In re Nwakanma Temporary Suspension video
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 116,773 In the Matter of UCHECHI OKECHUKWU NWAKANMA, Respondent. ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION Uchechi Okechukwu Nwakanma, respondent, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, is presently the subject of pending disciplinary complaints. On October 18, 2016, a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys issued a final hearing report. In the report, the hearing panel stated: "181. Finally, the hearing panel recommends that the disciplinary administrator file a motion seeking the temporary suspension of the respondent's license to practice law while the disciplinary case is pending, under Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(b), for the following reasons: First, the respondent repeatedly engaged in dishonest conduct. Second, as described in the preceding paragraph, although the respondent claims his practice in Texas is and was limited to 'federal' practice, in fact he has engaged in the practice of state law in Texas. Third, the nature of the misconduct in J.Z.'s case—taking advanced fees and failing to perform the services—puts the respondent's clients at great risk of continued financial loss." On November 9, 2016, the Disciplinary Administrator filed a motion for temporary suspension under Supreme Court Rule 203(b) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 234). In the motion, the Disciplinary Administrator argued that the temporary suspension of the respondent's license to practice law in the state of Kansas is necessary for the protection of the public. 1 On December 15, 2016, this court issued an order to show cause why the respondent's license to practice law should not be temporarily suspended during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 203(b). A hearing on the matter was scheduled for January 24, 2017. At 6:03 p.m. on January 23, 2017, the respondent filed with this court a "Notice of Absence for Show Cause Hearing," in which he stated that he would not be appearing at the scheduled hearing to respond to the order. On January 24, 2017, the Disciplinary Administrator appeared as scheduled, and the court heard argument on the motion for temporary suspension. Temporary suspension under Rule 203(b) pending final disposition of a disciplinary complaint is designed to protect clients from injury and loss and to maintain the integrity and reputation of the legal profession. Based on the hearing panel's findings, the Disciplinary Administrator's presentation, and the respondent's failure to reply to the allegations in the show cause order, this court deems temporary suspension appropriate in the present case. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 203(b) and for good cause shown, the court grants the motion and temporarily suspends the respondent's license to practice law. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Uchechi Okechukwu Nwakanma be and he is hereby temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the state of Kansas until the pending disciplinary proceedings against him are resolved or until further order of this court. During the term of this suspension, the respondent is prohibited from practicing law, which includes but is not limited to: holding himself out as an attorney; using a letterhead or other printed or electronic materials identifying him as an attorney; filing legal proceedings or pleadings in courts or administrative tribunals; appearing for or representing clients in any legal proceeding; counseling or consulting with clients in any legal matter; and fixing or receiving fees for services involving legal matters while under suspension. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Courts for the District of Kansas and the Southern District of Texas and be served upon the respondent. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall forthwith comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 218 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262). Effective this 27th day of January, 2017. 3
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.
