In re McCollum
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Bar Docket No. 20911 In the Matter of DAVID LEE MCCOLLUM, Respondent. ORDER OF DISBARMENT This court admitted David Lee McCollum to the practice of law in Kansas on September 27, 2002. The court administratively suspended McCollum's Kansas law license on October 10, 2023, due to his noncompliance with registration and continuing legal education requirements. The court notes that as of the date of this order, McCollum had not paid any of the annual registration and continuing legal education fees related to the administrative suspension of his Kansas law license. McCollum was also licensed to practice law in Missouri. On March 15, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court disbarred McCollum after accepting his application to voluntarily surrender his Missouri law license. McCollum now faces a related Kansas disciplinary complaint and requests to voluntarily surrender his Kansas law license under Supreme Court Rule 230(a) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 287). This court accepts McCollum's request to voluntarily surrender his Kansas law license, disbars McCollum under Rule 230(b), and revokes McCollum's license and privilege to practice law in Kansas. This court further orders the Office of Judicial Administration to strike the name of David Lee McCollum from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas effective the date of this order. 1 The court notes that under Rule 230(b)(1)(C), any Kansas disciplinary case pending against McCollum terminates effective the date of this order. The Disciplinary Administrator may direct an investigator to complete any pending investigation to preserve evidence. Finally, the court directs that this order be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein be assessed to McCollum under Supreme Court Rule 229 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 286), and that McCollum comply with Supreme Court Rule 231 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 289). Dated this 26th day of April 2024. 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.
