Background
Carl F.A. Maughan, of Colwich, was licensed to practice law in Kansas in September 1997. The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint on December 23, 2025, and Maughan answered on January 13, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the parties entered a summary submission agreement under Supreme Court Rule 223, admitting misconduct and stipulating to the facts, conclusions, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and a disciplinary recommendation. The Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys approved the submission and canceled the hearing.
The misconduct involved two DUI incidents while Maughan practiced in Sedgwick County, served as the state representative for District 90, and had another disciplinary case pending. On March 4, 2024, Topeka officers stopped his weaving vehicle and arrested him for DUI. A warrant-authorized blood draw showed an alcohol concentration of .22 grams per 100 milliliters. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI in Shawnee County Case No. 24CR909 on September 27, 2024; the remaining charges were dismissed. He received a suspended jail sentence and six months’ probation, which he successfully completed on March 27, 2025.
On May 25, 2024, Maughan drove into a pole in Sedgwick County and sustained severe injuries. Hospital testing showed a blood plasma alcohol concentration of .365 milligrams per 100 milliliters. He reported the crash to the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator as a potential KRPC 8.4(b) violation. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI in Case No. 24TR16142 on October 28, 2024, received another suspended jail sentence and twelve-month reporting probation, and successfully completed probation and the required treatment recommendations on April 29, 2025. His license had separately been suspended for one year on June 14, 2024, for violations of KRPC 1.7, 1.8(f), 1.15(a), and 8.4(d), and remained suspended.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the parties’ findings and conclusions, including corrections to typographical errors identified at oral argument. It held that the summary submission and Maughan’s admissions established by clear and convincing evidence that his conduct violated KRPC 8.4(g), which prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness to practice. The court emphasized that he drove while severely intoxicated twice during pending disciplinary proceedings, was convicted twice of DUI under K.S.A. 8-1567, and caused a serious accident in one incident.
The parties jointly recommended a twelve-month suspension stayed for twelve months of probation beginning upon reinstatement, with supervision, treatment, sobriety monitoring, reporting, and other conditions. The court rejected that disposition. Explaining that a Rule 223 agreement is advisory and does not prevent greater or lesser discipline, it held that a one-year suspension with a required reinstatement hearing was appropriate. Although acknowledging Maughan’s substantial recovery efforts, cooperation, remorse, treatment, and sobriety, the court found the severity of the two DUIs and the extreme intoxication levels weighed heavily. It distinguished cases involving more severe sanctions by noting Maughan’s accountability and the absence of a felony DUI conviction, while stressing that sanctions depend on each case’s aggravating and mitigating facts.
The court suspended Maughan from practicing law in Kansas for one year effective November 6, 2026, under Supreme Court Rule 225(a)(3). The new definite suspension means his previously scheduled reinstatement hearing cannot proceed, and he is ineligible for reinstatement until completing this suspension. He must comply with Rule 231 and, if seeking reinstatement, Rule 232 and a reinstatement hearing. Costs were assessed against him, and the opinion was ordered published.
Key Takeaways
- Two misdemeanor DUI convictions and the underlying conduct established a KRPC 8.4(g) violation by clear and convincing evidence through the admitted summary submission.
- A joint recommendation for a stayed suspension and probation is advisory; the court instead imposed an immediate one-year definite suspension.
- Maughan cannot seek reinstatement until completing this suspension, and reinstatement requires a hearing.
- The sanction reflected case-specific weighing of severe intoxication and a serious crash against recovery efforts, treatment, cooperation, character evidence, and remorse.
Why It Matters
The decision demonstrates that significant rehabilitation and a jointly proposed probation plan do not require the Kansas Supreme Court to stay a suspension for serious alcohol-related criminal conduct. It also clarifies the practical effect of successive discipline: the new suspension displaces the pending reinstatement process and must be completed before Maughan can pursue restoration of his license.