfolio 2024).

Anyone using or planning to use AI in law practice—as well as anywhere else—needs to understand the basics of AI use. Ethan Mollick’s book is a great way to learn those basics. The world of AI technology is moving so fast, and most two-year-old books are already outdated. Professor Mollick’s book will be useful for years, if not decades.

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 3

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. 3 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 3 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published March 31, 2026.

One of the most puzzling effects of the introduction of generative AI into current law practice is the number of lawyers who continue to use AI without proper safeguards against so-called hallucinations and submit documents to courts that provide the court with fictitious citations. At the time of writing this article, there are well over 1,000 reported instances of such submissions, and the number continues to grow.

The submission of such a document to a court may implicate both disciplinary rules and court-ordered sanctions. For sanctions, federal judges often focus on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

The Kansas analog to FRCP 11 is K.S.A. 60-211:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name, or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, telephone number and fax number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting or later advocating it, an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Judges presented with filings containing hallucinations often cite to the requirement that legal claims and defenses be warranted under existing law or supported by a nonfrivolous legal argument.

Several of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct are also implicated by submission of documents containing false citations.

Rule 1.1 requires the provision of competent representation, including “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” At Comment 8, it is specified:

To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

(emphasis added). Comment 1, which notes that “[a] lawyer’s workload should be controlled so that each matter can be handled adequately,” may be referenced when noting that a time crunch is not an acceptable excuse for failing to confirm a citation is correct and stands for the point cited.

Echoing FRCP 11 and K.S.A. 60-211, KRPC 3.1 prohibits attorneys from pressing legal arguments that are frivolous or that lack a good faith basis:

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.

This rule, like the others, may be implicated when an argument is based on a fictitious citation. So may KRPC 3.3(a)(1), which expressly prohibits the making of a false statement of law (and the failure to correct a false statement previously made).

In addition, KRPC 5.3 states:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:
(a) a partner and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and
(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the rules of professional conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

More than one authority has noted that Rule 5.3’s language covers responsibilities regarding nonlawyer “assistance,” rather than “assistants”—such that non-human legal assistance is within the scope of the rule.

The point of reprinting these many rules that might be implicated in the submission of a hallucinatory document is precisely to emphasize the broad problems that such a submission may well bring on the lawyer submitting such a document, both direct and indirect.

Court-Imposed Sanctions

In the past several years, more and more judges confronted with documents containing hallucinated citations have chosen to impose sanctions on the lawyers who prepared and submitted them.

The first decision to gain widespread publicity was Mata v. Avianca, 678 F.Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). In that case, a lawyer unknowingly submitted a brief to the court containing several fictitious cases. The judge was, to put it mildly, furious, and ultimately imposed a $5,000 fine upon the lawyer who submitted the false citations. The Avianca case set the model for judicial reactions to submission of hallucinated cases, although the monetary sanctions imposed seem to be growing as judges get increasingly frustrated that lawyers continue to submit these problematic documents.

In Jacquelyn Jackie Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Company, a Special Master in the Central District for the District of California felt it appropriate to impose a quite severe sanctions on a law firm that submitted documents with AI-generated hallucinations, stating:

1. The attorneys representing Plaintiff in this civil action submitted briefs to the Special Master that contained bogus Al-generated research. After additional proceedings and considerable thought, I conclude that an award combining litigation sanctions against Plaintiff and financial payments from the lawyers and law firms is appropriate to address this misconduct.
2. I also conclude that additional financial or disciplinary sanctions against the individual attorneys are not warranted. This was a collective debacle, and is properly resolved without further jeopardy.

Case No. CV 24-5205 FMO, 2025 WL 1363069, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2025). There seems every reason to believe that more and more courts will sanction lawyers who submit briefs and other documents with higher and higher monetary sanctions.

This year, in Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, 347 Or.App. 742 (Mar. 18, 2026), another case of hallucinated citations, the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained its reason for imposing a $10,000 fine when nine of 27 legal citations in a ten-page brief were incorrect due to the use of and reliance upon AI tools:

We further explained that it was “an exceptionally grave situation for at least three reasons.” Id. at 304. Those reason are that (1) “it is a breach of the attorney’s professional duties,” (2) “it strains our limited judicial resources,” and (3) “by building and submitting arguments based on nonexistent cases and principles of law, and by failing to take the time to develop competency in the cases and principles of law that do in fact exist, the attorney is engaging in conduct that jeopardizes the rule of law.”

Here, we have a clear case not only of monetary sanctions, but a reputational hit. How many lawyers wish to see their representation of a client referred to as a debacle?

In 2025, a Judge Anna Manasco of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama was confronted by a trio of lawyers who submitted hallucinated cases. Judge Manasco wrote:

Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction. In the court’s view, it demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse. As a practical matter, time is telling us – quickly and loudly – that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents. In principle, they do not account for the danger that fake citations pose for the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial system. And in any event, they have little effect when the lawyer’s client (here, an Alabama government agency) learns of the attorney’s misconduct and continues to retain him.

An appropriate and reasonable sanction must (1) have sufficient deterrent force to make this misuse of AI unprofitable for lawyers and litigants, (2) correspond to the extreme dereliction of professional responsibility that sham citations reflect (whether generated by artificial or human intelligence), and (3) effectively communicate that made up authorities have no place in a court of law.

Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (N.D. Ala. 2025).

Disciplinary Referrals

Courts throughout the U.S. are not only imposing sanctions; they are also referring the lawyers involved for discipline.

In 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided an appeal in the case of Park v. Kim. The lawyer submitted a brief with two citations, one of which was fictitious and produced by a generative AI. The Court stated:

At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely. Indeed, we can think of no other way to ensure that the arguments made based on those authorities are “warranted by existing law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), or otherwise “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393. As a District Judge of this Circuit recently held when presented with non-existent precedent generated by ChatGPT: “A fake opinion is not ‘existing law’ and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying system.” Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22CV01461(PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Attorney Lee states that “it is important to recognize that ChatGPT represents a significant technological advancement,” and argues that “[i]t would be prudent for the court to advise legal professionals to exercise caution when utilizing this new technology.” Indeed, several courts have recently proposed or enacted local rules or orders specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence tools before the court. But such a rule is not necessary to a licensed attorney, who is a member of the bar of this Court that that she must ensure that her submissions to this Court are accurate.

Attorney Lee’s submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447. The brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented.

Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024). The Court then concluded its opinion by referring Ms. Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel for “further investigation.”

And at Home

A recent case in Kansas has further extended the potential liability of lawyers for sanction—even if they did not prepare the brief flawed by hallucinated citations. In Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-2324-JAR, a motion submitted by the plaintiff contained: (1) nonexistent quotations; (2) nonexistent and incorrect citations; and (3) misrepresentations about cited authority. In an opinion delivered December 15, 2025, Judge Julie Robinson noted:

As the Tenth Circuit has recently explained, careless use of generative AI “can waste both judicial resources and the opposing party’s time and money, and it can damage the credibility of the legal system.” Indeed, here, the prejudice to Defendant cannot be overstated. Plaintiff’s conduct required Defendant to spend much of its reply brief addressing this issue, and to respond to this motion to correct. Importantly, the Daubert motion is intertwined with the merits of a summary-judgment issue. Thus, Defendant also addressed this issue in its reply brief on summary judgment. Plaintiff’s errors have also wasted judicial resources; resources that the Court should be spending on the merits of the case. The need to correct at all was well within the control of Plaintiff’s counsel. “[T]he pitfalls of utilizing AI are now well-known in this profession.” Plaintiff’s counsel should have Plaintiff’s counsel should have been aware of the risk involved in submitting a brief that relied on generative AI without validating the case citations both to determine that they exist, and to confirm that the cases stand for the propositions for which they are cited. Yet, counsel took this risk anyway.

2025 WL 3628377 (D. Kan. Dec. 15, 2025). In a subsequent opinion, Judge Robinson explained that only one attorney (not local to the district) used AI and inserted the inaccurate information derived from that tool into the motion—without any other attorney on the case knowing that he did so. However, Judge Robinson concluded that all attorneys whose names appeared on the document—including local counsel—shared responsibility for the errors in the submission:

[A]ll of the attorneys who signed the briefs had a nondelegable duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the legal authority relied on in the briefs before signing their names. By signing their names to Docs. 193 and 194, they “certified that each filing had been reviewed and verified by human judgment,” yet they were not.

Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 2026 WL 265581, at *10 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026). Judge Robinson then revoked the pro hac vice admission of the attorney who created the offending document; publicly admonished each attorney who signed the document; imposed fines of $1,000 to $5,000 per attorney who signed the document; and ordered the attorneys make internal changes to firm policies to prevent future similar occurrences.

In Sum

What becomes clear from the many cases addressing the issue is that lawyers using AI for research and document production must never accept the results without verification. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in sanctions, damage to the client, disciplinary investigation, and reputational loss. As such cases continue to be heard, judges’ patience evaporates, and penalties may well become more severe than they already are.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 3

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 AI & Sanctions appeared first on Home.

If you or a loved one has been taken into custody, speaking with an experienced Kansas City criminal defense attorney as soon as possible can make a meaningful difference. The steps you take immediately after an arrest often shape the outcome of the entire case. 

What Happens After an Arrest in a Kansas City Criminal Case?

After an arrest in Kansas City, MO, law enforcement may transport you to a local jail or detention facility for booking. The booking process typically includes recording your personal information, taking fingerprints and photographs, and documenting the alleged offense. You may also be searched, and your personal property will be inventoried.

Depending on the charge, you may be released with a citation, held until bond is set, or required to appear before a judge for an initial hearing. Understanding the Kansas City, MO, jail process helps reduce uncertainty during this critical time. Knowing your rights can prevent additional legal trouble.

Miranda Rights in Missouri Criminal Defense Cases

Under Missouri law and the U.S. Constitution, police must advise you of your Miranda rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. These rights include:

• The right to remain silent
• The warning that anything you say can be used against you in court
• The right to an attorney
• The right to have an attorney appointed if you cannot afford one

If law enforcement questions you while you are in custody without properly reading your Miranda rights, any statements you make may be challenged and potentially excluded from evidence. A skilled Kansas City criminal defense attorney can review whether your rights were violated and how that impacts your case.

Your Right to Remain Silent

One of the most important rights you have after an arrest is the right to remain silent. You are not required to answer questions from the police beyond basic identifying information. This applies during arrest, booking, and any later questioning.

Many people believe they can “clear things up” by talking to police officers. In reality, anything you say can be used against you, even statements made casually or with good intentions. Politely but firmly stating that you choose to stay silent and want to speak with a criminal defense lawyer is often the safest course of action. This right applies whether you are being questioned by Kansas City, MO, law enforcement officers or agents of other law enforcement agencies.

Your Right to a Kansas City, MO, Criminal Defense Attorney

You have the right to speak with a criminal defense attorney at any point after an arrest. Once you request a lawyer, police questioning should stop until your attorney is present.

Contacting an experienced Kansas City criminal defense attorney early allows legal counsel to protect your rights, communicate with law enforcement on your behalf, and guide you through the next steps. Even if you believe the criminal charges against you are minor or a misunderstanding, having legal representation can prevent small issues from becoming serious problems.

Searches and Seizures After an Arrest in Kansas City, MO

After an arrest, police may conduct certain searches without a warrant, such as a search of your person or items within immediate reach. However, there are limits to what law enforcement can search and seize under Missouri law.

If officers searched your vehicle, home, or electronic devices without proper legal justification, the evidence obtained may be challenged. An experienced Kansas City criminal defense attorney can evaluate whether a search violated your constitutional rights and seek to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. 

The Bail, Bond, and Release Processes in Kansas City, MO

After booking, a judge may set bail or bond, depending on the severity of the charges and your criminal history. Some offenses allow for release on recognizance, meaning you are released without posting bond but must appear in court as scheduled.

Violating release terms, even unintentionally, can result in additional charges or being taken back into custody. A Kansas City criminal defense lawyer can explain your options and work to secure the least restrictive release possible. 

How Police Questioning Works in Kansas City, MO

Police questioning does not always end after booking. Investigators may attempt to speak with you again, sometimes days later, and may suggest that cooperation will help your case.

You are never required to answer questions. Even if you have already spoken to the police, you still have the right to stop further questioning and request legal counsel. Protecting yourself during Kansas City, MO, police questioning is one of the most important steps you can take after an arrest.

Why Early Legal Help from a Kansas City Arrest Lawyer Matters

Evidence is gathered, statements are recorded, and charging decisions are often made early after an arrest. Having a criminal defense lawyer involved from the start allows for early intervention, which may include challenging the arrest, preventing charges from being filed, or negotiating reduced penalties.

A knowledgeable Kansas City criminal defense attorney understands local courts, prosecutors, and procedures, and can tailor a criminal defense strategy to your specific situation.

Contact a Kansas City Criminal Defense Lawyer for a Consultation

If you or a loved one has been arrested in the Kansas City area, you do not have to face the legal system alone. Knowing your rights after arrest in Missouri is essential, but having an advocate who knows how to enforce those rights is just as important.

Experienced criminal defense attorney Joseph Hollander provides experienced criminal defense representation to individuals facing arrest and charges in Kansas City, MO. Contact our office today to discuss your situation, understand your options, and take the first step toward protecting your future.

The post Your Rights After an Arrest in the Kansas City Area appeared first on Home.

A parenting plan is a legal document that outlines the rights and responsibilities of each parent regarding their child. Working with an experienced Kansas City child custody lawyer can help parents understand how judges approach custody plans and help them best present their cases in custody hearings.

The Missouri “Best Interest of the Child” Standard

Missouri courts determine custody based on what is known as the “best interest of the child” standard. This legal framework requires judges to evaluate a range of relevant factors to determine which custody arrangement will best support the minor child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs.

Judges do not automatically favor one parent over the other based on gender or income. Instead, they focus on the child’s well-being and stability, both now and in the future. Understanding the Missouri best interest standard is essential for anyone involved in custody hearings in Kansas City.

Factors Considered When the Court Determines Child Custody Arrangements

Jackson County judges review specific custody factors outlined under Missouri law. These factors guide how the court evaluates each parent’s role in the minor child’s life and their ability to meet the child’s needs. Courts often look at the child’s relationship with each parent, including who has been the primary caregiver and how involved each parent has been in day-to-day activities such as school, medical care, and extracurriculars.

Judges also consider the willingness of each parent to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. A parent who interferes with parenting time or attempts to alienate the child may face unfavorable outcomes. Additional factors can include the mental and physical health of all parties, any history of domestic violence or substance abuse, and, in some cases, the child’s wishes, depending on age and maturity.

Legal Custody vs. Physical Custody in Kansas City

Child custody in Missouri is divided into legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody refers to decision-making authority over major aspects of the child’s life, such as education, healthcare, and religious upbringing. Judges may award sole legal custody, joint legal custody, or a combination of shared and sole arrangements depending on what is best for the child’s welfare. 

Physical custody, referred to as parenting time, determines where the minor child lives and how time is shared between parents. The goal is for both parents to share equal parenting time so they can both enjoy meaningful contact with the child, provided that is what is healthiest for the child.

Parenting Time and Custody Schedules

Parenting time schedules are designed to provide consistency and predictability for children. Courts generally encourage arrangements that allow both of the child’s parents to remain actively involved, as long as it is safe and appropriate.

Judges examine work schedules, school locations, transportation logistics, and the child’s routine when approving or creating a parenting plan. Stability is a key concern with respect to the best interests of the child, particularly for younger children. Disputes over parenting time are common during custody hearings, making clear documentation and preparation especially important.

What Happens During Custody Hearings in Kansas City

Custody hearings in family courts allow each parent to present evidence and testimony related to custody factors. This may include witness statements, school records, medical records, and other documentation.

Judges assess credibility, consistency, and the overall picture each parent presents. Emotional arguments alone are rarely persuasive. Courts rely on facts, patterns of behavior, and the child’s demonstrated needs.

In more complicated cases, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem or order a custody evaluation to gather additional information before making a final decision.

Kansas vs. Missouri Custody Jurisdiction Issues

Families in the Kansas City metro area sometimes deal with cross-state custody issues. Jurisdiction depends on factors such as where the child has lived, where prior orders were issued, and which state qualifies as the child’s home state under applicable law. These situations can make custody proceedings even more difficult than they already are. 

Why You Should Consider Hiring a Family Law Attorney in Matters Involving Custody Plans

Determining custody cases involves more than legal rules. They shape a child’s daily life and long-term stability. Missteps during negotiations or hearings can have lasting consequences. A Kansas City child custody lawyer can help parents prepare for hearings, present relevant evidence, and advocate for custody and parenting time arrangements that truly reflect the child’s best interests.

Child custody matters often involve emotional challenges, making experienced legal representation an essential tool in protecting your rights. An experienced child custody attorney in Kansas City can help you determine the best approach to your custody dispute under Missouri’s statutes. Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC is known for handling complicated, high-stakes custody disputes involving child support and other related matters. 

Contact a Kansas City Child Custody Lawyer Today

If you are facing a custody dispute in the Kansas City area, understanding how judges make custody decisions is a crucial first step. The earlier you seek guidance, the better positioned you may be to protect your relationship with your child.

Contact Joseph Hollander & Craft LLC to speak with a Kansas City child custody lawyer about your custody concerns and next steps.

The post How Kansas City Judges Decide Child Custody appeared first on Home.

A knowledgeable Kansas City criminal defense attorney can help you understand what these charges mean under Missouri law and what steps to take to protect your rights from the start.

Misdemeanor Charges in Kansas City Courts

Misdemeanor cases make up a large portion of criminal matters heard in Kansas City. These charges often arise from situations such as traffic stops, disputes, or low-level offenses that escalate into arrests.

The state of Missouri categorizes misdemeanor crimes into three classes. Class A misdemeanors are the most serious and can carry penalties of up to one year in jail and fines of up to $2,000. Class B misdemeanors involve lower potential time in jail and fines, while Class C misdemeanors are the least serious and are often punishable by fines rather than incarceration.

You may also be charged with a misdemeanor in a municipal (city) court. 

Even though misdemeanor penalties are less severe than felony penalties, a conviction can still have lasting effects. A criminal record can make it harder to find a job, secure housing, or maintain professional licenses. For this reason, misdemeanor defense in Missouri should always be taken seriously.

A Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help You Fight Felony Charges in Kansas City, Missouri

Felony charges in Kansas City involve higher stakes and more complex legal procedures. Missouri classifies felonies from Class E, the least severe, up to Class A, the most serious. Class A felonies can be punishable by a prison term of 10 to 30 years to life.

Lower-level felonies may involve nonviolent offenses or repeat conduct that elevates a charge beyond a misdemeanor. Higher-level felonies often involve allegations of violence, major theft, drug offenses, or crimes involving weapons. Convictions can lead to significant prison sentences in the Missouri Department of Corrections rather than time in a local jail.

In addition to incarceration, felony convictions can result in the loss of voting rights, restrictions on firearm ownership, and long-term damage to your personal and professional life.

What to Expect in Kansas City Criminal Court

The process for handling criminal cases in Missouri depends on whether the charge is a misdemeanor or a felony. Misdemeanor cases may move relatively quickly through arraignment, pretrial hearings, and resolution.

Felony cases typically involve additional steps, such as preliminary hearings or grand jury proceedings. These cases require more extensive preparation from the earliest stages. Understanding how the criminal court system works can help reduce uncertainty and allow you to make informed decisions about your defense.

Missouri Criminal Penalties and Long-Term Consequences in Jackson County

Missouri criminal penalties vary widely based on the classification of the offense, your prior record, and the facts of the case. Misdemeanor penalties may include jail time, probation, fines, community service, or court-ordered treatment programs.

Felony penalties can include years or even decades in prison. Beyond these direct penalties, criminal convictions often carry collateral consequences that affect employment, housing, education, and personal freedom long after the case ends. These long-term consequences make early and effective legal representation especially important.

Why Defense Matters After a Kansas City, MO Arrest

After a Kansas City arrest, early decisions can significantly affect the outcome of your case. What you say to law enforcement, how bail is handled, and how quickly evidence is reviewed all play a role in your defense.

A Kansas City criminal defense attorney can assess whether your rights were violated, challenge improper police conduct, and work toward reducing or dismissing charges when possible. Early involvement also creates opportunities for negotiation and alternative resolutions that may not be available later. 

Working with a Kansas City Criminal Defense Lawyer

Whether you are facing felony charges or a misdemeanor offense under Missouri law, having legal guidance can make the process more manageable. An experienced criminal defense attorney in Kansas City can explain misdemeanor and felony charges, outline potential outcomes, investigate the evidence, and advocate for the best possible resolution based on your circumstances. Your attorney should provide you with a realistic outlook on how your case could resolve, and they should argue aggressively for a fair outcome.

When selecting a criminal defense lawyer in Kansas City, Missouri, it is important to prioritize local experience with the courts, as well as with prosecutors and judges. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to criminal defense; every case requires a strategy tailored to the facts of the case. This is especially true if you believe there is a strong chance your case will go to trial.

Contact a Kansas City Criminal Defense Lawyer for a Consultation

If you or someone you care about is facing criminal charges in the Kansas City area, the sooner you seek legal help, the more options you may have. Contact the law firm of Joseph, Hollander & Craft to speak with a Kansas City criminal defense attorney and learn how to protect your rights and work toward the best possible outcome in your case.

The post Felony and Misdemeanor Charges in Kansas City Courts Explained appeared first on Home.

If you are a parent preparing for negotiations, mediation, or litigation, our family law attorneys at Joseph, Hollander & Craft can explain how Kansas City child custody determinations work.

How Family Law Attorneys Determine Child Custody Matters Under Missouri Family Law

Kansas City spans two states, and child custody disputes must be heard in the proper jurisdiction. Broadly speaking (though there are some exceptions), the child’s home state, where they have lived for the past six months, determines which court hears the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). For example:

• A family living in Overland Park would generally proceed through the Johnson County family court.
• A family residing in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, would generally file in Jackson County court.

Although statutory language varies slightly, both court systems employ the same standard for child custody determinations. There are some exceptions to this rule, however. For example, in cases of emergencies, or where a court has heard a case regarding a child previously and has continuing jurisdiction, jurisdiction may be proper in a court which is not the home state of the child. Consulting one of our child custody attorneys in Kansas City can help you determine whether any exceptions exist in your matter.

Best Interests of the Child Standard

Child custody laws in both Missouri and Kansas require courts to apply the “best interests of the child” standard as the controlling guideline in legal custody decisions. Judges do not focus on what is most convenient for either parent; instead, they examine how each proposed arrangement will affect the child’s physical safety, emotional development, and long-term stability. Several factors shape this analysis, including, but not limited to:

• The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community environments
• The emotional bond between the child and each parent
• Each parent’s ability to meet daily needs, such as education, healthcare, and structure
• The mental and physical status of all parties involved

Judges also look at continuity. If a child lives primarily with one parent and is thriving academically and socially, courts are often reluctant to disrupt that stability without compelling justification.

Joint Legal Custody Preference

Both Missouri child custody laws and Kansas statutes recognize joint custody as a favorable arrangement when parents can cooperate. Joint legal custody may involve sharing decision-making authority over major decisions in the child’s life, such as education, religion, and healthcare.

Courts view shared involvement as beneficial because it allows children to retain meaningful relationships with both parents. However, joint custody is not automatic. If parents demonstrate high conflict, communication breakdowns, or a history of domestic violence, courts may determine that shared authority would expose the child to instability.

When joint custody is awarded, schedules vary widely. Some families adopt alternating weeks, while others use 2-2-3 or extended weekend rotations. The court’s objective is to create a workable routine that minimizes disruption to schooling and extracurricular activities.

Parenting Plan Court Orders

A parenting plan is one of the most important documents in any Kansas City child custody case. Courts require parents to submit a written proposal outlining how they will raise their child post-divorce. Parenting plans generally address:

• Residential schedules and holiday rotations
• Transportation logistics and exchange locations
• Decision-making authority for education and medical care
• Communication guidelines between parents and the child
• Dispute-resolution methods, such as mediation

Judges review these plans to determine whether they are practical and child-focused. If parents cannot agree, the court may impose its own structure after reviewing testimony, child custody evaluations, and possibly even recommendations from a guardian ad litem, if one has been appointed.

A well-crafted parenting plan reduces future conflict. A Kansas City family law attorney will ensure the plan sets expectations clearly, leaving less room for misunderstandings that could lead to enforcement motions or modification requests.

Co-Parenting Ability

Divorcing or separating parents might struggle to cooperate and support one another. However, one child custody factor is each parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent. Courts scrutinize behaviors that may signal cooperation or obstruction.

Judges may examine whether a parent:

• Encourages regular communication with the other parent
• Speaks respectfully about the other parent in the child’s presence
• Complies with temporary custody court orders
• Shares school and medical updates promptly

Parental alienation or attempts to damage the child’s perception of one parent can weigh heavily against the offending party. Courts view cooperative co-parenting as foundational to a child’s emotional well-being. When one parent demonstrates repeated hostility or refusal to collaborate, judges may adjust child custody or parenting time to shield the child from ongoing conflict exposure.

Relocation Restrictions

Relocation presents legal and emotional challenges. When a parent wishes to move with the child, or even simply remove the child for an extended period, whether across the state line or across the country, both Kansas and Missouri impose notice and approval requirements. In Missouri, a relocating parent must provide written notice at least 60 days in advance, including:

• The new address and phone number
• The date of the intended move or relocation
• The reason for relocation
• A proposed revised custody schedule
• The non-relocating parent’s right to file a motion to prevent relocation

Kansas follows a similar framework, requiring advance notice and permitting the other parent to seek a child custody modification if the move would materially affect parenting time. Judges evaluating relocation requests weigh:

• The effect of the move on the best interests of the child
• The effect of the move on any party having rights
• The increased cost the move will impose on a party seeking to exercise rights

Relocation requests that aim to limit one parent’s involvement face heightened scrutiny. A parent who demonstrates flexibility and respect can influence a favorable court ruling.

No “Mother State” Bias

A persistent misconception in child custody disputes is that judges favor mothers, particularly with younger children. However, modern family law statutes in both Kansas and Missouri reject gender-based presumptions.

Judges evaluate parenting ability, not parental gender or income level. Fathers who demonstrate active involvement in schooling, healthcare, and daily caregiving stand on equal legal footing. Likewise, a higher-earning parent does not gain a custody advantage solely due to financial status.

Work with a Kansas City Child Custody Attorney Today

Kansas City child custody disputes shape the structure of a child’s upbringing and a parent’s daily life. A lawyer well-versed in custody and visitation matters can help ensure your parenting plan is comprehensive, enforceable, and aligned with state requirements in both Kansas and Missouri.

Our Kansas City family law attorneys from Joseph, Hollander & Craft can help you demonstrate your involvement as a primary caretaker and protect your decision-making rights. Contact us to schedule a consultation to discuss your parental rights and how to serve the best interests of your child.

The post Kansas City Divorce and Child Custody Rules Every Parent Should Know 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: February 27, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 2

FEATURE ARTICLE: Time, Uncertainty & Legal Ethics

When I began to teach legal ethics forty years ago, one of the reasons that I did so was that it was not a subject with radical changes occurring almost every day. In practice, I was a tax and real estate lawyer. The first thing I did each weekday morning when I arrived at the office was to grab a coffee and a roll and a copy of the Daily Tax Report to read before I could begin to do client work. I did so because the outpouring of new law (cases, administrative rulings, and legislation at the federal level was enough to fill twenty to thirty pages of the Report). Legal Ethics, on the other hand, was a rather quiet field, in which the ABA Model Code was still the reigning source of law.

Of course, the Model Code was replaced in 1983 by the new Model Rules of Professional Conduct. One of the main purposes of the Model Rules’ adoption was to give greater direction and more specific rules to the profession as to what lawyer activity was permissible. Indeed, over the past forty years, we have seen several major revisions of the Rules and a significant increase in new legislation, advisory opinions, and court cases in the subject. The nature of the Rules and the increasing new interpretations of the rules, much of it caused by the introduction of new legal technology over the past twenty years, is making it very difficult for lawyers to know precisely what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

Three factors are important.

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

NEW AUTHORITY: District of Kansas Show Cause Order Demonstrates Dangers of AI

A show cause order filed on December 15, 2025, by senior federal Judge Julie Robinson in the case of Lexos Media IP, LLC. v. Overstock.Com. Inc., Case No. 22-cv-2324-JAR, demonstrates the dangers of using AI in litigation and may create serious concerns beyond what the lawyers had heretofore expected.

The problem in Lexos was that lawyers submitted imperfect documents in a patent case. According to the court:

… Plaintiff’s response briefs to Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Russ and its motion for summary judgment contain defective legal citations that were created through the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), which were not checked and confirmed before filing. These defects include: (1) nonexistent quotations; (2) nonexistent and incorrect citations and (3) misrepresentations about cited authority.

Although there were six attorneys involved in the case for Lexos, only one filed a declaration with the court as to how and why this had happened. Judge Robinson ordered each attorney on the signature blocks of specified documents to show cause, in writing and under penalty of perjury, why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 and referred to the disciplinary panel of the court and to disciplinary administrators in the jurisdictions where they are licensed.

Most importantly, Judge Robinson included local counsel in her order. This took a number of Kansas attorneys by surprise, as, under Judge Robinson’s opinion, local counsel would have to “check and confirm” all citations in all documents drafted by co-counsel to ensure the citations were accurate and not AI hallucinations or misrepresentation. While Judge Robinson relied on the district’s pro hac vice rule in her order, attorneys have expressed that this requirement may prove a significant burden for local counsel—and result in substantial additional expenses for clients.

We will discuss the extent of lawyer responsibility for AI generated errors in a future article. For now, practitioners should be mindful that responsibility may extend beyond material they personally craft.

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

1.) Christina D. Lockwood, Rhetoric over Reality: Examining Ethical Obligations of Confidentiality When Information Is Publicly Available, 59 Ind. L. Rev. 97 (2025).

One of the issues that often confuses law students is the extent to which Rule 1.6 covers information easily available in public sources.

2.) Michael D. Murray, Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages?, 28 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 199 (2025-2026).

The ethics of visual materials is one more fascinating issue for lawyers using generative AI.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Pro Cluentio

We are bound by the law so that we may be free.

— Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Cluentio

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 2

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. 2 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 2 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published February 27, 2026.

When I began to teach legal ethics forty years ago, one of the reasons that I did so was that it was not a subject with radical changes occurring almost every day. In practice, I was a tax and real estate lawyer. The first thing I did each weekday morning when I arrived at the office was to grab a coffee and a roll and a copy of the Daily Tax Report to read before I could begin to do client work. I did so because the outpouring of new law (cases, administrative rulings, and legislation at the federal level was enough to fill twenty to thirty pages of the Report). Legal Ethics, on the other hand, was a rather quiet field, in which the ABA Model Code was still the reigning source of law.

Of course, the Model Code was replaced in 1983 by the new Model Rules of Professional Conduct. One of the main purposes of the Model Rules’ adoption was to give greater direction and more specific rules to the profession as to what lawyer activity was permissible. Indeed, over the past forty years, we have seen several major revisions of the Rules and a significant increase in new legislation, advisory opinions, and court cases in the subject. The nature of the Rules and the increasing new interpretations of the rules, much of it caused by the introduction of new legal technology over the past twenty years, is making it very difficult for lawyers to know precisely what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

Three factors are important.

First, the Model Rules are what legal scholars call “open textured.” They make no attempt to be comprehensive so that every question can be answered simply by looking at them. The list of definitions in Rule 1.0 is remarkably short. Many of the words and phrases used in the Rules and comments leave quite a bit of room for interpretation. For instance, KRPC Rule 1.1, Comment 8 says that:

To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

(emphasis added). The problem is understanding precisely what is meant by “keeping abreast” of the “benefits and risks” of new technologies. How much should lawyers understand. Will an hour of CLE on ethics and technology each year satisfy this requirement? Surely, one hour of instruction does not make a lawyer even begin to understand the risks of complex technologies. If that is all that is required, this will not protect clients. But if it is not enough, how much is?

The second and related factor is that the “open texture” of the Rules and Comments means that lawyers must act under conditions of uncertainty, which increases the risk of error and unwitting violation of the Rules. This kind of uncertainty may cause lawyers to avoid acting in some ways that might benefit clients (and themselves). For instance, given the rapidity with which new technology like AI is being introduced into law practice, might it be better to create a safe harbor under Rule 1.1? Should ethics committees and regulatory authorities determine a number of hours that lawyers should spend in studying AI each year? Should they consider requiring mandatory AI training for lawyers to adopt the technology?

Leaving AI to the side for a moment, what about lawyers’ responsibility to take protective cybersecurity measures? ABA Opinion 483 gives guidance to lawyers when a data breach occurs. The point of this opinion is that lawyers have a great deal of responsibility in the event of a cyber breach including remediation and informing clients. They are also required to be prepared with an “action plan” beforehand so as to mitigate the effects of a cyber breach. Before the computerization of law offices and the digitization of client files, concern with the potential theft of client files and the necessary precautions necessary to protect those files was far less (a sturdy door and good lock on the records room would have been considered excellent security). Even the advent of cellphones has created massive new problems for lawyers because of the requirements of Rule 1.6 and the new and heretofore unseen threats to client confidentiality created by widespread adoption of cell phones with little or no protection against interception.

The “open textured” nature of the Model Rules, as is equally true of the Uniform Commercial Code, not only allows but counts on courts and disciplinary committees to deal with new challenges. The system of advisory opinions issued by state committees and the American Bar Association also serve to update, refine, and clarify unclear portions of ethics law. A major problem with these sources is the time between the introduction of new technologies to the legal profession. Courts and committees are justifiably cautious about moving too quickly before the full consequences of the introduction of the technology and the dangers. During the period between the introduction of a new technology and the issuance of relevant advice by courts and committees, lawyers are at risk of inadvertently violating the Rules. Moreover, the very language of Comment 8 in KRPC 1.1 (and equivalent comments in other jurisdictions) does not say what “keep abreast” means. Does it mean that lawyers must keep abreast of the changes in technology as they occur or when they are explained by courts? Indeed, this raises the interesting question of whether the multitude of explanations and guidance provided by academic legal writers is positive or negative. Law professors will also publish their opinions before a court of committee has issued its opinion. Will it be enough for a lawyer who acts upon the opinions of academics on interpreting ethics rules and the impact of technology upon them automatically accept this reliance as dispositive? I doubt it.

This, of course, leads us to the question of the introduction of AI into the legal world and the increasing number of ethics issues it raises and the perils of so many lawyers who find that they have crossed the ethical line.

Nick Badgerow, Kansas’s preeminent legal ethics scholar has an article in the most recent Kansas Bar Journal about this problem of dealing with AI and the massive ethics uncertainty surrounding its use: “CAVEAT ADVOCATUS: Use of Artificial Intelligence for Legal Drafting.” The bottom line is that lawyers cannot simply rush into adopting AI or any new legal technology with carefully learning about it and assuring that any new technology that they use is used ethically, understanding that they are of under uncertainty and that brings risk and may affect their judgment whether to and how to use the new technology.

There are significant ethical risks for those lawyers who want to be “first adopters.” Perhaps, it would be better to seek guidance before adopting. Bring first may not always be the best path.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 2

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 Time, Uncertainty & Legal Ethics appeared first on Home.