Former Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez told the Kansas Supreme Court Tuesday morning that never in her “craziest of nightmares” did she believe she’d be standing before them for a disciplinary hearing.

The state’s highest court will soon decide whether Valdez will face any discipline in connection with a conduct complaint initiated more than four years ago.

Background

The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator initiated the complaint in March 2021 after Douglas County District Court’s chief judge reached out for guidance regarding then-DA Valdez’s conduct. Specifically, Valdez made some public statements that called the judge’s integrity into question — and by extension, the integrity of the entire court, some witnesses testified.

Just two months after Valdez took office in January 2021, she issued a press release that implied the judge had falsely asserted that her office was on board with a plan to resume holding jury trials in April 2021 after trials had long been on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A special prosecutor filed a formal complaint against Valdez in August 2023.

The primary issues at the heart of the hearings are the public and private communications Valdez made about or to Chief Douglas County District Judge James McCabria: press releases, a Facebook post and some text messages. The disciplinary panel of three attorneys had to determine whether they believed Valdez violated four professional rules of conduct. 

A panel of three attorneys heard testimony, including from Valdez, over the course of a three-day hearing in December 2023. They weighed the evidence and compiled a final hearing report, which included their recommendations for discipline.

The special prosecutor on the case, Kimberly Bonifas, had asked the panel to impose a one-year suspension of Valdez’s law license. Valdez’s attorney, Stephen Angermayer, said he believed a public censure was the appropriate remedy. The panel attorneys, in their report, agreed with Valdez’s attorney.

They concluded that Valdez had violated Rule 3.5(d) twice — first with a news release, and again with her Facebook post. That rule states simply that a lawyer shall not “engage in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.”

Valdez had shared the press release from the DA’s office’s Facebook page to her personal page, which was public, with the message, “Women of the world- be prepared! If you are hardworking, outspoken, honest, AND in a position of authority, the INSECURE MAN will try to tear you down. Not me, says I!!”

Kansas Supreme Court arguments

A panel of five justices — Chief Justice Marla Luckert and Justices Caleb Stegall, Eric Rosen, Dan Biles and Melissa Standridge — heard arguments from both sides Tuesday morning. Justice Evelyn Wilson was not hearing cases this week, and Justice Keynen “K.J.” Wall Jr. recused himself.

During both attorneys’ arguments, justices questioned aspects of free speech. Rosen said a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment.

“What’s the government interest in just preventing a lawyer from criticizing a judge?” he asked.

Stegall also asked Bonifas, “If we punish petty criticisms, doesn’t that make us look petty?”

“We as lawyers trade, I guess, a part of our free speech for our law license, and we agreed to follow these rules,” Bonifas said.

She mentioned Valdez’s March 2021 press release, which concluded with the statement, “This is yet another example of how an outspoken and honest woman is is mischaracterized as untruthful by a male in power.”

“(The issue of jury trials during COVID-19) had nothing to do with gender, and that language has no substantial purpose but to attack the tribunal,” Bonifas said. “It wasn’t, ‘Hey, I’m really worried about masks, and here’s why.’ It was name calling and it was personal attacks.”

Angermayer concurred that “As a lawyer, we’re held to a higher standard, and so that’s why we’re here today.”

Rosen noted the context of the jury trial issues at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well.

“Hindsight is great, but when we were in the throngs of that stuff, we were desperate to try to get just the process going to meet all of the needs of both prosecutors’ offices, of defense counsel in criminal cases, and just — all cases,” he said.

However, Rosen said the jury trial plan had been developed with the longtime former DA, Charles Branson, who had “vast experience in prosecuting cases, understood safety concerns, apparently was involved and approved the plan.”

Angermayer agreed but said Branson had shared no information with Valdez prior to her taking office, and that it was a very difficult, “desperate” situation for her.

“It seems to me, the answer to that is then take it out on (Branson) and not Judge McCabria, who’s trying to deal with a difficult situation,” Biles said. “That’s why it underscores how stupid and unprofessional these comments were.”

Angermayer told the justices that they weren’t contesting any of the findings of fact and asked them to impose an informal admonition, which is essentially a slap on the wrist.

Valdez: ‘I made a grave mistake’

The justices allowed Valdez to address them, though the clock soon ran out for Angermayer’s arguments.

“I have remained true to the rule of law even when I questioned it, and as a woman and person of color, I have questioned the rule of law many times,” Valdez said. “But as a law professor at KU Law School for 21 years, I stressed to my students the importance of the rule of law and their ethical responsibilities to uphold it.”

Valdez apologized that they had to be there. She spoke emotionally about her background, from growing up as a young Hispanic girl in a blue-collar family and the work she’d done to get where she is today through the impact of her brother’s death from a fentanyl poisoning in 2019.

She reiterated some of her testimony from her three days of disciplinary hearings, discussing how chaotic the environment was when she took office in January 2021.

Valdez lost her bid for reelection in the August 2024 primary to now-DA Dakota Loomis. She said she’d heard from voters that the whole complaint process was harmful to the system.

She said the whole process had gone on for four years, and she just wanted it to be over with.

“I’m sorry. I apologize. I made a grave mistake when I allowed myself, in my frustration and the turmoil and COVID and all the anxiety and all of that to get the better of me,” Valdez said. “That’s not who I am. I am a very passionate person, I’m a very honest person, I am all those things, and I am sorry.”

Valdez told the court she is now in private practice, “continuing my work advocating for victims, doing mediation and public work or public service for those marginalized communities who need my advocacy.”

In a brief rebuttal, Bonifas asked the justices to impose discipline “no less than a published censure.” She also noted the cost to the state of conducting the proceedings, as Valdez had listed some attorneys involved with the disciplinary office as witnesses, so special counsel was required, but she never called them to testify.

Luckert said the court will “eventually” arrive at a written decision, which will be shared publicly.

The court’s opinions are published at this link, usually on Friday mornings.

Read more background on the case at the links below.

Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark@lawrencekstimes.com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.

• Bluesky
• Facebook
• Instagram
• Twitter
• LinkedIn

More coverage:

MORE …

Latest Lawrence news:

MORE …