In re Burson ( Disbarment)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Bar Docket No. 10805 In the Matter of MARGO E. BURSON, Respondent. ORDER OF DISBARMENT In a letter signed by the respondent on July 18, 2017, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Margo E. Burson, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 260). At the time the respondent surrendered her license, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator had filed a formal complaint regarding two complaints. The formal complaint alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 287), 1.3 (diligence) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 290), 1.4 (communication) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 291), 1.5 (fees) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 292), 1.15 (safekeeping property) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 326), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 342), 8.1 (disciplinary matters) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 377), 8.4 (misconduct) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 379), and Supreme Court Rule 207 (cooperation) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 246). This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Margo E. Burson be and she is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and her license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Margo E. Burson from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262). IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2017. 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.