STATE OF KANSAS

701 Jackson St.

Floor
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3729
Telephone: (785) 296-2486
Fax: (785) 296-6049

STANTON A. HAZLETT
Disciplinary Administrator
ALEXANDER M WALCZAK
KIMBERLY L. KNOLL
KATE F. BAIRD
DEBORAH L. HUGHES
Deputy Disciplinary Administrators

]'1

GAYLE B. LARKIN
OFFICE OF
THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR

Admissions Attorney

December 11,2014
Mr. Eric Muathe
1410 Bitner Terrace
Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
Re: Robert Tomassi and Mark Werner
Dear Mr. Muathe:
I have received your letter dated December 1,2014, in which you make
. complaints against Robert Tomassi and Mark Werner. In summary, you believe
Mr. Tomassi and Mr. Warner have violated the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct by appearing in front of the Honorable Kurtis Loy. You allege that Mr.
Werner and Mr. Tomassi have violated KRPC 1.7(b) and KRPC 4.4 because
both men are former law partners of Judge Loy.
Initially, you should be aware that I do not have jurisdiction over district court
judges. Complaints against judges should be made with the Kansas
Commission for Judicial Qualifications. Although I lack jurisdiction over Judge
Loy, I disagree with your assertion that Judge Loy has violated Canon 2.11 (A).
That rule does not prohibit a judge from hearing cases involving a former partner.
Rule 2.11 (A)(5) would only prohibit a judge from hearing a case in which the
judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy or was associated with a
lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such
association. You have provided me no information to indicate that Judge Loy
served as a lawyer in the case now before him or was associated with a lawyer
who participated substantially in that matter.
You have also attached an August 21,2014, letter from Judge Loy to Judge
Wachter. You assert that Judge Loy advised Judge Wachter that he would not
accept assignments of "cases involving my former law partner." I have spoken to
Judge Loy. By that statement, Judge Loy clearly intended to advise Judge
Wachter that he would not accept assignment of cases involving his former law
partner, Kip Sagehorn. Judge Lay has continued business dealings with Mr.
Sagehorn and feels it would be inappropriate for him to hear cases involving Mr.
Sagehorn. Judge Loy certainly didn't intend to indicate that he would neve'r hear

a case involving any former law partner. In fact, Judge L.oy had not practiced law
with Mark Werner since November of 1994, and had not practiced with Robert
Tomassi since June of 2000. Certainly, Judge Loy could hear a case in which
. either Mark Werner or Robert Tomassi were the attorneys of record and he
would not be violating Rule 2.11(A).
Just as it is permissible for Judge Loy to hear cases in which Mark Werner and
Robert Tomassi are attorneys, it is also permissible for those two attorneys to
appear in front of Judge Loy. Such appearances certainly do not violate KRPC
1.7 and 4.4 as you allege.
I am dismissing your complaint against Mark Werner and Robert Tomassi
pursuant to my authority under Supreme Court Rule 209.
Sincerely,

A\\Q~

Stanton A. Hazlett
Disciplinary Administrator
SAH:JB
cc: Robert Tomassi
Mark Werner