photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez, right, is pictured Monday, Dec. 18, 2023, outside the hearing room at the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka, where she is attending her disciplinary hearing. No cameras were allowed inside the hearing room.

Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez is requesting leniency from the Kansas Supreme Court in the disciplinary matter against her, arguing in part that she has already been “severely punished” by the media, which she blames for her election loss.

Valdez’s attorney, Stephen Angermayer, states in the brief that Valdez lost her bid for reelection not due to her office’s performance but “due to the constant and nearly daily local media focus” on the allegations against her by a special prosecutor in the disciplinary matter.

Valdez came in third in a three-person Democratic primary in August, garnering less than 10% of the vote. One of her challengers, Dakota Loomis, won the race with 63% of the vote, went on to defeat his Republican opponent by a similar margin and will replace Valdez in January. Both candidates in the general election campaigned almost exclusively on the need to reform the DA’s Office, which they described as lacking professionalism, experience, stability and trust. Valdez meanwhile had touted her office as a criminal justice model for the nation.

A panel for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys recommended in April, after a three-day hearing the previous December, that the Kansas Supreme Court censure Valdez for “undignified or discourteous conduct” toward Douglas County Chief Judge James McCabria in 2021, shortly after Valdez took office, as the Journal-World reported.

Valdez is arguing in a recently filed brief that the court should give her an informal admonition instead, stating that her professional reputation “will continue to be harmed and it may be difficult for (her) to pursue other professional opportunities if a formal censure is ordered.” Valdez’s brief states that she had worked 20 hours a day early in her administration but that she “no longer desires or intends to serve as a prosecutor or to seek public office.”

The special prosecutor in the case, Kimberly Bonifas, had asked the hearing panel to recommend that Valdez’s law license be suspended for a year — a recommendation that the panel rejected, finding that Bonifas had not met the “clear and convincing” burden of proof with respect to three of the four alleged violations of the code of attorney conduct.

The panel found that Bonifas had met the burden of proof with respect to only one part: the rule that forbids engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal.

The panel determined that Valdez violated “her duty to the legal system, the legal profession, and the public as a result of her comments about Judge McCabria” in a press release and in a Facebook post. It found that she did so knowingly and that her misconduct “caused actual injury to the legal system, the legal profession and the public.”

The panel also found that she “impugned Judge McCabria’s character in a press release and by referring to him as an ‘insecure man,'” though not by name, as the Journal-World has reported.

In her brief to the Supreme Court pleading for leniency, Valdez says she has accepted full responsibility for her statements and “deeply regrets the harm her speech caused the judiciary and the public,” stating that it was “stupid and out of character for her.” But she also says that her actions were “avoidable” if the District Court had only communicated with her office better; she explains that she acted out of frustration over her belief that she had been left out of discussions regarding jury trial protocols during COVID and that she had not been afforded a smooth transition to office by her Democratic predecessor, Charles Branson.

She also states that Bonifas, the special prosecutor, went beyond the scope of McCabria’s initial complaint against her by attacking her as a “person” and eliciting “aggravating testimony” from former employees and judges that she says was not relevant.

Valdez claims in the brief that she otherwise had a solid working relationship with the Douglas County District Court and that “justice was happening.” She lists several initiatives that she worked on successfully with the court, such as a criminal mediation program, revamping traffic court and expediting diversions, among others.

She also notes, in her call for leniency, that the disciplinary panel found that she had not acted out of dishonesty or selfishness and that she had produced five letters of support attesting to her good character and reputation.

The disciplinary panel held its hearing in December of last year and released its findings, including the recommendation for censure, in April of this year. The parties then had to indicate to the court whether they would take any exceptions to findings of fact or conclusions of law in the panel’s report.

Bonifas indicated that she would not file exceptions but that she reserved the right to contest the panel’s recommendation of censure when Valdez’s case comes before the Kansas Supreme Court.

Bonifas was supposed to have responded to Valdez’s October brief asking for leniency by Nov. 8, but she has requested an extension to file by Dec. 9.