Why was everyone so happy? The misdemeanor pleas meant that Mr. Ceballos had avoided conviction for the six felony election offenses originally charged against him (and, hopefully, the risk of deportation that came with those felonies). The cheerful crowd recognized this was a wonderful result for Mr. Ceballos, who never denied that he voted in the elections at issue but also never intended to violate the law.

Joseph, Hollander & Craft Criminal Defense Attorney Jess Hoeme, who negotiated the favorable plea deal for Mr. Ceballos, expressed gratitude that the Kansas Attorney General’s Office ultimately “looked at the man instead of the politics of the situation.”

The Honorable Sidney R. Thomas, who presided over the case, remarked on the resolution of the case: “I do think that’s justice.” Judge Thomas followed the plea agreement’s recommendation that Mr. Ceballos serve no jail time.

The post Attorney Jess Hoeme Negotiates Favorable Plea Deal for Joe Ceballos appeared first on Home.

Divorce proceedings are always more complicated when spouses have children, and disagreements over a child’s education can be especially difficult. The parents may have disputes involving school choice or private school tuition. Still another situation is when either the child or a parent wants to change schools.

The decisions that are made during divorce can affect your children’s educational needs and their future, including their ability to attend school that supports their educational success and overall welfare. Working for the best possible outcome requires dedicated legal representation putting child’s interests first. Count on the Kansas City divorce attorneys of Joseph, Hollander & Craft to guide you.

Why Educational Decisions Are Often Disputed During Divorce

When two spouses are married, they generally view each other as being on the same team. So even when they disagree on how to educate their children, they can more easily come together and resolve their differences. A divorce upends this cooperation.

When spouses go through divorce, one or more the following scenarios could arise:

• Overlooked issues become prominent: Previously, one parent may have given the other parent grace when it came to certain decisions involving the child’s education. Divorce brings unresolved disagreements to the surface. Without the marriage binding the parents, the desire to work together may be impaired.
• Custody may have been a divorce issue: One parent may specifically mention education decisions in child custody claims related to the divorce. If, during the marriage there was a fundamental disagreement over how to educate the child, then it is likely to continue even after the court has made its custody decision.
• Changes may have happened since separation: Post-separate changes in lifestyle, finances, or other important matters can affect various custody issues–including school choice. For instance, one parent may wish to leave the area and therefore change the child’s school.

These disagreements often arise in broader family law matters and can lead to financial disputes or require court intervention if the parents cannot resolve them.

It is possible for these and other matters to be resolved during negotiation, mediation, or litigation, with the help of an experienced Kansas City family law attorney.

How Courts Review and Decide Upon School Choice Disputes

Legal custody is decision-making authority and it includes significant matters such as a child’s education. The right of a parent to make decisions regarding school enrollment will therefore depend on the overall custody arrangement.

• Joint legal custody: Joint custody, including joint legal custody, is the preferred option and requires both parents to confer with each other before making major decisions such as where to enroll the child in school. As with all decisions affecting the child, the child’s best interests are the primary concern for the judge. So there has to be clear evidence that the parents can communicate well and work together for the benefit of the child in making all decisions.
• Sole legal custody: A less common but still possible option is to allow only one parent to make major decisions affecting the child, including education. Sole legal custody is more likely if there is evidence that one parent has been abusive, neglectful, or there are otherwise compelling reasons for preferring only one parent to make these choices.

If the judge orders sole legal custody, then the parent who is granted custody will simply make educational decisions. But if joint legal custody is ordered, then both parents will be expected to come to a mutual agreement. Neither parent can unilaterally make decisions about the child’s education if joint legal custody is ordered. If the parents sharing joint legal custody ultimately disagree on educational matters, they may need to submit the dispute to:

• A mediator
• A parenting coordinator
• The court, including by way of modification or enforcement

Who Pays for Private School After Divorce?

While deciding who has the authority to select the child’s school is complicated enough, paying for it is another matter. This is where child support comes in. However, child support is generally intended to cover a child’s basic needs and does not automatically include special expenses like private school tuition. As with all matters affecting the child, the judge must determine what is in the child’s best interests, and that standard can influence how child support is structured.

If one parent wants to include private school tuition in the child support calculation but the other does not, the judge will decide whether one or both parents should contribute. In doing so, the court may consider:

• Whether the child was already enrolled in private school
• The ability of either or both parents to pay
• Any special educational needs the child may have
• Whether public schools can meet the child’s educational needs
• The child’s lifestyle during the marriage and the role private school played in it

In some cases, the court may deviate from standard child support guidelines to account for private school tuition if doing so is in the child’s best interests.

It is also possible for both parents to reach an agreement regarding private school tuition during divorce negotiations. If they formalize that agreement in writing, such as in a separation agreement, the court will generally enforce it.

What Happens If I Want to Change My Child’s School?

One of the most contentious decisions regarding a child’s education is the decision to change it. Disputes about school selection or changing to a particular school often arise when parents disagree about what is best for the child’s schooling. Whether private school, public school, homeschool, or some other form of education is involved, one parent’s desire to change schools is often met with hostility from the other. There are various dynamics at work which a court will need to weigh.

The Effects of Relocation on School Choice

Relocating either within the same state or to another one is a common basis for changing a child’s school after divorce. A custodial parent who wishes to relocate within the same state must usually send written notice before the move, and it should be sent by registered or certified mail. If the other parent does not agree then the judge may have to decide and weigh various factors to determine the best interests of the child.

The issue of school choice in divorce is even more complex if the proposed move is out of state. While notice is also required, it will be harder to justify the relocation if the non-moving parent will be unable to see the child as often. In addition to proving that the relocation is in the child’s best interests, the parent who is proposing to move should be able to demonstrate they have legitimate reasons for doing so, like an important career change.

Religious Schools and Values-Based Education

Religion can add a level of complexity to relocation decisions. Judges want to respect the different religious views of the parents without appearing to officially endorse a religion. At the same time, courts also recognize the advantages of religious and values-based education for many children. As with all educational matters, a judge has to evaluate the child’s best interests and how they intersect with the proposed change to a new school.

Special Education and Special Needs

Disputes may arise when one parent wants to move the child to a school that can better handle a child’s special needs but the other objects. The parent who wants to move should be prepared to demonstrate how the new school can better facilitate the child’s education and development, taking into account such factors as the child’s condition, the quality of special education services, and whether there is an existing IEP (individualized education program).

Access to school records and evaluations can be important in demonstrating what educational environment best supports the child.

Extracurricular Considerations

Sometimes a child’s extracurricular activities can be relevant to school choice disputes between divorced parents. For instance, a child may show a special talent for athletics. One school may be better equipped to foster the child’s talents than another. By the same token, extracurricular activities cannot be given so much weight that other aspects of the child’s education are neglected. Judges usually try to take a comprehensive approach that weighs the overall benefits, both academic and extracurricular, of one school over the other.

These considerations are part of evaluating the child’s educational development and long-term success.

How Parenting Plans Address Education Decisions

Divorcing parents are required to come up with a parenting plan that addresses various matters of both legal custody and physical custody. This plan should be comprehensive and cover, in detail, how major decisions will be made and with whom the child will reside throughout the year. However, there are situations in which education and custody agreements can be contentious. If for some reason the parents are unable to come up with a plan on their own, then the judge will have to order custody terms.

Parenting plans are especially important in co-parenting situations where both parents remain involved in major decisions. Whether the parents decide on a plan or the judge orders it, at a bare minimum it should cover:

• Who gets to make educational decisions, whether it’s both parents or just one (joint versus sole legal custody)
• How decisions regarding the child’s education, including any future changes, will be made
• Any factors that the parents have to consider in making educational decisions
• Any notice or documentation requirements that the parents must meet (which are especially important if only one parent is granted legal custody)
• A process to revolve disputes by way of mediation, a parenting coordinator, or otherwise

If both parents come to an agreement regarding these and other terms, the judge still has to review the plan to ensure it is in the child’s best interests. Education and parenting plans are never decided in a legal vacuum. Also, matters that are addressed in the parenting plan can later be modified if circumstances change and the child’s best interests require a modification. Our firm can assist you with all issues that involve school choice and parenting plans.

When to Speak With a Divorce Attorney About Education Disputes

You should talk to a lawyer when:

• You have reason to believe the child’s current educational interests are being jeopardized but the other parent doesn’t want to discuss it
• You have made suggestions for changing the child’s school, including to a private school, but the other parent is hostile to your suggestion
• The other parent is not playing a suitable role in supporting the child’s academic or extracurricular needs
• Either you or the other parent are proposing a relocation and the move will affect the child’s education
• You and the other parent would like to mediate custody or child support matters as they pertain to education, or formalize an agreement
• Either parent wishes to modify existing custody terms regarding education

Contact a Kansas City Family Law Attorney Today

Although educational disputes can be frustrating, you don’t have to handle the issue alone. Turn to Joseph, Hollander & Craft for any family law related concerns, including modifying custody agreements. A Kansas City family lawyer from our firm can assist you with all aspects of child custody and child support. If you need representation in Overland Park, Lawrence, Topeka, or Wichita, we also maintain offices in these locations. Get in touch with us today to get started.

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

Carrie E. Parker

Carrie E. Parker is a criminal defense and civil litigation attorney located in Lawrence, KS. Ms. Parker represents individuals and businesses during the investigation and prosecution of criminal charges in federal and state courts. She also represents businesses and individuals in complex civil litigation and property holders seeking the return of assets seized for forfeiture. […]

Read More →

The post School Choice and Private Education Conflicts in Divorce appeared first on Home.

A police request to participate in an interview may sound innocuous. But despite assurances from law enforcement officers, you need to understand what is at stake before you agree to answer questions. Statements made during a voluntary police interview can become evidence in a criminal investigation and may later be used to support criminal charges.

Before agreeing to speak with law enforcement officers, understand your rights and the risks involved. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate whether speaking with police is in your best interest. The Kansas City criminal defense attorneys of Joseph, Hollander & Craft are here to advise you.

What Is a “Voluntary” Interview With Police?

What police describe as a voluntary interview often takes place during the early stages of a criminal investigation. The officer will likely say:

• You are not under arrest: The officer wants to speak to you about something, but you are not under arrest.
• This interview is voluntary: The officer will likely affirmatively state that you are participating voluntarily.
• You can leave at any time: The officers will tell you that you can leave at any time.
• You can decline to answer questions: You don’t have to answer any questions.

Even if all of this is true, the presentation can be misleading. What the police mean is that they are not subjecting you to a custodial interrogation during which they are required to advise you of your Miranda rights:

• You have the right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
• You have the right to an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

Why Criminal Investigators Ask for Voluntary Interviews

Criminal investigations are a process of evidence-gathering and identifying suspects. Interviews serve an important function in achieving these goals. The police officers may ask a person to voluntarily participate in an interview because:

1. They are building a case: The interview helps police gather evidence to build a case against you (and others) even if they cannot yet arrest you.
2. They are testing theories of the case: Police may have a working theory of the case, including the interview subject’s role, and want to test it by asking questions.

The overarching purpose of the interview is to gather evidence to be used in a criminal case.

Do You Have to Talk to Police Officers if You Are Not Under Arrest?

No. The Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent during any interaction with law enforcement, including voluntary police questioning.

However, before an arrest, police officers are not required to advise you of this right. If you choose to speak rather than remain silent, your statements can be used against you in a criminal investigation and later in court.

Voluntary Interviews Involving Juveniles

Parents are often surprised to learn that law enforcement officers can question minors without parental consent or notice. Officers may even question a minor child at school.

However, while police are not prohibited from asking questions of juveniles suspected of involvement in criminal activity, that does not mean juveniles are required to answer the questions posed. Juveniles have the same constitutional protections that adults do, including the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

How Statements Made in Voluntary Interviews Can Become Evidence in a Case Against You

If you choose to speak with police officers, what you say can become evidence in a criminal investigation. Even in a voluntary police interview, your statements may be used to support criminal charges or challenge your credibility within the criminal justice system.

Before agreeing to answer questions, understand how these interviews are used:

• The interview will be documented: If you speak with investigators, the interaction is typically recorded by audio, video, or both. Officers also take notes. This creates a permanent record that can be used later.
• Your statements can be treated as admissions: What you say during police questioning may be interpreted as admissions of the crime under investigation, or you may inadvertently confess to the commission of another crime while trying to absolve yourself of liability for another.
• Inconsistencies can damage your credibility: If your account changes or conflicts with other evidence, prosecutors may use the interview to challenge your reliability. This can become a key issue if criminal charges are filed.
• Your statements can lead to additional evidence: Information you provide may help law enforcement officers identify witnesses, locate evidence, or expand the scope of their police investigation.
• Your statements may be presented in court: Prosecutors can introduce recordings, transcripts, and officer testimony to support their case. What begins as a voluntary interview can become a central part of the evidence used against you.

Given these risks, many people expect law enforcement to clearly advise them of their rights before questioning begins. In voluntary interviews, that assumption is often incorrect.

Why Miranda Warnings May Not Apply in Voluntary Interviews

Miranda v. Arizona is a cornerstone of the American legal system. This Supreme Court decision requires law enforcement to give suspects what is commonly known as the Miranda warning. This warning notifies individuals that:

• They have the right to remain silent
• Anything they say can be used against them in court
• They have the right to an attorney
• If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them

The Miranda warning has its constitutional roots in the Fifth Amendment. However, most people misunderstand when Miranda warnings apply. These are the two scenarios that must be met before police have to issue the warning:

• The person is in custody (either under arrest or detained, meaning not free to leave)
• Police are interrogating or questioning the person in an effort to obtain incriminating information

When someone has not been arrested, there is no requirement to give a Miranda warning.

Common Investigative Techniques Used During Police Interviews

It is important to understand the techniques law enforcement officers use during voluntary interviews. Although these interactions are described as informal, they involve the same strategies used in a police interrogation. It is typically a structured effort to gather evidence or elicit confessions.

Investigators with police agencies are trained to guide questioning in ways that produce useful statements. They may use tactics such as:

• Building rapport with the subject: Officers often act friendly and conversational. The goal is to lower your guard so you are more likely to speak freely rather than exercise your right to remain silent.
• Downplaying the seriousness of the matter: Law enforcement may minimize the situation or withhold key details about the investigation. This can create a false sense of security and encourage you to answer questions you might otherwise decline.
• Asking open-ended questions: Investigators frequently invite you to “tell your side of the story.” These broad questions are designed to gather evidence while also evaluating your credibility within the larger police investigation.
• Rephrasing questions: Officers may ask the same question in different ways to identify inconsistencies or pressure you into providing additional details. These variations can be used to challenge your account later in the criminal justice system.
• Presenting you with evidence: Investigators may show you documents, statements, or other materials to influence your responses. Law enforcement officers are even permitted to misrepresent evidence as part of their questioning strategy.
• Good cop/bad cop: One officer may appear understanding while another takes a more aggressive tone. This approach is designed to build trust with one interviewer and encourage you to continue speaking without legal representation.

What to Do if Law Enforcement Requests an Interview

Take these steps if a police officer asks you for an interview:

1. Ask whether you are free to leave: If you are free to leave, it’s a good idea to do so. If you are not, then you are probably in custody.
2. Invoke your right to remain silent: Talking to the police without a lawyer is never a good idea, so inform the officer that you do not want to answer questions without an attorney present.
3. Hire criminal defense attorney: Contact a criminal defense lawyer right away to discuss your situation, understand your risks, and determine what next steps will serve your best interests.

Speak With a Kansas City Criminal Defense Attorney Before Answering Questions

Speak with a lawyer before talking to the police. We can help. Connect with the Kansas City attorneys of Joseph, Hollander & Craft. Our firm also has offices in Overland Park, Lawrence, Topeka, and Wichita for your convenience. Let us help you protect your constitutional rights and interests in state or federal criminal proceedings.

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

Christopher M. Joseph

Christopher (Chris) Joseph represents individuals and businesses during the investigation and prosecution of criminal charges in federal and state courts and in complex civil litigation. Chris leads the firm’s criminal defense, asset forfeiture, and judicial discipline practice groups. As JHC’s Managing Member, Chris embodies the firm’s motto: Ready for Anything.

Read More →

The post Risks of “Voluntary” Interviews With Law Enforcement appeared first on Home.

Facing a DUI arrest in the Kansas City Metro can be daunting. When you are arrested for a DUI in Kansas or Missouri, it triggers administrative actions that affect your driving privileges and the potential criminal case in court. Because Kansas City spans both states, the specific procedures can vary depending on where the arrest took place, but the overall process follows a similar path.

Once law enforcement arrests you on DUI charges, they begin a series of procedures, gather evidence, and set court dates. You should consult a Kansas City DUI defense lawyer from Joseph, Hollander & Craft if you are facing DUI charges. We can help you manage the process and ensure you make informed decisions after your arrest.

The Administrative Process for Kansas City DUI Defense Cases

The administrative process is separate from your criminal case and deals strictly with your driving privileges. This is a civil matter handled by the Department of Revenue (MO) or the Division of Vehicles (KS).

After your arrest, officers will administer a chemical test. If you fail or decline the chemical test, the officer will confiscate your license and issue a notice of suspension. You can submit a request for an administrative hearing. If you miss the short window of time to request a hearing, your license will be automatically suspended.

This hearing determines whether the arresting officer had the probable cause necessary to justify the stop and if the test was properly administered. The outcome determines whether your license suspension is upheld, modified, or set aside.

What if I Crossed State Lines?

In the Kansas City Metro, drivers commonly cross state lines. If you live in Kansas but were arrested in Missouri, you will face administrative actions from Missouri, which may be reciprocated by Kansas. The administrative proceeding is separate from the criminal court case, meaning you may have to address both matters independently.

The Process for Criminal Driving Under the Influence Cases in Kansas City

While the administrative track deals with your license, the criminal process determines legal penalties such as fines, probation, or incarceration. Kansas and Missouri have different penalty structures, but the procedural steps are generally similar across the metro.

The Criminal DUI Charges Are Filed

Prosecutors review the police report, chemical test results, and witness statements before formally filing Kansas City drunk driving charges. The weight of the charge depends on factors such as prior offenses, blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and whether any harm or property damage occurred.

The DUI Arraignment Occurs

The arraignment is your first court appearance. During this hearing, the judge explains the DUI charges and your rights. You enter an initial plea, while the court sets conditions of release and schedules future dates.

The DUI Pre-Trial Meeting Occurs

Pre-trial conferences allow both sides to exchange evidence and discuss possible resolutions. Your lawyer may challenge the legality of the stop, testing accuracy, or procedural errors. Your Kansas City DUI defense attorney can file motions to suppress evidence and weaken the prosecution’s case.

The DUI Trial Takes Place

If a plea agreement is not reached, the case goes to trial. Prosecutors must prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may present expert testimony, cross-examine officers, and dispute chemical test reliability. The verdict determines whether penalties are imposed.

The court process concludes with either an acquittal or a conviction. If you are found not guilty, the case ends without criminal penalties. If you are found guilty, the judge imposes a sentence based on statutory guidelines and case-specific factors. These may include prior offenses, BAC levels, presence of minors in the vehicle, accidents, or injuries.

A Kansas City DUI lawyer can guide you through both the criminal and administrative proceedings to minimize the overall consequences.

What Should I Do Immediately After I Am Arrested in Kansas City?

Knowing how to act in the hours and days following your Kansas City DUI arrest can significantly impact the outcome of your case. However, you need to act fast to protect your rights and driving privileges:

• Seek Legal Representation: Early legal involvement allows counsel to review reports, preserve evidence, and advise you before key deadlines pass. Immediate guidance can shape both administrative and criminal strategies.
• Request an Administrative Hearing: File the request promptly to fight license suspension. Requesting this hearing on time preserves your ability to contest the action and may extend temporary driving privileges.
• Evaluate Your Options: You and your DUI lawyer will evaluate whether to pursue dismissal, negotiate a plea agreement, or proceed to trial. Each option carries different legal and financial consequences.
• Build Your Defense: Defense preparation may include examining dashcam footage, breath test records, medical conditions, and field sobriety test administration. A thorough review can pinpoint weaknesses in the state’s DUI case.

A drunk driving attorney familiar with Kansas City-area state and municipal courts can use their knowledge of local judges, prosecutors, procedures, and diversion options to craft defense strategies. They can negotiate more effectively and position your DUI case for the most favorable resolution.

Contact Us to Build a Strong DUI Defense Against Criminal Charges with a Kansas City Metro DUI Lawyer

DUI proceedings move quickly and involve overlapping legal tracks, so timely legal guidance can potentially avoid a DUI conviction in Johnson County. Our Kansas City DUI defense lawyers at Joseph, Hollander & Craft have extensive experience managing hearing requests, negotiating with prosecutors, and advocating in court for clients, even in the toughest cases. If your driving privileges, financial exposure, and criminal record are at stake, contact our DUI attorneys for informed representation.

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

Carrie E. Parker

Carrie E. Parker is a criminal defense and civil litigation attorney located in Lawrence, KS. Ms. Parker represents individuals and businesses during the investigation and prosecution of criminal charges in federal and state courts. She also represents businesses and individuals in complex civil litigation and property holders seeking the return of assets seized for forfeiture. […]

Read More →

The post What Happens After a DUI Arrest in the Kansas City Metro appeared first on Home.

Licensing boards do not take complaints lightly, and neither should you. If you have received notice of an official investigation that may jeopardize your professional license, you need to speak with legal counsel. The consequences of inaction could be more severe than you realize. Connect with Joseph, Hollander & Craft.

Why You Cannot Ignore A Complaint Against Your License

People file complaints with licensing boards all the time, and some of them are frivolous. A dissatisfied patient or client can take revenge by opening a complaint. When you feel you have done nothing wrong, it is tempting to dismiss such matters and move forward. However, you need to address the complaint with the seriousness that it deserves. Failure to respond appropriately to the grievance could imperil your license.

Why? Many boards require that professionals respond to complaints and cooperate in investigations of the same. Failure to respond can be a violation that results in discipline even if the original complaint would not have resulted in any action against the professional’s license. In addition, the board will only be getting one side of the story if you do not respond; responses are often necessary to clarify the situation that led to a complaint.

Situations That Almost Always Require Counsel

A lawyer can help you respond to all sorts of complaints–including frivolous or minor issues. However, it is particularly important to work with counsel when facing:

• Allegations of patient or client harm, practicing under the influence, fraud, or criminal charges: All of these are serious because they call into question your moral standing, judgment, and ability to professionally execute your duties. Licensing boards exist to protect the public, so anything involving actual or potential harm will trigger investigation.
• Formal investigations or disciplinary hearings: Notice of a formal investigation or the commencement of disciplinary hearings means that the licensing board believes there is significant likelihood of misconduct. These steps should signal to you that anything up to and including license revocation is possible.
• Requests for interviews, written responses, or records: Licensing boards have a duty to investigate complaints and gather evidence concerning them. To that end, you may be asked to participate in an interview, provide a written statement, or turn over records and documents. Talk to one of our licensure defense lawyers about how to respond to these communications.

How a Licensure Defense Attorney From Joseph, Hollander & Craft Can Help

Our firm is committed to defending professionals and their licenses. When you retain Joseph, Hollander & Craft, we apply our extensive experience representing license holders in board actions. We can:

• Explain the board’s process, procedures, and priorities
• Draft persuasive written responses to official board inquiries and communications
• Prepare you for interviews with investigators
• Handle all communications, thereby reducing the risk of you making unintentionally self-incriminating statements
• Negotiate for favorable outcomes to investigations (e.g., diversion programs, dismissals, and consent agreements)
• Reduce the chances of reputational harm

Why DIY Responses Can Backfire

Many licensees assume they can handle licensing board complaints on their own. But it’s easy to make critical errors that could irreparably harm your license. These mistakes include:

• Admitting more than is necessary: The scope of licensing board inquiries is generally limited, but you may inadvertently open the door to more than you are being asked about.
• Using legally problematic language: Boards are counseled by attorneys, so the terminology you use could convey something other than what you intend. Replies that do not address the substance of the investigation only aggravate the licensing board’s concerns.
• Missing deadlines or procedural missteps: Board investigations are subject to deadlines and procedures, so failure to know these could worsen your position.

Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft

If you have been contacted by your licensing board regarding a complaint or allegation of professional misconduct, contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft. We represent professionals throughout Kansas and Missouri from offices in Overland Park, Lawrence, Topeka, Wichita, and Kansas City.

The post Do You Need a Lawyer for a Licensing Complaint? appeared first on Home.

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.