In re Roswold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 105,257
In the Matter of JAMES M. ROSWOLD,
Respondent.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On April 22, 2011, this court suspended the respondent, James M. Roswold, from
the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 1 year. See In re Roswold, 292 Kan. 136,
249 P.3d 1199 (2011). 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 March 23, 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, accepts the findings and
recommendations that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas.
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 for James M.
Roswold shall be published in the Kansas Reports and the costs of the reinstatement
proceedings are assessed to the respondent.
Dated this 10th day of May, 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.
