In re Johns (REINSTATEMENT)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 104,570
In the Matter of JEFFREY M. JOHNS,
Respondent.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
On December 23, 2010, this court suspended the respondent, Jeffrey M. Johns,
from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 2 years. See In re Johns, 291 Kan. 638,
243 P.3d 1101 (2010). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs
of the disciplinary action, present a professional evaluation, and comply with Supreme
Court Rule 218 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 397), as amended December 1, 2012, and
comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398), as amended
December 1, 2012.
On January 25, 2013, 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
1
paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing
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 that this order of reinstatement of Jeffrey M. Johns
shall be published in the official Kansas Reports, and the costs of the reinstatement
proceedings are assessed to the respondent.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2013.
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.
