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 →

What Happens to Health Insurance During the Divorce Process?

Under Missouri law (RSMo § 452.317), your existing insurance plan is protected during the entire divorce process. Neither spouse has the legal right to cancel the other’s health care coverage from the date of filing the initial divorce petition through to the final divorce degree. If your spouse threatens to do so, contact a divorce attorney who can assist you in seeking relief. A Missouri spouse who cancels existing health, dental, or vision insurance coverage for the other spouse or any minor children may be held in contempt of court and be ordered to pay fines and, in extreme cases, even face jail time. They may also be ordered to pay for lapsed coverage expenses such as retroactive premiums or health care costs.

In Kansas, family law courts can issue temporary orders that protect the stability of your health insurance plan. Kansas temporary orders can prevent either party from making changes to a shared health insurance policy throughout the pendency of the divorce litigation.

What Happens to Health Insurance After Divorce?

Health plans are a considerable expense for many families. Because of this, your Kansas City family law attorney can include the cost of insurance in divorce negotiations. Health insurance costs can be part of the spousal support conversation moving forwards, especially if one spouse is employed in a significantly different capacity than the other, or one spouse has a serious condition that requires a certain primary health insurance plan. Health insurance costs will also be taken into account in a parenting plan. If one parent’s insurance is better suited to a child’s needs, they may ask to account for this expense as part of their child support payments. In any event, a court will generally seek to include in a parenting plan information regarding which parent is to provide coverage for the child, and how such costs are to be allocated between the parents.

Some spouses consider alternatives to divorce, such as legal separation, for just this reason. If you choose to separate, you do not have to approach the matter as a simple relationship discussion. There are additional legal protections and considerations in place for Kansas couples who choose to live apart and still remain married. Legally separate couples can have a court-approved separation agreement that handles frequent friction points like property division, spousal support, and child custody. While neither spouse can legally remarry during a period of separation, this allows both a higher degree of autonomy and boundaries in a marriage that is mutually beneficial in some ways, but does not function in others.

Speak with a Kansas family law attorney if you are considering divorce vs. separation, and are unsure about what would be best for you and your children. A family law lawyer can advise and assist you with either process and ensure that your interests are protected regardless of what you choose. At Joseph, Hollander & Craft our focus is on serving your needs to the best of our ability, to the fullest extent of the law. Other firms may leave options on the table, but our family law division takes a holistic approach to every client’s case.

Can You Stay on Your Spouse’s Health Insurance Plan After Divorce?

Once the divorce decree is issued, you will need to find your own insurance plan. After a divorce is finalized the insurance company will no longer consider you to be their legal dependent. Therefore, even if the divorce is amicable you will not be able to remain on your ex-spouse’s plan.

COBRA Coverage After Divorce

COBRA coverage offers Missouri and Kansas residents the option for temporary continuation of their current coverage after a divorce is finalized. COBRA allows for continuing coverage for up to 36 months on your ex-spouse’s employer’s plan. You must file for COBRA Wrap-Around coverage within 60 days from legal separation, or the entry of the decree of dissolution of the marriage. COBRA eligibility terminates when the qualifying ex-spouse turns 65. Your former spouse’s employer must have over 20 employees enrolled in order to be eligible for COBRA coverage after a divorce.

While COBRA is a lifeline for some, many find the full cost to be too expensive. You will be responsible for your own premium as well as administrative expenses.

Other Health Insurance Options After Divorce

You will most likely need to obtain health insurance after a divorce. Finding a new health insurance plan involves assessing your medical needs, degree of risk, as well as income level. Some coverage options for a new health insurance plan include:

• Health Insurance Marketplace: Under Healthcare.gov rules, divorce is considered one of the qualifying life events to enroll in marketplace health insurance. ACA plans are an affordable option for many seeking an individual policy.
• Employer sponsored health plan: If you are already employed, you can enroll in your company’s plan during the special enrollment period triggered by divorce.
• Private insurance plans: Private insurance plans are a health insurance coverage option for many with complex needs or who require ongoing medical support. Private coverage can be expensive, and so the cost of enrollment should factor into the conversation with your attorney as part of your financial needs after a divorce.
• Medicaid or state programs: If you have experienced job loss as well as divorce, there may be state programs that can provide a safety net. In both Kansas and Missouri, your income will be reevaluated without the addition of your ex-spouse’s earnings. Without their income being held against you, you may be eligible for Missouri Medicaid (MO HealthNet) or Kansas Medicaid (KanCare).

Health Insurance for Children After Divorce

Which parent’s insurance a minor child will stay on is one important question for divorcing spouses. Family law court is designed to protect the best interests of a minor child. Therefore, the court may order that one parent maintain coverage for a child if they have access to a private plan through their employer at a reasonable cost. Just because one parent has a superior health plan does not mean that they are entitled to sole medical decision-making rights or custody over a child. If you are concerned that your spouse’s healthcare plan may tip the scales in their favor during a custody battle, contact a family law attorney.

Child support payments can be negotiated to include the cost of health insurance. Deductibles, co-pays, and non-covered medical expenses can all also be factored into the overall settlement that you reach during a divorce. These expenses can be amended as children age and as new medical needs arise, but you may need to request a modification through the court system. For instance, Kansas Child Support Guidelines specify both the 6th and 12th birthdays as milestones when children tend to require higher costs for care. As a child ages or as your income changes, you may need to work with a family law attorney again to request a modification of child support orders.

For parents who do not have access to private plans, federal-state match programs like CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) can close the gap. CHIP is designed for uninsured children (under age 19) whose household income is too high to qualify for state assistance like MO HealthNet or KanCare, but too low for private health plans. For instance, in Missouri, a household may be able to make up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and still qualify for CHIP benefits.

Avoiding Gaps in Health Insurance During and After Divorce

1. Evaluate your medical support needs. Consider what kind of insurance plan is best suited to your unique situation. If you are currently receiving specialized care or have certain pre-existing conditions, COBRA coverage may be the best option to allow you to continue with your treatment in the short term. In some cases these costs can be covered by your former spouse under a divorce settlement.
2. Discuss health insurance as part of the co-parenting plan with your spouse, whenever possible. You will need to develop and present a proposed parenting plan to the court that describes how you will share childcare responsibilities, including medical appointments and child health insurance coverage.
3. Enroll in a new plan using divorce as a qualifying event. Under the ACA as well as most private employer’s plans you will be able to meet a special enrollment period after a divorce. Pay attention to the requirements involved, as you will need to file within a certain timeframe to ensure continuing coverage.
4. Contact an attorney to help with your divorce. New insurance coverage is a significant expense that may be accounted for in your divorce settlement. A family law attorney will be able to advise you about alimony options or child support payments. If your spouse has threatened your access to healthcare, canceled your coverage, or is otherwise using the cost of insurance against you, contact a family attorney at once.

You have rights under Missouri state law that protect your healthcare coverage throughout the entire divorce process. Your spouse can be ordered to make payments and even be held in contempt of court if they are in violation of these state protections.

Contact Our Kansas City Divorce Attorneys for Help

Ensuring you have access to insurance after divorce is a primary concern when it comes to safeguarding your well-being. If you have questions about protecting your and your child’s healthcare during a divorce, as well as what to do afterwards, contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft. Our family law attorneys are located in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka, and Wichita and are licensed to assist you with matters in both Kansas and Missouri.

The post Health Insurance After Divorce in Kansas and Missouri appeared first on Home.

Retaining the right legal counsel is important. Not all law firms are equipped to handle the nuances of professional licensure as it intersects with DUI arrests and charges. However, Joseph, Hollander & Craft represents clients in both criminal defense and licensure defense matters. We know the rules that govern license holders, and we understand the criminal statutes in both Kansas and Missouri. Let us develop the most optimal strategy for protecting your license today.

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 →

Potential Outcomes for DUIs

A DUI arrest can lead to both criminal and professional repercussions for licensed professionals. As for the criminal matter, you could face monetary fines, jail time, and driver’s license suspension, among other penalties. Although these can be serious disruptions to your life, their effects may not be as extensive as the administrative consequences.

Among the professions listed below, the outcome of a DUI conviction may vary. In other words, how a DUI impacts your profession depends on which industry you are in. Notably, the professional licensing boards in Kansas and Missouri (e.g., for medical professionals, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts and Missouri Board of Healing Arts) largely treat DUI convictions the same.

Our firm is able to help members of the following professions, and others, who are facing DUI or DWI charges.

Medical Professionals

Licensing authorities are largely concerned with healthcare professionals’ impairment and substance abuse problems as they may affect patient care and public safety. A first-time DUI conviction could trigger an investigation, administrative hearing, and, in some cases, treatment and monitoring programs.

Legal Professionals

For legal professionals like lawyers and paralegals, even a first-time DUI conviction may warrant disciplinary attention. Harsher penalties can follow anything that harms a client (e.g., failing to show up in court due to a DUI or other problems with alcohol). If there is a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct, long-term monitoring and treatment should be expected.

Financial Professionals

This category includes accountants, financial advisors, real estate agents, and insurance brokers. A conviction for a DUI can potentially raise questions about the person’s professional judgment. This is because clients often rely on these professionals for serious transactions. However, as with most professionals, the repercussions are typically most rigorous when there is evidence that a DUI or alcohol use has directly harmed a client.

What About Repeat or More Serious Offenses?

Repeat offenses could cause more problems than isolated issues. A pattern of misconduct will certainly raise suspicion about the professional’s ability to make critical judgments affecting the lives and well-being of patients, clients, and others who rely on them.

If there are more serious circumstances attached to the DUI, like bodily injury or leaving the scene of an accident, these could make the outcome of a professional licensing matter worse. Felony DUI convictions will also have more serious repercussions. As with all DUI cases in both criminal and administrative matters, the specific facts of your case are relevant.

Even if you are only facing a first-time DUI charge or conviction, you should never assume that your licensing board will overlook the matter. Talk to our law firm to be on the safe side.

Mandatory Reporting Requirements for Licensees

Many licensing boards require licensees to affirmatively report criminal convictions, even for misdemeanor DUIs. It may be an ongoing duty or something that professionals must do during their license renewals. But the obligation can vary depending on the profession and the details of the conviction.

DUI Defense Strategies Tied to Licensing Risks

It should be stressed that the impact of a DUI arrest or conviction on your license will depend heavily on the unique facts of your case. If you have been charged or convicted, you should seek legal representation immediately. Joseph, Hollander & Craft practices both criminal defense and professional license defense, which means we are a one-stop law firm that is ready to assist you. Here are some defense strategies we may employ in your matter:

• Working to avoid a conviction: Obviously, it would be best if you are not convicted of a DUI to begin with. Our DUI defense lawyer will explore all legal avenues to avoid a conviction, such as challenging the prosecution’s evidence and seeking dismissal of the charges if the circumstances allow.
• Working to reduce DUI charges and contest non-DUI charges: If a conviction of some sort cannot be avoided, it may be possible to at least reduce the charges. Likewise, if the licensee is facing non-DUI charges, we can seek a dismissal, reduction, or acquittal, as the facts dictate.
• Suppressing evidence: This has the benefit, primarily, of possibly helping you avoid a criminal conviction. We caution that suppression of evidence in your criminal proceedings doesn’t automatically guarantee that information will not be conveyed to your licensing board.
• Challenging the evidence: Apart from working to suppress evidence, we can also challenge its reliability and relevance. For example, the results of a field sobriety test may be admissible in court, but we can still potentially raise questions about it. The evidence and testimony that are produced on your behalf during trial could help you in subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
• Considering early assessment and treatment: Being proactive is always a positive approach when it comes to defending one’s license. We can review your criminal case and determine if it would be in your best interests to participate in substance abuse counseling, treatment, or diversion and alcohol education programs. This could later signal to your licensing board that you’ve recognized the seriousness of the DUI and have accepted responsibility for it.
• Emphasizing mitigating factors: These may include the absence of prior offenses, no prior licensing board actions, and community involvement. We can also emphasize your professional accomplishments, community service, character references, and compliance with court requirements.
• Separating the DUI from your professional life: A DUI should not define you, and we will work to isolate it from your professional life. For instance, we may be able to show that no misconduct occurred at work, that no clients or patients were harmed, and that the DUI had no effect on your professional conduct or the discharge of your ethical duties.
• Assisting with mandatory reporting: If your arrest or conviction is such that you must report it to your licensing board, we can handle this step. We will work to timely report the incident to the proper authorities, include supporting documents, and provide supplemental materials like an explanatory statement.

Immediate Steps for Licensed Professionals Facing Criminal Charges

If you are facing criminal charges, the decisions you make next could shape your professional future for some time. We advise that you do the following:

• Retain an experienced attorney immediately to discuss both the criminal and professional aspects of your case.
• Work with your attorney to disclose the charges to your licensing board, if necessary.
• Preserve all documents related to the DUI, including tickets, charging documents, and court notices.
• Compile any relevant evidence, even if you believe it makes you look guilty (an example might be a receipt from a bar showing how much alcohol you consumed prior to the traffic stop).
• Follow all court orders, bond conditions, and administrative requirements from your licensing board.
• Avoid discussing your charges with colleagues, family members, and friends–including on social media.
• Consider, with input from your lawyer, participating in treatment programs.
• Develop a comprehensive legal strategy with respect to both criminal and administrative matters.

Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft Today for Help

Are you facing DUI charges, or have you already been convicted? The time is now to protect both your freedom and your license with help from Joseph, Hollander & Craft. Our legal team can examine the facts surrounding your DUI and then walk each step with you through a personalized plan that seeks the most advantageous results. We have offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka, and Wichita for your convenience. Call or contact us today.

The post Can a DUI Affect Your Professional License? appeared first on Home.

2026 Super Lawyers:

• Christopher Joseph – Criminal Defense – Topeka, KS / Lawrence, KS
• Julia Craft – Family Law – Wichita, KS
• Dionne Scherff – Criminal Defense – Overland Park, KS
• Jess Hoeme – Criminal Defense – Wichita, KS
• Diane Bellquist – Administrative Law – Overland Park, KS
• Ardith Smith-Woertz – Family Law – Topeka, KS
• Christine Rosengreen – Family Law – Kansas City, Missouri
• Christopher McHugh – Civil Litigation: Defense – Overland Park, KS
• Lindsey Erickson – Criminal Defense – Overland Park, KS

2026 Rising Stars:

• Carrie Parker – Criminal Defense – Lawrence, KS
• Rylee Broyles – Family Law – Wichita, KS
• Hannah Wittman – Family Law – Lawrence, KS
• Ashley Franden – Family Law – Overland Park, KS
• Jordan Massey – Family Law – Wichita, KS
• Mackenzie Orchard – Family Law – Wichita, KS
• Kylee Tokoi – Family Law – Lawrence, KS
• Marisa No – Family Law – Kansas City, Missouri
• Courtland Triplett – Family Law – Overland Park, KS
• Samantha Fisher – Administrative Law – Overland Park, KS

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a premier law firm representing criminal, civil and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our growing team of 25+ attorneys has you covered. We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for victims of trucking collisions and those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against doctors, nurses, judges, attorneys, accountants, real estate agents and others. And we represent healthcare professionals and hospitals in civil litigation.

Please follow us online: Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram

The post 19 Joseph, Hollander & Craft Attorneys Honored by Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers for 2026 appeared first on Home.

One of the most important steps you can take is to retain experienced legal counsel. It’s time to speak with a federal criminal defense lawyer from Joseph, Hollander & Craft.

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 →

What Is a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena?

A grand jury subpoena is a legal order that requires an individual to appear before a federal grand jury. The purpose of the individual’s appearance is usually to present testimony, provide documents, or both. The outcome of a grand jury could lead to the filing of federal criminal charges, including against the person who receives the subpoena.

Numerous federal law enforcement agencies may be involved in a federal investigation that results in a grand jury subpoena. Federal law enforcement agents often spend months gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, reviewing records, and building a potential criminal prosecution before issuing subpoenas.

Depending on the nature of the alleged federal offense, the investigation could involve:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
• Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
• Homeland Security Investigations (HSI),
• Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI), or
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A subpoena may seek documents, electronic records, business information, or witness testimony connected to alleged fraud, drug offenses, healthcare crimes, public corruption, financial misconduct, or other federal felony allegations. In Kansas City and throughout Missouri and Kansas, these investigations are often prosecuted aggressively in federal court.

Even if you believe you are only a witness and not the target of a criminal investigation, it is important to remember that the government’s position can change during the course of a federal investigation. Before responding or producing grand jury information, you should speak with an experienced federal criminal law attorney who can protect your constitutional rights and advise you on the best course of action.

Why You May Have Received a Subpoena for a Grand Jury

Numerous individuals may receive a grand jury subpoena, and they usually fall into one of three categories in relation to a federal crime.

A witness is someone who is believed to have observed information relevant to the commission of a crime or who has personal knowledge about it.

A subject is someone whose actions are within the scope of the government’s investigation.

A target of an investigation is the individual against whom prosecutors believe they have significant evidence of a crime.

Your actual status may or may not be disclosed, so it is never safe to assume.

What to Do Immediately After Receiving a Subpoena in Kansas City

The steps you take after you receive a federal grand jury subpoena could have lasting implications for your rights and interests. We suggest you do the following:

• Retain legal counsel: Do not communicate with investigators or prosecutors before speaking with an attorney. If anyone contacts you about the subpoena, refer the inquiry to your lawyer.
• Avoid discussing the matter: Do not talk about the subpoena with friends, coworkers, or family members. Communications with your attorney are privileged, but most other conversations are not.
• Review the subpoena carefully: The subpoena should explain what is being requested. Your lawyer can help you understand the scope of the request and any deadlines involved.
• Preserve relevant records and communications: Do not delete, destroy, alter, or conceal documents, emails, text messages, or financial records that may relate to the investigation. Your attorney can advise you about what must be preserved and produced.
• Track all deadlines: Federal subpoenas typically include strict compliance deadlines. Although your lawyer may be able to seek an extension or modification, you should calendar all dates immediately.
• Follow your attorney’s guidance: Your lawyer may identify grounds to modify or quash the subpoena, limit the scope of production, or protect privileged information through a court order if necessary.

Why You Want to Hire a Kansas City Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Federal grand jury subpoenas are serious, so they demand a serious response from you and your attorney. Failure to apprehend the potential ramifications could cause you serious legal, financial, and personal harm. The good news is that an experienced attorney can assist you. These are a few reasons to hire a lawyer right away:

Federal criminal cases are complex

Depending on the nature of the alleged crime, one or several federal agencies or departments could be involved in the investigation. These matters may therefore implicate several different statutes and the court opinions that interpret them. They also involve sentencing guidelines and procedures that most laypersons are unfamiliar with. Our firm has extensive experience representing clients in some of the most complex federal crimes.

An attorney can protect you at all stages

Many individuals unknowingly incriminate themselves, fail to assert their rights and privileges, or think they can explain away conduct that is connected to a criminal investigation. Our skilled federal defense lawyers are attuned to all of these matters and understand how to approach your defense strategically.

Early intervention is always best

Retaining a knowledgeable law firm early can make a substantial difference in your case. It is far easier to effectively negotiate with prosecutors if you hire an attorney sooner rather than later. Your lawyer can clarify misunderstandings and potentially even narrow the scope of the subpoena, which in the long run can better protect you. It may even be possible to prevent charges from being filed against you if you act early. We work on these and other fronts for our clients.

Negotiating reduced charges and plea bargains

The right attorney may be able to negotiate a plea agreement with prosecutors which results in reduced charges. It might be possible for you to cooperate with investigators in exchange for leniency. Your lawyer can also seek alternative resolutions and affect sentencing recommendations. But as with all work your attorney does, it’s strongly advised that you engage in this process early. Our firm explores all possibilities and helps clients make informed choices concerning their legal strategy.

Sentencing can be severe

Compared to their state counterparts, federal sentences often involve mandatory minimums, hefty monetary fines, and immigration consequences. Asset forfeiture, supervised release, and negative repercussions for your professional life are also highly probable. We can explain these to you in detail and then develop a customized approach to mitigate your risks.

What a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Requires From You

You must appear at the designated courthouse, on the correct date and time, and testify truthfully under oath. Since grand jury proceedings are secretive, your lawyer will not be present during the actual testimony. But you may be permitted to leave the room and consult with your attorney about specific questions.

The subpoena may require you to produce numerous documents such as emails, texts, financial and business records, photographs, and more. Understanding the scope of the subpoena is important so you know what exactly to present during the grand jury.

The subpoena will include deadlines and detailed instructions for compliance. It may specify exactly how certain information, especially electronic data, is to be produced. Following these instructions is important to avoiding sanctions and contempt.

Your Rights and Protections Under Federal Law

Federal grand jury subpoenas are powerful, but not unlimited. You have rights and protections that need to be observed and protected. Some examples include:

• Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination: You are generally protected against giving testimony that incriminates you.
• Attorney-client privilege: Communications between you and your lawyer concerning the subject matter of the grand jury subpoena are protected. The government therefore cannot force you to divulge privileged legal advice.
• Work product doctrine: Materials that your lawyer prepares in anticipation of litigation or for purposes of legal strategy may be protected under the work product doctrine. However, there are some limitations to this, and your lawyer can explain them.

Responding to a Document Subpoena

When responding specifically to a subpoena for documents, also known as a subpoena duces tecum, you need to observe these requirements:

Collect all documents and consult your attorney

Collect everything that is relevant to the subpoena’s requests, including documents you think may be included. Consult your attorney to make sure you are complying without producing documents that are not required to be turned over to the grand jury.

Withhold and redact as allowed by privilege

You are allowed to withhold and redact portions of documents to protect attorney-client and work product privileges. Your lawyer will assist with this. You may need to maintain a privilege log of anything withheld and maintain unredacted copies of all documents.

Preserve evidence

This is an ongoing obligation. You should not destroy, alter, conceal, or delete material that may be relevant to the grand jury subpoena. It’s also a good idea, even after the grand jury process is complete, to continue preserving evidence for at least some period of time. Your lawyer can advise you about this.

Protect confidentiality

You may be required to turn over documents which include the confidential and private information of other persons. If you are a fiduciary, this will be of particular concern to you. Your attorney can help ensure that you abide by your fiduciary duties in accordance with the law.

Preparing for Federal Grand Jury Testimony

If you have been ordered to give testimony to a grand jury, work with your attorney to prepare as follows:

1. Have your lawyer clarify the scope. Your attorney will try to determine what the government’s investigation concerns and what topics prosecutors are likely to ask about. Your lawyer may also explain the potential criminal exposure for you.
2. Review documents to refresh your memory. This may include documents you do not necessarily have to produce. These records can help you recall important details so you give accurate testimony.
3. Discuss privileges and protections. Talk to your lawyer about attorney-client and work product privileges and Fifth Amendment protections beforehand. Your lawyer can possibly provide examples of questions which may improperly ask you to break these privileges and protections, and then explain how to assert your rights.
4. Practice answering questions. Your attorney can prepare likely questions you will receive and help you answer them in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily expose you. For instance, you need to only answer the question asked and not volunteer irrelevant information.
5. Tell the truth. Above all, you must testify truthfully. But remember, this does not mean you have to give information that is not required or asked of you.

Can a Grand Jury Subpoena Be Challenged?

There are ways to challenge a grand jury subpoena. Generally, we will attempt to negotiate with the prosecutor in the hopes of limiting the scope and breadth of the subpoena. Your attorney can guide you as to whether any privileges or protections apply, and then act accordingly to either quash or modify the subpoena.

How a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Can Escalate

You should understand that even if you are merely a witness for a federal grand jury subpoena, the situation can quickly become more serious. Here are some possible ways:

• Transition from witness to subject or target: How you respond to the subpoena, or what you say or produce to the grand jury, could change you from a witness to a subject or from a subject to a target.
• Parallel civil or regulatory exposure: In addition to creating criminal exposure, what you say or produce could lead to the government taking civil or regulatory action against you.
• Potential charges: Perhaps the most serious outcome of a federal grand jury is an indictment or criminal complaint. At this stage, the government is actively prosecuting you.

Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft in Kansas or Missouri

The decisions you make upon receipt of a federal grand jury subpoena will have immediate consequences for your life and your future. Make the smart choice by hiring knowledgeable criminal defense representation. Contact Joseph, Hollander & Craft today. We have offices in Overland Park, Lawrence, Kansas City, Topeka, and Wichita for your convenience.

The post What to Do After a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena 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: June 30, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 6

FEATURE ARTICLE: Money, Money, Money

The Rules of Professional Responsibility do not say much about lawyer compensation. Rule 1.5 requires that fees charged to clients be either reasonable or not unreasonable depending upon each jurisdiction’s wording of the Rule. Of course, fees charged to clients are intimately related to lawyers’ ultimate compensation. But the Rules don’t say anything specific about salaries.

Over the past quarter century, lawyer compensation has increased enormously. In 1979, when I began to work full time at Cravath in New York City, I earned $30,000 per year with the possibility of a small bonus (in my case, $3,000). In today’s money, that $33,000 is worth $151,000. In 1979, Cravath and the larger New York City firms generally paid lawyers more than most other firms (a few boutiques firms paid a bit more,).

The salaries for associates at the largest American law firms have recently just been announced. First year Cravath associates will now be paid a base salary of $235,000 per year. Indeed, the new big firm associate salary scale, according to Larson Maddox, is:

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

AUTHORITY: Capacity Conflicts

In its Ethics Opinion 2026-2, the Alaska Bar Association has again raised interest in a subject that pops up in lawyers’ minds every few decades: the “capacity problem.” The capacity problem occurs when lawyer caseloads get so great that they produce an ethics problem. Whether because of economic pressure on lawyers to bill more or government lawyers who are assigned excessive workloads while dealing with staffing shortages, many lawyers can find themselves overwhelmed. Sometimes, the demands are so significant that lawyers are unable to represent their clients with the competence demanded by Rule 1.1 or unable to devote sufficient time to their clients as required also by Rules 1.3 and 1.4.

It could be said that Rule 1.7(a)(2) addresses this specifically:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

The reasoning behind classifying a workload overload under Rule 1.7(a)(2) is the concept that, when one has too many clients to handle them all competently, then the lawyer is, in fact, “materially limited” as to each client by the multiplicity of clients as a whole.

Ethics Opinion 2026-2, the Alaska Bar Association reiterates the opinion of the Alaska Supreme Court that “[a]s a caseload increases, the attorney’s ability to bring to each case the thoroughness and preparation necessary to provide competent representation may diminish.” Office of Public Advocacy v. Superior Court, First Judicial District, 566 P.3d 235, 249 (Alaska 2025). The Alaska Supreme Court notably concluded that the Office of Public Advocacy was required to represent indigent clients who could not be represented by the public defender agency because of a conflict of interests—including “a conflict of interest due to lack of capacity.” Id. at 252.

One of the greatest difficulties in the application of Rule 1.7(a)(2) to workload issues is how to determine that a heavy caseload is too great and becomes a capacity problem. The Alaska Opinion adopts the guidance of ABA Formal Opinion 06-441. Although the ABA Opinion focuses primarily on public defenders and work overload, its principles are clearly applicable to all lawyers. Opinion 06-441 states:

Rule 1.3 states that a lawyer’s workload “must be controlled so that each matter may be handled competently.” The Rules do not prescribe a formula to be used in determining whether a particular workload is excessive. National standards as to numerical caseload limits have been cited by the American Bar Association. Although such standards may be considered, they are not the sole factor in determining if a workload is excessive. Such a determination depends not only on the number of cases, but also on such factors as case complexity, the availability of support services, the lawyer’s experience and ability, and the lawyer’s nonrepresentational duties If a lawyer believes that her workload is such that she is unable to meet the basic ethical obligations required of her in the representation of a client, she must not continue the representation of that client or, if representation has not yet begun, she must decline the representation.

Today, many firms are adopting AI and reducing the number of human lawyers. Their assumption seems to be that AI can do many tasks formerly done by lawyers and that the caseloads of the human lawyers can be increased. This assumption is being challenged every day with more and more court documents containing fictitious cases (so-called hallucinations) and errors due to overdependence on AI. To the extent that this will lead to unexpectedly higher workloads on lawyers who discover that AI use may not reduce lawyer time as hoped for, lawyer capacity and workloads may again become an ethical problem. In such a scenario, Alaska Opinion 02-2026 and ABA Opinion 06-441 become even more important.

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

1.) Josh Chafetz, Corruption and the Supreme Court, 36 Yale J.L. & Human. 165 (2025).

In this Article, Georgetown University Law Professor Josh Chafetz examines the United States Supreme Court justices’ rhetoric about corruption and the consequences of their rhetorical choices.

2.) Colloquium: The Professional Socialization of Lawyers, 94 Fordham L. Rev. 1255 (March 2026).

The entire collection of articles collected for Fordham Law Review’s March 2026 colloquium on The Professional Socialization of Lawyers provides excellent reading—and thinking—material.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: The Comic Blackstone

Man, as we are all aware, is a creature endowed with reason and free will: but when he goes to law as plaintiff, his reason seems to have deserted him: while, if he stands in the position of defendant, it is generally against his free will; and thus, that “noblest of animals,” Man, is in a very ignoble predicament.

— Gilbert Abbot à Beckett, The Comic Blackstone 15 (1863).

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 6

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. 6 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 6 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published June 30, 2026.

The Rules of Professional Responsibility do not say much about lawyer compensation. Rule 1.5 requires that fees charged to clients be either reasonable or not unreasonable depending upon each jurisdiction’s wording of the Rule. Of course, fees charged to clients are intimately related to lawyers’ ultimate compensation. But the Rules don’t say anything specific about salaries.

Over the past quarter century, lawyer compensation has increased enormously. In 1979, when I began to work full time at Cravath in New York City, I earned $30,000 per year with the possibility of a small bonus (in my case, $3,000). In today’s money, that $33,000 is worth $151,000. In 1979, Cravath and the larger New York City firms generally paid lawyers more than most other firms (a few boutiques firms paid a bit more,).

The salaries for associates at the largest American law firms have recently just been announced. First year Cravath associates will now be paid a base salary of $235,000 per year. Indeed, the new big firm associate salary scale, according to Larson Maddox, is:

Big Law associate salary by year (Cravath Scale)

Source: Larson Maddox Regulatory & Legal Salary Guide, 2026, updated to reflect the Milbank-led market raise first reported on 2 June 2026. Base figures reflect the reported market scale of $235,000 to $455,000, effective 1 July 2026. Total compensation assumes year-end bonuses hold at prior levels, as the raise applies to base salary only.

Partner salaries are more difficult to access unless one subscribes to expensive law business surveys, which I don’t. But law-oriented blogs like Above the Law and Bloomberg frequently discuss higher salaries, and it appears that the highest salaries range in the $5-10 million dollar annually range. Recent reporting indicates some law firms having been starting bonuses for “star” lateral hires as high as $20 million dollars.

Of course, these are not the salaries most lawyers earn. According to Zip Recruiter, the average lawyer salary nationwide is $100,626 in 2026. In Kansas, the average lawyer salary is $89,744. Doing the math, one sees that the highest paid partners at the top law firms in the United States earn in one week almost double what the average lawyer in Kansas earns each year.

That salaries at the largest firms nationally are so high (indeed, astronomical) is not unethical, at least so long as paying those salaries does not cause fees to become unreasonable. But just because such lawyer compensation is ethically justifiable under current rules does not mean that such compensation will not create a perception problem for the entire profession—or that a perception problem will not lead to new rules.

Historically, changes in lawyer ethics codes have often been initiated by public outrage over lawyer and judicial behavior. One of the primary reasons why written codes of ethics, including the 1908 ABA code, were drafted and adopted was public anger over lawyers representing railroads. In the 1970s, public outcry over the Watergate scandal and the number of lawyers involved in it led to wholesale changes in law and disciplinary rules nationally.

The large firms that now pay significant compensation to both associates and partners do not have to worry about clients’ suing them or filing disciplinary complaints against them. The clients who tend to use firms are sophisticated, many are corporations, and they know what they are being asked to pay far in advance of engaging. But these salaries may very well create problems for much smaller law firms and lawyers.

First, increasing media coverage of very high lawyer compensation may make clients who are actually paying significantly more competitive rates think that their own lawyers also are charging high fees and paying young lawyers too much. It is necessary to disabuse most clients of this notion, or to educate them that, but for very small pockets of the industry, lawyers are not generally becoming rich from their professional practices. Media coverage of what lawyers actually earn in Kansas and Missouri and other states could help. Appointment of a Bar committee to examine lawyer fees and compensation and issue a report to show that fees and salaries are reasonable could also let the public know that most lawyer income is not sky high. Indeed, when average lawyer salaries are looked at in hourly terms, they are often lower than those of master plumbers.

There is, however, another issue with the increasing lawyer salaries—how it affects young lawyers’ expectations and perceptions. According to Zip Recruiter, starting lawyer salaries in Kansas range from $41,900 to $121,600. They print a number of details about this data:

While ZipRecruiter is seeing salaries as high as $123,521 and as low as $41,917, the majority of Entry Level Lawyer salaries currently range between $70,500 (25th percentile) to $91,900 (75th percentile) with top earners (90th percentile) making $116,832 annually in Kansas. The average pay range for an Entry Level Lawyer varies greatly (by as much as $21,400), which suggests there may be many opportunities for advancement and increased pay based on skill level, location and years of experience.

Some law students are tempted by the comparative numbers. Every year, excellent law graduates from our regional law schools go off on a quest to seek fame and fortune in the big urban firms in the hope that someday they will be lawyer “rock stars” earning millions every year. Many law students come to equate high salaries with professional excellence (i.e., the higher the salary, the better the lawyer and the firm).

In the end, while only a small number of firms that pay extraordinary salaries and charge extraordinary fees, thanks to media coverage, more and more of the general public may begin to think that lawyers are increasing economic inequity in the nation. If restraint is not taken within the profession on its own terms, it may be forced by uproar resulting in new legal and ethical restrictions.

The LEMR wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Stephen Sheppard in this article.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 6

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 Money, Money, Money appeared first on Home.

Drug crime cases can vary greatly depending on the charges. Intent to distribute is treated differently than simple possession. If you are facing Kansas City drug charges, contact the law firm of Joseph, Hollander & Craft. Our defense attorneys can advise you about potential penalties and create a legal strategy that is custom tailored to the facts involved in your drug case.

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 →

Drug Possession vs. Intent to Distribute: Key Differences

Not all drug crimes are the same. Drug possession is knowingly having illegal substances that are purely for personal use. For instance, being charged with marijuana possession might look like having one or two marijuana rolled cigarettes or a small amount of the flower and papers in your purse or car. On the other hand, intent to distribute is more serious. Intent to distribute means that the prosecution plans to charge you for having drugs with the goal of selling or delivering these controlled substances to others.

Drug distribution can quickly escalate to more serious felony charges. You may be facing mandatory minimum sentences if convicted for intent to distribute.

How Prosecutors Determine Whether Drugs Were Intended for Personal Use or Distribution

In many cases, the amount of drugs discovered is the main factor involved in the charge. A drug bust for an amount of controlled substances that one person could not reasonably be expected to ingest often leads to distribution charges. Another element may be how the drugs are packaged. Multiple, individually bagged or parceled out amounts of drugs may look like distribution, rather than personal use.

Other Evidence That May Lead to Intent to Distribute Charges

Oftentimes, circumstantial evidence is involved in determining what drug charges are brought in a specific case. Other than the amount of controlled substance found, some factors that can lead to drug trafficking charges can include:

• Presence of drug paraphernalia, like clear bags, scales, cutting tools, and more.
• Text messages and communications setting meeting times or prices.
• Large amounts of cash on hand.
• Presence of firearms.
• Location of the drugs.
• Prior criminal history.

Can You Be Charged With Intent to Distribute Even If You Never Sold Drugs?

Yes, you can be charged with intent to distribute even without a completed sale of drugs. Intent to distribute is a nuanced area of criminal law that does not require that the actual act be completed in order to be charged. Amassing a quantity of most controlled substances with the aim of selling or distributing them is taken just as seriously as having actually sold drugs.

What Happens If Federal Authorities Get Involved?

State violations already incur severe penalties for drug convictions, but federal courts can impose even more serious consequences such as up to $10 million in fines and life in federal prison. Federal drug charges are especially likely when circumstances involve large amounts of drugs such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, or cocaine.

Defending Against Intent to Distribute Charges in Kansas City

Fighting back against drug offenses usually involves building a tailored defense strategy that protects your liberty and prioritizes your best outcome. Depending on the facts of your case as well as your own prior history, a Kansas City drug defense attorney may attempt to:

• Argue that the case for intent to distribute involves weak evidence, stereotypes, or assumptions.
• Suppress certain evidence from being included in your trial.
• Push for you to receive reduced charges.
• Negotiate a plea deal.
• Advocate for you to attend one of the state’s diversion programs or probation.

What to Do If You’re Arrested for Drugs

If you have been arrested for illegal substances in Kansas City, take the following steps:

1. Use your right to remain silent.
2. Do not consent to a search.
3. Request a lawyer. Tell the officers clearly that you want to speak to an attorney.
4. Bring all of the information involved to a Kansas City defense lawyer.

Speak With a Kansas City Drug Defense Attorney

If you are facing drug possession charges in Kansas City, you need help from an experienced criminal defense attorney. A drug possession lawyer brought onto the case early can take steps to contain the matter wherever possible. They may be able to prevent criminal charges from being considered as intent to distribute, or deescalate federal involvement. Contact a drug possession lawyer at Joseph, Hollander & Craft as soon as possible to get started.

The post Intent to Distribute vs. Drug Possession Charges in Kansas City appeared first on Home.

The court’s ruling was clear: AI chatbot conversations do not carry the same legal protections as communications between a client and their attorney. The defendant’s use of AI to work through legal strategy was not shielded from disclosure the way an equivalent conversation with a licensed attorney would have been.

This ruling did not emerge in a vacuum. Courts across the country are grappling with where AI-generated content fits within existing evidentiary and privilege frameworks. Heppner is an early signal that users should not assume their AI conversations are private or protected simply because they “feel” that way. The practical implication is direct: facts you share with an AI chatbot while thinking through your legal situation may be accessible to prosecutors or opposing counsel in ways that genuinely surprise you.

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 →

Why This Matters Even If You Don’t Live in New York

Heppner was decided in the Southern District of New York, but federal decisions carry weight beyond the jurisdictions where they originate. While courts in Kansas and Missouri are not bound by every ruling from another federal district, decisions like Heppner reflect a broader legal trend: courts are actively refusing to extend privilege protections to AI interactions used to develop legal strategy. That is a clear signal, regardless of geography.

Kansas and Missouri defendants who use AI chatbots to think through their cases or draft communications are operating under the same fundamental exposure. There is no jurisdiction-specific exception that makes those conversations private. State courts handling criminal matters have broad discretion to consider digital evidence, and AI chat logs are a form of digital evidence.

ChatGPT Is Not Your Lawyer, So Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Exist

This point seems obvious when stated plainly, but its implications may not be if you do not have a legal background.

Attorney-client privilege is not simply a formal label; it is a legal protection built on a foundation of enforceable duties.

Lawyers owe clients a duty of confidentiality that survives the end of the representation. They are licensed, regulated, and subject to discipline by state bar authorities – discipline that could potentially include disbarment if they violate that duty. Those ethical obligations are codified, monitored, and enforced in every state.

AI systems have none of those characteristics. A chatbot is not licensed. It has no duty of confidentiality. It is not regulated by a bar association, and it cannot be sanctioned for disclosing your information. The conversations you have with an attorney are protected because the law has deliberately chosen to protect them, recognizing that people cannot seek candid legal counsel without assurance of privacy. That policy choice does not extend to software.

What People Are Actually Telling AI

The real risk is not that people are asking abstract legal questions. It is that they are sharing facts: detailed, specific, personally incriminating facts. A review of common AI prompts from people facing legal trouble reveals a consistent pattern:

• “I got arrested last night. Here’s exactly what happened. I told the officer that I was…”
• “Can I delete these text messages before my court date?”
• “How much trouble am I in if I was caught with both the money and the phone?”
• “The witness is someone I know. Is there anything I can do about that?”
• “I used drugs the night before and I wasn’t sure if that would come up in the blood test.”

Each of these prompts contains admissions and context that a prosecutor could use. Information folks would NEVER post on social media, they will enter blithely into an LLM. And that includes things that can land them in hot water later.

Common Misconceptions About Privacy and AI

Many people approach AI chatbots with assumptions about privacy that do not hold up legally. Let’s take a look at some of those assumptions:

“What If My Account Is Private?”

Account privacy settings control what other users can see. They do not restrict what the platform itself can access, store, or be compelled to produce. If a court issues a subpoena or law enforcement obtains a valid legal order, account privacy settings are irrelevant.

“What If I Delete The Conversation?”

Deletion from a user interface does not guarantee that data has been removed from servers. Most AI platforms retain conversation data for safety monitoring, product improvement, and legal compliance. Attempting to delete evidence ahead of a legal proceeding can also carry its own legal consequences, which is a separate and serious problem.

“What If I Pay For ChatGPT/Claude/CoPilot?”

A subscription is a commercial arrangement, not a privilege agreement. Paying for access to an AI tool does not create a confidential relationship in any legal sense. Courts have not treated paid AI subscriptions as analogous to attorney-client or therapist-patient privilege.

Criminal Cases Create Special Risks

Criminal proceedings carry stakes that civil matters often do not. The exposure created by AI chatbot use is more acute here for several reasons.

• Statements can be used as evidence. Anything a defendant writes that reflects their state of mind, knowledge, or actions is potentially admissible. AI conversations are written records.
• Prosecutors seek digital evidence routinely. Law enforcement regularly requests electronic records as part of investigations. AI chat logs are subject to the same requests.
• Defense strategy must remain confidential. Sharing your defense approach with an AI chatbot creates a record that opposing counsel might access.
• The stakes of disclosure are higher. In a civil case, an unfavorable disclosure may cost money. In a criminal case, the consequences extend to liberty.
• AI-generated information can be inaccurate. The well-documented problem of AI hallucination means users may receive confidently stated but factually wrong legal information, influencing decisions in ways that cause real harm.

How to Use AI Responsibly When Looking for Answers

There is a meaningful distinction between using AI tools responsibly and using them in ways that create exposure.

Lower-risk uses include looking up legal terminology, learning how court procedures generally work, or reading about constitutional doctrine. These involve no disclosure of personal facts.

Higher-risk uses include sharing facts about what happened, discussing how to defend against a specific charge given your specific circumstances, describing physical or digital evidence that exists, or sharing anything you would only tell your defense attorney.

That last standard is a reliable test. If you would only share something with a lawyer under privilege, it does not belong in an AI chat window.

Why You Should Call a Lawyer Instead of Using a Chatbot

An attorney provides something an AI tool cannot: a legally protected relationship. The moment you engage a licensed defense attorney, the communications between you become privileged. You can speak candidly about what happened and what questions you have without creating a discoverable record.

That protection is not incidental. It is the foundation of effective legal representation. The defense attorneys at Joseph, Hollander & Craft handle criminal matters across Kansas and Missouri, including felony charges, federal charges, internal investigations, and matters requiring discretion at every stage. No subscription tier, privacy setting, or deleted conversation log provides the protection that an attorney-client relationship does under the law. If you are facing a criminal matter or believe one may be developing, reach out to Joseph, Hollander & Craft to discuss your situation with an attorney.

The post Before You Ask ChatGPT About Your Criminal Case, Read This 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: May 29, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 5

FEATURE ARTICLE: ABA Formal Opinion 523

On May 20, 2026, the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 523. It discusses the complexities of Model Rule 1.16(b)(5) (KRPC 1.6(b)(3))—the provision of the Rules that permits lawyers to withdraw from a representation when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.”

As the Opinion notes, the provision is invoked most frequently when a client fails to meet financial obligations, but the rule but is not limited to instances when a client fails to pay as promised:

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

AUTHORITY: ABA Formal Opinion 482

For anyone who hasn’t noticed, the weather in the United Sates in the past few months has been extreme. Weather forecasters have predicted that the next few months will be filled with hurricanes, tornados, severe thunderstorms, wildfires, and flooding of Biblical proportions. While many people will convince themselves that they don’t need to take precautions and prepare, lawyers must. This is the perfect time to remind lawyers that the ABA issued Formal Opinion 482 in 2018, setting forth various obligations lawyers have before, during, and after natural disasters.

This publication provided a guide to Opinion 482 in LEMR in August 2023, so we shall not repeat those issues we discussed then. But the provisions on lawyers’ obligations to be prepared for natural disasters is worth highlighting again today. The Opinion begins by reminding lawyers that the ABA has a Standing Committee on Disaster Response and Preparedness and a website filled with resources:

Much information is available to lawyers about disaster preparedness. The American Bar Association has a committee devoted solely to the topic and provides helpful resources on its website. These resources include practical advice on (i) obtaining insurance, (ii) types and methods of information retention, and (iii) steps to take immediately after a disaster to assess damage and rebuild.

The website is an incredibly valuable source for information on the ethical obligations of lawyers to protect client interests in disaster situations.

Among the most important aspects of preparing for a disaster is planning to protect client files. In 2012, many saw the frightening sight of law firm files floating down New York streets after Hurricane Sandy flooded basement and subbasement file storage areas. Opinion 482 specifically addresses this problem. First, it highlights the dangers of only having on-site file storage:

Some lawyers located in an area affected by a disaster may have their files destroyed. Lawyers who maintain only paper files or maintain electronic files solely on a local computer or local server are at higher risk of losing those records in a disaster. A lawyer’s responsibilities regarding these files vary depending on the nature of the stored documents and the status of the affected clients.

Under the lawyer’s duty to communicate, a lawyer must notify current clients of the loss of documents with intrinsic value, such as original executed wills and trusts, deeds, and negotiable instruments. Lawyers also must notify former clients of the loss of documents and other client property with intrinsic value. A lawyer’s obligation to former clients is based on the lawyer’s obligation to safeguard client property under Rule 1.15. Under the same Rule, lawyers must make reasonable efforts to reconstruct documents of intrinsic value for both current and former clients, or to obtain copies of the documents that come from an external source…

To prevent the loss of files and other important records, including client files and trust account records, lawyers should maintain an electronic copy of important documents in an off-site location that is updated regularly. Although not required, lawyers may maintain these files solely as electronic files, except in instances where law, court order, or agreement require maintenance of paper copies, and as long as the files are readily accessible and not subject to inadvertent modification or degradation. As discussed above, lawyers may also store files “in the cloud” if ethics obligations regarding confidentiality and control of and access to information are met.

[Emphasis added].

As we approach storm season, it is good to review our record keeping methods. Two versions are always better than one. Off-site locations are always necessary in addition to onsite locations. Disaster insurance may well be. They can make the difference between financial disaster for the lawyer or and reasonable recovery.

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

1.) Angela A. Davis, “Undermining Discretion: The Selective Attacks on Progressive Prosecutors’” 47 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 (2026).

2.) Bruce A. Green & Jessica A. Roth, ”Subordinate Prosecutors’ Independence’” Symposium Issue: Prosecutorial Independence. 55 Stetson L. Rev. 237 (2025).

The dangers, ethical and systemic, in the increasing attacks on prosecutors demands attention by the Bar.

3.) Carol A. Needham, “Regulation of the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Delivery of Legal Services: Verification and Accountability,” 77 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 184 (2025).

Needham discusses one of the leading ethical and practical problems facing lawyers today.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Pumroy on the connection between government, and science and literature

In our country, mind sits enthroned in its mightiest power. Its achievements and triumphs have been brilliant. This is the result of civil liberty. Civil liberty is natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws and no farther, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the people. The law which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind. Our government leaves the citizen entire master of his own conduct, except in those points in which the public good requires some direction or restraint.

— John N. Pumroy, The Annual Address delivered before the Diagnothian and Goethean Literary Societies of Marshall College, Mercersburg, Pa., on the connection between government, and science and literature (September 8, 1846).

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 5

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. 5 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 5 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published May 29, 2026.

On May 20, 2026, the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 523. It discusses the complexities of Model Rule 1.16(b)(5) (KRPC 1.6(b)(3))—the provision of the Rules that permits lawyers to withdraw from a representation when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.”

As the Opinion notes, the provision is invoked most frequently when a client fails to meet financial obligations, but the rule but is not limited to instances when a client fails to pay as promised:

Rule 1.16(b)(5) is most often invoked when the client fails to fulfill an obligation regarding legal fees or expenses. However, clients may assume other obligations that may be made explicit in the engagement agreement, such as the duty to cooperate with the lawyer regarding the representation nor to provide and update the client’s contact information.

The first significant point of Opinion 523 is this paragraph’s focus on the lawyer-client engagement agreement. The engagement agreement is the memorialization of the “deal” between the layer and client. As such, its provisions are critical. Even so, the Rules do not specify what its contents should be. While the lawyer and client cannot agree to obligations that violate the Rules, they can agree to a wide range of provisions and self-impose obligations. Opinion 523 explains:

The lawyer’s engagement agreement may specify obligations of the client that are otherwise implicit in the representation, such as the obligation to cooperate with the representation, including in a litigation context the duty to produce discoverable documents within the client’s custody and control. Other such implicit obligations include the client’s obligation to communicate with the lawyer, to provide information truthfully, and to provide or to execute documents that are necessary for the lawyer to conduct the representation as the law requires.

Within ethical limits, the engagement agreement may also set forth obligations of the client that are not otherwise implicit. For example, a lawyer may include a provision in which the client agrees not to make an audio or a video recording of communications between the lawyer and the client, or not to discuss the lawyer or the representation on social media during the course of the representation.

While specifically listing mutual obligations in the engagement agreement may make subsequent withdrawal easier, an explicit mention in the agreement is not necessary. As the opinion notes:

a lawyer may withdraw based on the client’s substantial failure to cooperate with the representation, regardless of whether that obligation is made explicit in the engagement agreement or left implicit, as long as the lawyer has given the requisite “reasonable warning.”

Still, memorializing issues that seem to form repeated bases for withdrawal is certainly prudent.

Opinion 523 notes that there are provisions that might seem reasonable to a lawyer, but that will not justify withdrawal even if the client agrees. For instance:

A lawyer may not withdraw based on Rule 1.16(b)(5), however, if the client fails to comply with an obligation that is not one “regarding the lawyer’s services.” For example, a client’s obligation to pay a prior debt to the lawyer that is unrelated to the lawyer’s services is not an obligation “regarding the representation.” Therefore, the client’s failure to repay the prior debt would not justify the lawyer’s withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b)(5).

Further, a lawyer may not withdraw under Rule 1.16(b)(5) based on a client’s noncompliance with a trivial obligation or based on a client’s insubstantial failure to comply with an obligation set forth in the engagement agreement. For example, if the engagement agreement obligates the client to appear at scheduled office appointments on time, tardiness probably would not alone justify terminating the representation, if the client has reasonable excuses for appearing late.

These exceptions to a lawyer’s general freedom to include anything in the engagement agreement (other than provisions that violate the Rules or other law) make sense. The first is simply interpretive of the text of Rule 1.16, which specifically requires that the reason for withdrawal be “regarding the lawyer’s services” to the client (i.e., the reason for withdrawal must relate to the representation). The second rule also is interpretive. The text of the Rule requires that the client’s failure be “substantial.” A trivial failure (e.g., being a few hours late with a payment) will not generally be a justification for withdrawal.

The Opinion concludes:

Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits a lawyer to withdraw from a representation, or to seek the tribunal’s permission to do so, when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” This provision is ordinarily invoked when a client fails to fulfill an obligation regarding payment of legal fees and expenses. The engagement agreement may memorialize additional obligations of the client, both obligations that are otherwise implicit such as the client’s truthful cooperation with the representation, and further obligations insofar as they are not forbidden by the Rules, other law (including court rules), or public policy. A client’s persistent failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services, including obligations unrelated to payment of fees and expenses, may constitute a basis for withdrawal if the procedural requirements of Rule 1.16(b)(5) are satisfied.

Further, the lawyer’s engagement agreement may put the client on notice of permissible grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16(a) and (b), including the clients’ failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services. However, the engagement agreement may not expand on the grounds for withdrawal set forth in Rule 1.16 or mislead the client regarding the legitimate grounds.

The Opinion focuses on voluntary withdrawal under Rule 1.16, but it offers a lesson that is much broader in scope. It reminds lawyers of the importance of engagement letters. For younger lawyers and others just entering practice, the importance of well drafted engagement letters may not be appreciated. Opinion 523 is an important corrective to this.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 5

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 ABA Formal Opinion 523 appeared first on Home.