In re Millett

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 104,199 In the Matter of MICHAEL A. MILLETT, Respondent. ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT On October 15, 2010, this court suspended the respondent, Michael A. Millett, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 2 years. See In re Millett, 291 Kan. 369, 241 P.3d 35 (2010). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action, comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379), and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 380). On October 15, 2012, the respondent filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court. The court, after carefully considering the record, grants the respondent's petition for reinstatement. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing 1 Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent's name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this this order of reinstatement of Michael C. Millett shall be published in the Kansas Reports, and the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent. Dated this 14th day of November, 2012. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.